The Collapse of Howard Dean's Cyber-Bubble

[WilliamPitt]

The Collapse of Howard Dean's Cyber-Bubble
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 19 February 2004

http://truthout.org/docs_04/022004B.shtml

The saga of Howard Dean is a cautionary tale about politics and the Internet. His campaign rode a big wave of cyberspace hype -- and then sank.

There are valid complaints to be made about Dean's rough handling by major news outlets this winter. Sometimes the coverage was unfair. But what gained him media prominence in the first place was journalistic infatuation with his campaign's successful use of the Internet for outreach and fund-raising.

Actually, Dean burst onto the nation's front pages because of money. As far as political journalists were concerned, Dean came into his own as a presidential contender midway through 2003. In the second quarter of the year, he raised $7.5 million -- including $800,000 on a single dramatic day.

In sync with the aphorism that money is the mother's milk of politics, the former Vermont governor seemed to have found a cash cow on the Internet. The ability to raise large sums from many online devotees caused the political press corps to sit up and take notice.

Countless news stories during the summer and fall chronicled the brilliance of Dean's cyber-savvy tacticians. In retrospect, there were parallels with the pre-bust media celebrations of the booming dom-com bubble during the late 1990s. As long as the money was flowing and customers were buying, adulation was in the air.

...more...

[charlie]

1. Link needs fixing

Getting a "not found" from the server.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Works fine for me

[charlie]

4. Maybe

you're looking at a cached copy and it's been removed from the server? You might want to check if it's still there (try a hard refresh).

[WilliamPitt]

6. We just put it up

[charlie]

8. It looks like

someone went and either moved or deleted it after you put it up.

The requested URL /docs_04/022004B.shtml was not found on this server.

Could you try bringing up the page in your browser, then forcing a refresh with Shift-F5?

[WilliamPitt]

10. Every way I try it, it works

I don't know what to tell you.

[charlie]

12. Wait...here we go

Apparently truthout.org isn't correctly mapped on my (or sgr2's) DNS server. Or something like that... This works:

http://69.20.59.119/docs_04/022004B.shtml

[WilliamPitt]

15. Weird

[gottaB]

5. wfm

eom

[ShaneGR]

2. Bad Link

Fixer.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

11. The best way to deal with the present

is to understand the past. I'm sorry.

[madfloridian]

14. We understand, Will. We know a lot of what went on.

We just can't talk about it, and you can say what you want to say.

Do not talk to us like we are children anymore. You want to know where the anger came from? Think about it.

[WilliamPitt]

16. You supported Dean because I talked to you like a child?

I don't think so. You supported Dean because he deserved support. But his candidacy failed, and when a guy like Norm Solomon talks about it, he deserves some attention.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

22. What happened, then?

Tell me about it.

[madfloridian]

24. Yeh, right.

I can really see my bringing it up here. Sure nuff.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Is it a secret?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

36. Yes, liberalnurse, thank you.

Plenty of time.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Still waiting for the inside dirt

[madfloridian]

43. Search thine own soul for the truth, Will.

God bless.

[VelmaD]

46. Ok, maybe it's just me...

but :wtf:

[WilliamPitt]

48. Don't bother

Waste of time.

[VelmaD]

51. Oh, I know...

I just hadn't had a chance to use the WTF smiley in a while. I like that one and it seems awfully apropos. :-)

Plus I have a soft spot for incomprehensible rambling.

[liberalnurse]

50. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

snicker, grunt and toot.....

[madfloridian]

21. You made a big post today about the anger.

You know exactly why the anger is there.

[Nazgul35]

30. your logic is flawed...

how did you go from:

We just can't talk about it, and you can say what you want to say.

Do not talk to us like we are children anymore. You want to know where the anger came from? Think about it.

to

"You supported Dean because I talked to you like a child?"

????

Your post is not germane to the content of his post...

[CWebster]

144. Norm Solomon is a hack for Kucinich

If he wants to whine that the media wasn't a force to take out Dean, than he shouldn't complain to me, as he did via e-mail, that the media studiously ignored Kucinich. Following Solomon's reasoning, Kucinich has no one to blame but himself.

[liberalnurse]

28. Yea, sure, your sorry.......

until later tonight when you scratch out another angle to dump on Dean.

[goobergunch]

61. Post Deleted

Because I'm a bit too evil sometimes.

However, I will remember this thread and others like it if Kerry loses in November 2004.

[Sly Kal]

62. oh okay

lol

[Maddy McCall]

13. The hallmark of maturity is the ability to openly discuss mistakes

[madfloridian]

17. That is why there is the anger .

Talking about our maturity is just a little much.

You do not know me, and you don't have a clue about my maturity, intelligence and education.

[Nazgul35]

26. So let discuss Kerry's fall

and how well some of his followers handled that....

Maturity was not a word that I would have used....

If you want honest discussion, that road goes both ways. But is someone were to discuss the possibility of Kerry's vulnerabilities they are dimissed as sour grapers or worse.....

There is also too much of some people responding to others with a clear lack of reading comprehension skills....see a few post above for a prime example...and no, it isn't the Dean supporter.....

[Sly Kal]

66. great idea

Let's talk about the gigantic fuck up popularly known as the Clark campaign. I hear his biggest flaw was that he lacked any real conviction and was only brought in as the Clinton Stooge to stop Dean. He was used like a tool and discarded. I went to the Clark blog quite often and every time I did there was someone crying about why Clinton hadn't endorse Clark yet. It was really quite pitiful.

[Exgeneral]

79. Another hallmark of maturity is to admit when you've been snookered

or just witnessed a mugging.

Maybe you'll understand by the end of November

[Maddy McCall]

9. This, I agree, was a fundamental problem of the Dean campaign:

But the campaign -- too inward-facing and circumscribed -- may have gotten a false sense of security by playing to its Internet gallery. For a time, media fascination with Dean's online prowess loomed so large that few people noticed the insularity of his core support.

IMO, many people mischaracterized the Dean campaign as a grassroots movement. It wasn't a grassroots movement because the groundswell did not begin on the most fundamental level and grow up--it was just as top-down as any other campaign.

People who aren't aware of the last couple of great grassroots, populists movements might buy into the mantra that internet organizations like Deans were grassroots--but to really understand what grassroots movements are, they should study the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which only succeeded because of local people's involvement (not because of well-meaning northern activists and national activists); and they should look at the REAL Populist movement of the late nineteenth century, which only experienced great success (and truly was the greatest democratic movement in our nation's history) because of activism at the local co-op level.

Grassroots must begin at home and translate outwards; it does not begin nationally and translate downwards.

So, the problem with the Dean campaign was that it mistakenly characterized itself as a grassroots movement and really bought into that; also, fervent internet support never translated to fervent local support.

[indigo32]

18. Well

Maybe it's just my personal experience...
But I've done outreach, IN MY COMMUNITY, off and on, for the Dean campaign since last May.
There was ONLY ONE other candidates supporters I ever ran into locally... and that would be DK's.
Really Truly, say it's not grassroots if you will, but I'll be damned if I'm not beginning to doubt the effectiveness of on the ground work in todays environment (the same thing happened when I spent a year oppposing the war). Or hell maybe we were just out there too early...

[Rich Hunt]

149. exactly right!

I went to conference things and met many, many Dean people - everywhere I went.

These people are working on local campaigns and registering to vote as well as working on local issues.

They're activist worker bees at the local level.

This 'internet candidate' stuff is nonsense. The internet was a tool. The Dean supporters really exist. They're not hermits with no life. You might as well discredit any type of activism that relies on the internet - whoops, there goes anti-war organizing.

The Dean candidacy appealed to people who were already in place and active.

[mzmolly]

23. Ms. Child respectfully, the Civil Rights Movement did not have access to

the internet. This was the first Grass Roots Movement of it's kind, but to say it wasn't Grass Roots is absurd.

There was fervent local support as Iowa - and other polls would indicate, people went with their *second* choice.

[Maddy McCall]

49. The CRM indeed had communications technology that it used...

Including telephones, church meetings, and word-of-mouth. The internet is only one tool of many in the evolution of communications technology.

And I repeat, it was not grassroots in that the movement did not originate in local communities and swell upwards to the state and then national level, as did the CRM and the Granger/Populist Movement.

[mzmolly]

56. It was revolutionary Grass Roots...Read on

http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/092303J.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A44798-2003Sep21¬Found=true

Dean, Driven by the Grass Roots
Bottom-Up Strategy May Turn Politics Upside Down
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 22, 2003; Page A01


Thousands of Dean supporters -- many of whom profess never to have been active before -- have taken to the streets on their own initiative to pass out Dean fliers at urban fairs and farmers markets, donate blood and clean up beaches in his name, and raise millions of dollars for the former Vermont governor at house parties.

Although few of these volunteers have ever spoken to anyone from the national headquarters, Dean, once among the least known of the Democratic presidential field, now appears to many to be among the best organized as he leads the pack in fundraising and surges ahead in polls.

Political strategists say that what began in January as a quirky, long-shot Internet strategy to attract online supporters to the dark-horse candidate could revolutionize presidential politics by minimizing the importance of television media and empowering grass-roots organizers. Advisers to Wesley K. Clark, the latest addition to the Democratic field, have indicated that the retired general will use a similar model and try to translate the success of the online Draft Clark movement into a national grass-roots organization.

"It's just extraordinary," said Dick Morris, a political consultant who advised Bill Clinton. It's part of a new era -- back to basics. Howard Dean is using the Internet in an entirely guerrilla marketing approach. By this process, he's developed a massive grass-roots list. It's active and participatory, and people feel engaged. . . . You're brought in by friends and family. It's bottom-up, and people love that; they feel empowered."

[Maddy McCall]

67. Revolutionary only because it used the internet...

but not grassroots, not by historical standards.

[mzmolly]

69. Grass Roots by new standards... Which is the direction of Grass Roots

going forward.

[Maddy McCall]

74. Sorry, but Dean did not change the definition of grassroots in the

sense that grassroots movements must originate within the local community and then swell upward to the national level. Deans was reverse of that. His originated on the national level and then translated downwards to the local level. That's NOT grassroots.

And, I reiterate, that is why he failed...he and his supporters truly bought into the "grassroots" meme. If it had truly been grassroots, he would still be in the campaign, but all that internet activity did not translate to local support, thus his campaign floundered.

[mzmolly]

108. Read the article...

I don't think you grasp the *full* meaning of Grass Roots as defined by the majority of the population. By your convenient and narrow definition only a person *drafted* into politics is infact a "real" Grass Roots candidate, am I correct? And in other words, Paul Wellstone did not have a Grass Roots campaign style, right?

The Civil Rights movement had a charasmatic sensible leader in MLK, would you say the movement wasn't Grassroots if his message was spread/helped via the internet?

Many campaigns across the country are infact "grassroots" like that of Paul Wellstone, though they started with a leader, and a person who motivated such an effort.

[Maddy McCall]

116. MLK was a national leader--but professional historians agree

that the success of the Civil Rights Movement was due to the local, community efforts to change their own situation.

The CRM did NOT begin with MLK, although he became a national spokesperson. The CRM began with WWII vets who, when they returned to their communities, had jobs that whites couldn't touch. They started a grassroots local network that had ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED before MLK entered the national scene.

The epitome of grassroots is the Populist Movement. It began with local farmers getting together and forming county cooperatives, and then grew into a political movement over the course of a couple of decades. Sorry, but you won't convince many well-read people that Dean's pseudopopulism revolutionized the true Populism of the late nineteenth century. Not to be a smart ass, but if you haven't read Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist Moment," you really should--it is a great book that practically every historian recognizes as the definitive book on Populism and Grassroots Movements. To say that Dean's version of Populism is revolutionary does discredit to the many men and women who made real changes in the greatest true democratic movement this nation has EVER experienced.

No, as a professional historian and community activist, I don't accept the watered-down, corrupted definition of grassroots as you define it.

Dean's may very well be a movement, but not a grassroots one.

National leaders don't make grassroots efforts--grassroots efforts make national leaders, and those leaders originate from their own communuties.

[mzmolly]

155. Sorry JChild, but like it or not Dean's campaign was grassroots.

He would never have gotten from 1% in the polls to leading were it not for Grass Roots support.

http://www.google.com/search?q=howard+dean+and+grassroots&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

I know you like to call it all a sham but your simply wrong.

[WyLoochka]

154. What are 'ya talkin' about?

It rose up out of the green grassy hills of Vermont and spread from there. It was most obviously NOT manufactured in some back room place in DC by insider power brokers and pushed from the top down.

Kerry's campaign is the quintessential example of a top down, insider creation that was forced out nationally by the DC Dem (DLC-DNC), do anything to stay in, power mongers. And it makes me gag to think that this might be the choice on the ballot in Nov.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

104. And you know this how?????

We you one of the first Dean for America volunteers?

[DannyRed]

94. Excuse me,

but do you remember Dean's name recongition and national support numbers back in the spring of last year?

I do.

Do you know how much money he started with, and how many staff members and offices?

I do.

To go from less than 1% support, one office, a couple of hundred thousand dollars, if that, and a tiny team of people to a nationwide campaign garnering between 8% (in extremely "foreign" territory like South Carolina, the home state of one of the candidates, and in the south, where a Vermonter is not likely to gain much attention....) and 30+ percent of the vote in other areas...

Is nothing short of incredible, and you know it...or you should.

THAT is BY DEFINITION a case of translating support from home outwards.

[Nazgul35]

20. So what's the point....

Dean supporters...you poor fools?

Pundits must be pundits I guess.....there's a certain segment of this world full of people who seem to want others to pat them on the head and say....wow, you were right all along and we were wrong....

The only problem is that history is full of these folks, they tend to be the usual gaggle of Johny on the spots who always seem to be right...usually after they put their finger in the air and figure out which way the wind is blowing...

I am not at all surprised that a portion of the left wants to down play the potential for what this may mean for empowering the rank and file members of the Party....and if they are empowered, that would mean that those interests who have gained a strangle hold on our Party through soft money and the people who want to worship at this table for scraps would be diminished....

You can hear them all now as they sip their hard liquor drinks in those trendy Washington circle restaurants...

"So boo boo boo you wacky Dean supporters....what were you all thinking, leave politics to those of us who know what we are doing....when we need you will let you know....now sit down and shut....

And that goes for all you Clark and Kucinich supporters too....though our continued ignoring of what you accomplishments as well means absolutely nothing..."

Of course I'm sure I am over reacting, after all....I am the one spending huge amounts of ink decrying the Dean campaign as a misinformed failure of gigantic proportions.....not!

[mzmolly]

37. Don't you understand, it was just one big cyber screw. There was no

movement. We cared not about Dean's positions/persona/record. We just wanted to *pretend* to be involved in politics?!

[no name no slogan]

101. Then you must not know Norman Soloman very well, then

The man is well-respected in not only left-leaning circles, but also in the field of media criticism as well. Solomon has a long history of calling things as they truly are in books, magazines, lectures AND online.

I would hardly classify him as a pundit who hangs around with the politcal class in D.C., seeing as most of his work is published in magazines like Extra! (FAIR's mag), Z and The Nation.

Norm Soloman's been criticizing the right well before Howard Dean was even governor of VT. I'd trust his informed criticism over that of an anonymous web discussion poster any day.

[Andromeda]

111. Hahahaha...

Norman Soloman is a dork and not just because he wrote this stupid article. He is published, sure, but so is Andrew (I am a Republican dick) Sullivan.

Being in print doesn't mean a damn thing and it doesn't validate what he says just because some people choose to believe it.

Soloman is a lot more comfortable criticizing Democrats than Republicans. He voted for Nader and relished thumping Al Gore regularly during the primaries and after the 2000 fiasco. He has never said one thing that I agree with since I first read one of his ramblings four years ago.

If you want to believe everything you read from this fathead then I suggest you broaden your horizens a bit.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

136. Yes, Norman Bates Solomon's

opinion is devalued because he is a dork and a fathead. And I've done a LOT of reading for your information so stop being cute (and quite badly at that) by calling attention to a misspell. It shows your ignorance.

What makes you think I haven't read many of his works? Because I have, I feel qualified to criticize him. And, yes, I was offended because of the way he treated Gore and idolized Nader. His loyalities are a bit skewed and he offers nothing in the way of critical thinking - just critical nonsense. He is an elitist who thinks he is a mental giant.

He is just a mental midget and if you want believe he is something more than that then you have my sympathies.

[no name no slogan]

153. If you're so above that

than why do feel the need to call him a "dork" or "fathead"? I only said that you needed to read more by him because you admitted that you'd only read him from 2000 onward. He wrote a lot of good stuff for FAIR in the 1990s which was spot on, and he's also published a number of books on the subject as well.

Maybe you're bitter because of Dean's treatment by the media-- that's understandable. But to use childish names to criticize somebody is no better than what Dittoheads do to Democrats.

If you somehow feel that Democrats of ANY persuasion are somehow above criticism, then I don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for you. Because the criticism they get from the left is a teaparty compared to what they'll get nailed with from the right.

[edzontar]

152. Here is why I supported Dean and opposed Kerry and the IWR Dems

The outrage at the Iraq war sellout angered many here on DU.


But I cannot say it as eloquently as Will Pitt did in October of 2002"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b...rum=DCForumID60


"WilliamPitt (10856 posts) Oct-07-02, 07:34 PM (ET)

The Democratic Party has finally lost me

With a few notable exceptions, Democrats in the Senate appear prepared to give George W. Bush everything he wants regarding war with Iraq. No matter that a vast majority of Americans do not want this war, no matter that the case for war has not been made, no matter that the international community repudiates such action, and no matter that this push for war has been put forth by the White House in a cynical attempt to deflect public attention from gross mismanagement of the government, and away from the catastrophes within the business community. Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt surrendered last week, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is preparing to lead GOP mouthpieces like Joe Lieberman in a total capitulation to Bush's plans.

For one, brief, shining moment two weeks ago, it appeared the Democrats would stand up to the incredibly dangerous program put forth by the Bush administration. Al Gore spoke publicly and caustically about Bush's ham-fisted handling of the economy, and the variety of ways war with Iraq will make the world a more dangerous place for America. Senators Byrd and Kennedy likewise excoriated the administration. Daschle stood in the well of the Senate and demanded an apology from Bush, after Bush flatly stated that Democrats did not care about the security of the United States. Byrd and Kennedy have since been hung out to dry, and Daschle has proven himself to be unworthy of the title of leader. His little temper tantrum at the podium is bitter dust in the mouths of every American who hoped that, finally, finally, the Democrats would make a stand.

Because these jellyfish cannot find within themselves the courage to be moral, because the truth is not in them, because they have decided to accept the spoon-fed poison of Karl Rove's Machiavellian disinformation campaign, it might serve any American who reads this to be reminded of the truth, and the stakes, in this matter.

There is no case for war in Iraq. There is no proof whatsoever that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to America or his neighbors. The marvelously absurd Catch-22 we have heard so often is that Hussein is a mortal threat, and yet will be a pushover in battle. There is no proof that Hussein retains any functional aspect of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs that were totally dismantled and destroyed by the UNSCOM weapons inspectors from 1991 through 1998. Repeated attempts by the United Nations to reinsert more inspectors have been spurned by the Bush administration in favor of combat.

(snip)....
I have for my entire life been a Democrat. My parents came of age with the rousing words of John F. Kennedy ringing in their ears, and I was given their passionate liberalism with mother's milk. Mine has never been a starry-eyed liberalism; I voted for Clinton twice, and Gore once, both times without regret. Whichever way my own personal views have tended, I have always been a pragmatist when it comes to elections and politics. Win first, I have always said, and hope that the issues I believe passionately in will find their way into the policy realm. I have been feasting on half a loaf for years, and have never cried for my empty stomach.

That is all finished now. You may now call me a Street Democrat. I am unrepresented by the leadership of the party to which I have always given my loyalty. Accordingly, I have, and will continue, to take my opposition out onto the streets and news stands and bookstore shelves of America. I was in downtown Boston protesting Bush last Friday, I will be in Washington on October 26th for the massive anti-war rally that will be taking place, and I will be out on those streets at every opportunity. My leadership has failed, and I am forced to do their jobs for them. I am not interested in electoral gamesmanship, pragmatism or being a good party man any more. My essential core of ethics have been battered and bruised by the Democratic leadership for years. I have always accepted that half a loaf, and never cried for my empty stomach. No more. Not on this one.

Today, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be a Democrat.

(snip)

Remember one last thing before you trundle into the chamber and sell us all down the river. The Democratic Party was virtually annihilated the last time it made a bad decision about a war. History may well record the coming debacle in Iraq as a Bush war, but I will remember you. I will never forgive, and I will never forget."

[liberalnurse]

27. When are you going to give Dean a rest?

You never liked him....he is out of the race......so let the good man alone.

[WilliamPitt]

29. I guess

because he did, and will continue to do, such important work...and yet it didn't translate into victory at the polls. Understanding why is vitally important to all our future. Solomon has an interesting perspective. Coming out of the Kucinich campaign, effective action by progressive politicians is a subject of importance to me.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Nazgul35]

42. come on now....

To suggest that this was the single reason, and the most important reason for Dean's failure is just a bad assessment. And it is clear from the article that by using the writing device of "bubble" is to paint the Dean movement as overhyped like the tech bubble.

I was at the MeetUps, the number grew steadily through to January. Not hype.

The moeny was real, even if Kerry didn't think it was....

A better and much fair assessment would be to say that what failed was the lack of training and experience, and that with time, these things will come....

There really seems to be a push for a coup de gras on this movement because it threatens people's power bases...

And as for being involved in the Kucinich campaign....how long was that again?

[regnaD kciN]

57. That statement should come with a laugh-track...

Coming out of the Kucinich campaign, effective action by progressive politicians is a subject of importance to me.

As much as I like DK's positions, the track record of this campaign suggests that "Kucinich" and "effective action" are mutually contradictory.

[WilliamPitt]

58. Thus, my point

[indigo32]

60. as I said in post 18

I'm beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of such efforts...
Partly I think not to many were paying attention while we did all this work... and by the time people turned to look... poof we'd already been defined (though all that money should have done something about that issue).

[bread_and_roses]

Yes

This is exactly why I read many, many Dean threads even though I could not support him. There are so many interesting aspects to the campaign, including that the more States he lost the better a Progressive Dean sounded (at least to my ear). For any of us interested in the political process and especially those who, like myself, admired the creativity of the campaign and the enthusiasm of the supporters, it is important to understand what happened.

I think there were a number of problems with the Dean campaign that had nothing to do with any of Dean's actions as a candidate (ie, the scream) or the Press. I think policy is one, but I realize others would disagree. I also think that, yes, voters were wary of the "new"...but I think the contempt shown here for that wariness is misplaced. I do not think you have to look to the Press or the DNC for the origins of that wariness. Think what is at stake. People are not all that willing to leap into the unknown when the cost of a mistake could be catastrophic. And I think it is crucial to figure out in what ways the internet works and in what ways it doesn't. The writers posted have some interesting thoughts on that. I doubt they or anyone else would claim their's is the full and complete picture or not open to debate. But it is a debate we should have, it is important.

To some of the points raised by other posters I would say that "on the ground" does indeed, in my experience, work - short term. "On the ground" and "grass-roots" are not synonymous. If I go into a black neighborhood, I am not "grass roots" though I may be able to mobilize people for my candidate or my cause. But it will remain "my" candidate or "my" cause. Should any grass roots efforts arise, they are not likely to look exactly like "my" program.

To those of you expressing grief, raw wounds, need for time to heal, I would suggest with all due respect that this is not the best place to mourn or heal. And if you choose to do so here, it is inevitable that others will post and discuss without regard for a grieving process. This is a political forum, why should not WilliamPitt or anyone else post a political article for analysis? In saying this I do not intend to be condescending or contemptuos or sarcastic, as I have admiration for the campaign and its' participants. I merely point out that proper analysis is not attack, nor is it gloating. Many of us might be interested in it.

[Sly Kal]

84. Truth

The truth would involve a thorough exploration of the dirty tricks, dirty politics including Osama bin Laden ads, backroom deals, caucus manipulation by party insiders, and the like, not to mention the most savage media pile-on we've seen since Clinton's penis -- all of which was specifically designed to STOP DEAN at long, long last. The truth is that neither party wants The People choosing their nominee. Some of us Democrats are tired of that.

In any case, it worked. On a level playing field the outcome would have been vastly different. But you knew that. It's so much more fun, though, to blame the victim (whose own mistakes would not have been enough to bring him down on that level playing field we were just talking about).

And since when did Norman Solomon become an objective outsider, anyway? Wasn't he among the Kerry Pundit Brigade who met in Al Franken's apartment not all that long ago?
********************************************************

A friend of mine wanted me to post this for her. There you go El! :hi:

[madfloridian]

87. Yes, I believe he was. I would love to see the list of attendees again.

Do you have that article? But then, duh, I might not be smart enough to understand it.

[WilliamPitt]

151. Here you go

Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ‘Maus’;
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[Exgeneral]

91. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

the media guys and their echo chamber of circular coverage are partof the problem. It's a forest/trees thing. We see that a lot in the Northwest.

to quote:The truth would involve a thorough exploration of the dirty tricks, dirty politics including Osama bin Laden ads, backroom deals, caucus manipulation by party insiders, and the like, not to mention the most savage media pile-on we've seen since Clinton's penis -- all of which was specifically designed to STOP DEAN at long, long last."

The truth is that media back room salons decide in advance what the coverage is going to be.

The truth is that neither party wants The People choosing their nominee. Some of us Democrats are tired of that. Maybe soon ALL of us will be

[Dookus]

35. I think the

most spectacular political collapse in a decade deserves a little discussion.

[madfloridian]

39. Well, you have your fun with us.

We are so getting used to it. Actually it makes it clearer in our minds that none of us were ever wanted in this Democratic party....not Dean, not us.

Have fun.

[Darth_Kitten]

44. Most spectacular political collapse?

Doubtful.

[Dookus]

64. ok

name a bigger one.

[Sly Kal]

70. Clark for President

he kind of won one state, was never front runner and never raised more than 100k in one day. When he was finsished he had half the amount of delegates Dean did.

[Dookus]

77. that makes my point

it wasn't a spectacular collapse. He started out far behind, won a primary (unlike Dean) and then dropped out when he didn't catch on.

Dean was the frontrunner, the top fundraiser, and was widely expected to win the nomination. After spending 40 million dollars, he did abysmally in the first two contests and never recovered. Hardly comparable to Clark's campaign.

[vision]

99. Bullmoose Party

Ross Perot

John Anderson

Whig Party

all spectacular failures. Some took longer than others but all had as big if not bigger impact on the national scene than Dean did. And the Dean movement may or may not still go on. Where is the Reform Party?

[Dookus]

107. First...

I said in the last 10 years.

Second, when was Ross Perot the frontrunner? When was John Anderson the frontrunner?

Perot's campaign wasn't a spectacular failure by any means. He did pretty damned well, as I recall.

[Darth_Kitten]

102. Progressive Conservative party, Mulroney, Canada.

:) Coming in 2nd or 3rd in a few primaries does not a collapse make. ;)

[no name no slogan]

124. Damn that's another good one

Talk about your vanishing acts. That was even worse than the Whigs collapsing after 1856.

[no name no slogan]

120. Gary Hart-- now THAT was SPECTACULAR!!! (nt)

[DannyRed]

93. The most spectacular political collapse

will be seen as the evisceration of support for the radical right and their standard bearers in PNAC, the Christian Coalition, and in the GOP.

the real question is whether we can win the race to take power from them before they can destroy all we are fighting for.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

109. My 2 cents

What America ALLOWED to move into the White House in Jan 2001 is the ultimate example of the "Most spectacular political collapse". Anyone still investigating that?

[Exgeneral]

81. Yes, and in the second week of November

we'll all be looking at ourselves and saying "Kerry??? What the HELL were we thinking?"

[CTLawGuy]

96. amen to that

NT

[Gin]

38. I supported /and support him...color me foolish Will...but Dean was a

success...he planted a spine in these frightened democrats...He
stood up to the threat of being called a traitor by opposing the war
and he gave the others a platform that they carry to this day.

He was wildly successful. I am not angry that hes not in the race...he has done good work...set the national stage...and will do wonders behind the scenes.

Maybe you need to give him a rest..he deserves it...good job Howard!

[edzontar]

148. This is the REAL question...which I attempted to adress below

WHY do they still fear Dean?

WHY does our movement still provoke such dark fear and trembling from our colleagues?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Will

I know the article is fresh and Solomon may have some great points to make, but the wound is also fresh. You might want to get this locked and post it another day when it can actually be a bit more empowering to people to see where it went awry so that they might benefit from the info rather than be invalidated.

[madfloridian]

33. I have seen enough decent articles today to make it ok.

Let Will have his fun. It makes him happy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. I actually know Will a bit better than to believe he would be deliberately

insensitive on this matter. The article was made available today by a renowned writer, he posted it today.

He is not the heartless bastard one might make him out to be for posting this even if Dean weren't his preferred candidate.

[madfloridian]

45. You are the one who used those words.

I did not call him names, you did. I did not. Will has done this many times to us. We are used to it, it is ok.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. OK sorry

[liberalnurse]

47. Do you have swamp land in Florida

for sale too?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. Try treating others the way you want to be treated

[liberalnurse]

55. And your point is what?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. Just a guess, but

I think when she said:

"Try treating others the way you want to be treated"

her point was

"Try treating others the way you want to be treated"


:eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

139. LOL

That's hard to understand, isn't it? ;-)

[Sly Kal]

72. lol

Just LOL

[Sly Kal]

71. It's a stupid article

There is nothing to learn there. Pitt is just being himself.

[ulysses]

85. not at all, Teena.

After all, Dean supporters are political neophytes in need of the education...

[madfloridian]

89. And not only that,

we ain't got no smarts either.
:hi:

[ulysses]

95. and we're all naive college kids, too.

Don't forget that. :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. Damned if I do and damned if I don't

Make an effort to be the least bit coniliatory and people who want to know why they are so mistreated will ram it up your ass everytime.

I think it's a bit humorous that Solomon's articles on underreported news stories are quoted often at DU but the minute he says what others refuse to hear he is persona non grata.

I'm sorry Den bowed out...we may as well elect Bush now...all hope is lost...only HOward Dean can save the world.


LAter

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

112. Thank for that nsma...

Pouring salt into a wound seems to be a sport for some people.

Another time maybe and a different approach might be in order rather than a head-on assault.

[foo_bar]

54. it's a good analogy

the internet giveth, the real world taketh away. My 90s dotcom company got a small business award presented by none other than Senator Kerry. Now me and Dean are unemployed, and Kerry fights another day. Sometimes old people are better at this stuff.

[Sly Kal]

59. Norman doesn't have a clue

That is one of the worst articles I have read on the subject. then I am not very impressed with people who all write in their own little Internet echo chamber.

[indigo32]

63. I'd have to agree

missing major points.

[WilliamPitt]

65. He might have a clue or two

http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=14

[Sly Kal]

75. Not a clue

He has no clue at all. Those media types sure are all impressed with each other though.
I heard a radio show today where the host and guests were discussing another rather clueless set of ideas about the Dean campaign. There was the radio talk guy, and two political writers. They all sat around agreeing with each other that the DFA blog was an echo chamber. I thought that was the funniest moronically ironic statement I had heard in weeks.

[WilliamPitt]

76. Attacking the messenger instead of the message

is a poor way of going about things.

[DannyRed]

92. Will,

When the messenger couches their message in language, phrases, and implications that are insulting, demeaning, condescending, or otherwise offensive, it is very difficult to avoid attacking that messenger, and even more difficult to begin to accept valid criticism or discuss the real issues.

[jonnyblitz]

82. I like Norman Solomon .

I have been reading him for a long time. He used to be with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in the 90's if I remember correctly. I always like to read what he has to say. It doesnt matter to me whether he is critical of people I support/have supportered.

[indigo32]

86. I still think though

no matter whom he supported... that he missed the boat on this one.

[incapsulated]

68. I don't like this

Dean only dropped out yesterday. I was hurting for a lot more than 24 hours after Clark bowed out, and frankly, I didn't want to read articles like this dissecting a campaign that many of us put so much of our hearts into the day after. There will be plenty of time for this sort of "discussion", but to insist that Dean supporters should be in the state of mind to do that now is just insensitive.

Whatever your, or my, feelings about Dean, nobody can question the depth of passion his supporters had. Have a heart and let them be for a while. Not all of them are venting by posting dozens of kill Kerry threads, you know. A lot are just angry and hurt and this doesn't help.

[Sushi-Lover]

78. From a few posts I'm getting the picture that

a day is the mourning period we are being allowed. People can post what they want and discuss to their heart's content, but when they get a nasty response they shouldn't act surprised. Maybe next week I will want to debate what went wrong. It is certainly a really interesting topic given both the politics and the psychology of it. However, now is too soon. Anyway, thanks for articulating why Dean supporters aren't appreciative of this sort of topic at the moment.

[mandyky]

73. Norman Solomon is not an objective journalist

He never liked Dean. I may read the article later but when I saw the author name, I passed for now.

[David Zephyr]

80. The LA Times Writer, Joseph Menn Had This To Say On Same Subject

I don't know whether you read this when I posted it here Februray 7th, but it's a interesting take on the same subject matter.

Dean Backers Debate Internet 'Echo Chamber'

Web mavens hash over the campaign's failings -- one compares it to the dot-com bubble -- and ponder the future of online democracy.

By Joseph Menn, Times Staff Writer

The near eclipse of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's presidential campaign is prompting some painful self-examination by a cadre of Internet intellectuals whose early enthusiasm helped attract tens of thousands of volunteers.

The loose-knit group of academics, software writers and online commentators have identified a range of factors responsible for the campaign's stumble, from the actions of Dean himself and former campaign manager Joe Trippi to those of the media establishment.

But some are also blaming their own habitat, what they now describe as an "echo chamber" of Web diaries and Internet message boards that lulled activists into thinking they were winning votes for Dean merely by typing messages to one another.

"We may have been too glued to our monitors to remember that while elections get won by money … they are also won by people on the ground," John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Internet civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote last week on his personal Web log, or blog.

Full Story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/complete/la-na-deaniacs7feb07,1,3725433.story?coll=la-elect2004-complete

[indigo32]

83. "they are also won by people on the ground...."

weren't we on the ground?

[David Zephyr]

88. We Were Rolled Over On the Ground, In Fact.

The Washington Establishment, the Corporate Media, the Washington Democrats and the DLC paid Howard and us back for poking our fingers in their eyes a few times too many. They rolled us. They hated us. They still hate us.

But it sure was sweet to hear the words, "I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." I loved it everytime I heard it...

And then they sent in the tanks to kill us.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. So then it wasn't all those people Dean bussed into Iowa

in spite of his poor organization at the caususes?


Oh wait..no...on that occasion it was Gephardt.

[Maddy McCall]

106. Ahhh...THAT'S one more remarkable way that Dean revolutionized grassroots

Bussing in supporters from out of state to make a showing that did not translate to the local folks. Like I said earlier, Dean's was a top-down effort that didn't work and that is in NO WAY grassroots in the truest sense of grassroots.

And futile efforts are rarely seen as revolutionary.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

113. I was on the ground

I was on the ground a LOT. And with a WHOLE BUNCH of other people on the ground.

[indigo32]

164. Me too

Me too, and not just as an outsider in IA... I did plenty in my own community.

[no name no slogan]

105. Here's another link to a similar piece

This one's called Exiting Deanspace. I belive this has been posted before, but it is a similar sort of assessment by Dean supporters.

It's interesting to get the story from those who are on the inside, as they have a unique perspective as to how things went.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. It is an excellent insight

Read the whole thing...but I don't really see Solomon being tougher on the campaign than this person was...maybe it's just easier to hear it from within.

[no name no slogan]

127. Sorry about the length :D

That was my impression too. I didn't think it was much worse, either. But seeing as Solomon has been critical of Dean in the past, I can see how it may seem more critical than other post-mortems on the Dean campaign.

Regardless, Solomon knows his stuff when it comes to dissecting the media. He was at FAIR for a long time, and always had a good read on media bias-- left, right, top, or bottom.

[DannyRed]

90. Let's ignore the obvious

salt rubbed in wounds nature of both the article and the tone of many comments.

For now.

Let's get to the real meat of the article, its logical (or not) basis, and its inherent flaws and massive blind spot.

Solomon, and several others, try to make the case that Dean's campaign, DFA, and the "Dean Movement" is not and was not grassroots because it was "inward looking and insulated" an encapsulated (I think they wanted to say "incestuous" but are afraid to alienate >600,000 ACTIVE people and a lot more who have already cast their votes...) circle of like minded friends, preaching to the choir and raising eyebrows and causing concern whenever they ventured out of their bubble.

If so, Norm, and others, then what about MoveOn? What about TruthOut? What about CommonDreams? What about the massive organization of all those anti-war rallies back in the fall and winter...done over the internet, organized via the internet, and funded via the internet?

I think that there is a valid self-criticism and a valid concern to be addressed in this family of articles and opinions.

However, what I see in Norm Solomon's writing and in the other pieces in that vein, is so couched, so clothed, so armored in nasty, divisive, condescending and basically fallacious rhetoric as to make the valid points indiscernable and impossible to discuss.

If the Dean campaign is an internet bubble, then what is MoveOn? Consider the numbers, consider the impact, consider the money raised, consider the overal visibility...and compare.

How many people in the US, or in the world know about MoveOn vs. Howard Dean? How much money has been raised by MoveOn vs DFA? How many people in the US actively participated in one form or another, from the most active activist to the person who voted and nothing more, in MoveOn sponsored or organized events vs DFA.

By those criteria, Solomon (and the rest) should be raising the same basic questions, in spades, about their own internet organizing campaigns, and rather than casting stones at DFA, they should be saying...."Gee, what DFA did may not have worked as completely or as smoothly as they (or we) would have liked, but they certainly made a bigger splash than we are...how can we learn from and organize WITH them to grow these disparate campaigns and movements together?"

Remember how early in the game we are with this particular venue/tactic/tool/movement.

Go back to 1959-1963 and take a look at the long string of defeats and disappointments and suffering inflicted upon the Civil Rights Movement. Now take yourself back there, and write some stuffy, condescending article about one or two of those defeats, and publish it in a Montgomery Church circular, talking about how what they did "wasn't really grassroots"....

See what happens?

DFA was not entirely successful at everything they/we did....not by a long shot. But we WERE successful at a lot, and we WERE "grassroots".

The main problem with these articles and opinions is the inherent assumption that something that is "really grassroots" is AUTOMATICALLY going to be successful, and that something that failed is therefore, by definition, NOT grassroots.

I call that baloney.

I call that impatience, childishness, and instant gratification sniping from the sidelines.

Again, the article contains some useful nuggets, but they are small, and discovering and weighing those nuggets requires an awful lot of sifting, screening and panning of dross.

[no name no slogan]

103. But Common Dreams and MoveOn <> DFA

I think you're critique is valid, but I think it's a stretch to say that everybody who reads/supports Common Dreams, MoveOn, or Truthout are Dean supporters.

Not that he doesn't have support among this group, no doubt about it. But these same sites had a lot of supporters of the other candidates visiting/contributing to them, too.

[DannyRed]

110. You misunderstand my meaning on that point...

I specifically am pointing out that the overlap between CommonDreams, MoveOn, TruthOut, ZNet, and etc is NOT 100%.

That there are a LOT of CommonDreams, MoveOn, Truthout readers, supporters, and contributors who do not and did not support Howard Dean or DFA...and who are now saying that DFA was not grassroots, while still maintaining that THEIR organization (CommonDreams, MoveOn, TruthOut, or whatever) IS grassroots.

I am in no way saying that CommonDreams or MoveOn somehow equals DFA and that supporters of the one are supporters of the other.

My main point is that when Solomon, or the others in his vein of opinion, make the argument that Dean's Campaign was not grassroots, and substantiate their point by talking about "internet bubbles" and "echo chambers" and "preaching to the choir" they are decidedly avoiding looking at their own organizations and outlets and support groups when making that criticism.

What SHOULD be an honest look at the things that worked and the things that didn't, an evaluation of what we learned and what we gained...turns into a holier than thou pissing contest over who is and is not "grassroots"....

My point is that I challenge Norm Solomon, and the others, to take their articles, and replace "Dean" or "DFA" with "MoveOn" and see where they wind up.

From my perspective on the hard left, I put people like Norm Solomon and his crowd into the smart, dedicated, but defeatist and elitist left.

Defeatist because they are always moaning about how this movement or that organization or the other coalition is not big enough, not smart enough, not inclusive enough, not like them enough.....and elitist because they are always saying that the reason why those "other" organizations are not winning, are not succeeding, or did not bring about paradise in a week is because those organizations or their leaders are not enough like Norm Solomon, or not as smart, or as dedicated, or as "grassroots" or as "liberal" or as "left" or as "correct" as Norm Solomon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

But you CAN'T compare interest groups with a political campaign

Dean did a GREAT job of firing up SOME of the 600,000 people associated with his work, but it fell flat in that the hundredth monkey effect didn't take off.

He got TREMENDOUS positive press and even sent the DLC/DNC into ORBIT. He got started WAY early, but when push came to shove and the rubber hit the road (and really Danny..I like you and am NOT out to offend) he responded like a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a freeway.

I don't think Solomon was approaching this to knock the wind out of ANYONE'S sails but organizing a nationwide POLITICAL campaign is NOT the same as organizing a movement.

I've worked with both. A movement requires committed people over time...a political campaign especially for the presidency is POINT BLANK!

One last point..and that is..>Dean RIGHTFULLY tapped into anger...but unleashed anger can respond like an untamed atom....it only goes so far.

He built something powerful on which he can continue to build but that is totally up to him.

Solomon may have stated things in a manner less empowering the morning after...but a week from now or a month from now...perhaps..it might be better received.

[DannyRed]

131. OKay, let's hash this out...

1) You are correct, Dean and his campaign did a great job of firing up and organizing some 600,000 people, getting 300,000 or so to donate money, time, and energy to the campaign, generating a lot of votes nationwide, and going from an asterisk unknown outside longshot to frontrunner to strong second to out.

He did better than Dick Gephardt, better than Joe Lieberman, better than Bob Graham, better than Carol Moseley Braun and so on. He still has more delegates than any of the former and current candidates with the exceptions of Edwards and Kerry.

He did so based entirely on internet and word of mouth.

2) The REASON he got so much press - press that was NOT tremendously positive, according to the studies and analyses of tone, content, wording, placement and etc, especially when compared to Edwards or Kerry....press that NEARLY ALWAYS tagged him as "Left, Antiwar, Angry, Firebrand, Populist" and so on....the REASON was because of the size, speed and vociferousness of his base of support.

3) You say: "I don't think Solomon was approaching this to knock the wind out of ANYONE'S sails but organizing a nationwide POLITICAL campaign is NOT the same as organizing a movement."

I do not think you have read enough of Norm Solomon's work to make that point.

Let me be clear....I have a lot of respect for Norm Solomon when it comes to issues, analyses of policy, analyses of the right, and his understanding of large-scale politics in the realm of Work, Unions, Environment, and Media...a LOT of respect. He is a very smart man, an excellent writer, a committed and devoted activist with his heart and his positions in the right place, almost all the time.

Where I do NOT respect Norm Solomon (and several others in the ZNet crowd like Ed Herman, Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, and others) nearly as much is when it comes to their political analysis of the Left and Liberal sides of the spectrum. I invite you to contrast their writings with Howard Zinn. The difference is in the tone and range of vision expressed in their writings and political analysis of various Left and Liberal movements and groups. Zinn is unendingly hopeful, positive, progressive, and inclusive; willing to argue, to hear criticism, to change positions, to bend and include. The others, are much more rigid, doctrinaire, and, frankly, defeatist, depressing, and quite nit-picky. This comes from reading their works, engaging in debates online and in person (I had a long long argument with Ed Herman about this very thing when my group invited him to speak to our forum....)

Now, to your basic points:

1) You can't compare interest groups with a political campaign.

In many ways, you can. Interest groups ARE political campaigns focused on one issue rather than a program of issues. The Democratic Party IS an interest group that also runs/controls a broad suite of political campaigns. MoveOn is an interest group that does not run political campaigns, but instead focuses on a much more limited series of issues and contributes time/money/people/space/voice to political campaigns that meet its criteria for support.

DFA was most certainly a political campaign, but it was, and is, also an interest group organized around a particular political principle, one that I am extremely disappointed (but not all that surprised) to see Norm Solomon criticizing (unfairly and inaccurately) as being "not grassroots"....

What is that political principle? That the power belongs to the people. That a Democratic party that leans too far right and accommodates the GOP on too many fronts is not desirable or useful, that Democratic Politicians who take their popular base for granted, pander to special interests and the right, and don't stand up when it counts is a Democratic Party that needs to be shaken up, shaken out of its complacency, and put on warning that they are slipping into a realm where they DO NOT represent us faithfully or as we want them to.

That message is EXACTLY the same message that Norm Solomon harps on in many of his columns, columns criticizing Gore for being too like Bush, criticizing Democrats over NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Colombia, Welfare, Workfare, Kosovo, and so on.

Dean took that message, and managed to get a LOT of people and a LOT of money, and gain a LOT of attention with it.

And now Norm Solomon is saying that growing a campaign based on that message from Zero to Huge in less than a year is "Not Grassroots"?????

The whole point that Dean, Dean supporters, and DFA is making is that political campaigns must be BOTH interest group AND faithful reflections of the desires of their constituency in order to remain viable in the political realm.

The fact that Dean went from former governor, nobody, and asterisk, to (apparently) a serious political player whose machine and support base is now being courted by many sides in the ongoing political rumble should be enough to tell Norm Solomon and the others that grassroots is PRECISELY what it was and is.


Finally, this:

"Solomon may have stated things in a manner less empowering the morning after...but a week from now or a month from now...perhaps..it might be better received."

I disagree. I think that Solomon's criticism is weak, misdirected, and not very useful. I think that is very unfortunate, because within that weak framework, there are extremely useful and important pieces of the puzzle that I wish he had articulated in better fashion and expressed in a more positive, productive, PROGRESSIVE way.

I think that this piece will be as flawed in a month as it is now, and that the tone and tenor will be as much, if not more, lacking in respect, weight and importance.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

117. But you CAN'T compare interest groups with a political campaign

Dean did a GREAT job of firing up SOME of the 600,000 people associated with his work, but it fell flat in that the hundredth monkey effect didn't take off.

He got TREMENDOUS positive press and even sent the DLC/DNC into ORBIT. He got started WAY early, but when push came to shove and the rubber hit the road (and really Danny..I like you and am NOT out to offend) he responded like a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a freeway.

I don't think Solomon was approaching this to knock the wind out of ANYONE'S sails but organizing a nationwide POLITICAL campaign is NOT the same as organizing a movement.

I've worked with both. A movement requires committed people over time...a political campaign especially for the presidency is POINT BLANK!

One last point..and that is..>Dean RIGHTFULLY tapped into anger...but unleashed anger can respond like an untamed atom....it only goes so far.

He built something powerful on which he can continue to build but that is totally up to him.

Solomon may have stated things in a manner less empowering the morning after...but a week from now or a month from now...perhaps..it might be better received.

[Maddy McCall]

121. Yes...

I agree with everything you said--more evidence of why Dean's isn't a grassroots movement.

[DannyRed]

132. Sorry,

but repeating the charge over and over does not make it true.

Let me put it this way:

I work in an office in Tokyo (actually I am a researcher at the University of Tokyo).

I read Dean's statements, saw his website, and checked out MeetUp.com.

I went to a MeetUp meeting attended by 7 people last August.

By last month we had 30 people, including several that I personally talked to, we all went to the Democrats Abroad Caucus in Tokyo, where we won the caucus, and are sending a delegate to the global Democrats Abroad meeting.

Those people I talked to (including several Americans at my office, as well as several foreigners who want to get involved, especially now that Dean is out, and they can get involved without tainting the candidate with "foreign money") are now STILL getting together, organizing, raising money, making fliers, talking to family and friends, and doing politics both local (here in Tokyo) and in the US.

THAT IS GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

118. WOW

<applause>

[DannyRed]

134. Thanks...

Bowing.

Can I count on your vote?

[Andromeda]

114. Yaaaaay, Danny...

You're spot on.

[DannyRed]

135. Thanks...

'Preciate it.

[John_H]

122. The Dean case study is pretty clear, IMHO

Take Iowa, for example.

I can't help but remember all the DU hoopla about the "perfect storm" in IA--hoopla from the Dean camp itself, rhetorical bravado about thousands of people "thundering" "rolling" "swarming" into Iowa.

The press accounts also marveled at the number of people dean brought in, described the color coded hats.

What I never got a clear picture of was what all those people were doing. I'm still curious. Was it phone banking? Lit dropping? Signing? Door knocking? All of the above, I bet. The problem is that a) with 3000 people you could hit everyone in Iowa with all of those five times over, and b) those are very inefficient ways of getting votes.

I can tell you what the Edwards and Kerry people were probably doing. Sure, they had volunteers doing all the activities mentioned above--probably numbering in the hundreds, which was more than enough.

But other people, experienced organizers were organizing-- reaching out to blocks large and small, talking to people they've forged relationships with for years. Getting entrees to groups they didn't know from some Iowan they did know or have worked with before. They were getting dozens of votes per person-hour worked, instead of the one or two you might get from phone banking or door knocking.

The key is this: Instead of bashing the party-interest group-traditional activist apparatus, they used it. And the proof was in the results.

I personally talked to a dozen people in local union leadership, community groups, and local interest groups (not bigwigs, but the kind of people that, when put in aggregate, win elections) who were contacted three or four times each by Kerry and Edwards and were never contacted once by Dean or Clark.

I bet if trippi had to do it over again, he would have done a lot more training and education for the grassroots activists early in the process and probably done a little more old fashioned politics.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

125. You heard about all those

people Dean bussed in for Iowa? Were you there? Do you have any first hand eyewitness knowledge?

[John_H]

126. Jeez. That's the point of my post.

All we heard about here and in the press that a bunch of people went out there and had cool hats. I'm just not clear what they were doing. If I were running grass roots campaigns I'd sure stugy the effectiveness of that kind of operation closely, so i could improve it, wouldn't you?

If you were there, it'd be more interesting to hear what you did.

[no name no slogan]

128. Well, his campaign mentioned that they sent 3,500 to IA...

the weekend before the caucuses. If that's not a reliable source, then I don't know what is.

[DannyRed]

143. There is a lot of truth in your post....

Along with some misconceptions.

First, Dean spent too much time attacking the entire political apparatus, when he should have been using the good parts and subverting the bad parts.

Second, Dean's campaign went too broad, too fast. Rather than building a nationwide base first, they should have spent more time engaging in training and direct action face-to-face with local centers of political influence.

In short, what you are saying is that the Dean campaign was inexperienced, energetice (perhaps overly so), incautious, and in many ways naive....but exciting, fresh and new.

In short, you are describing, almost to a T, a fledgeling grassroots effort engaged in by political neophytes and newcomers...those are the people who dominated the Dean Campaign, and unfortunately, or not, there was no time for the more experienced operators within that campaign to bring the Newbies up to speed fast enough for them to compete with the old hands.

I described it this way at the last meetup:

We had activists and committed idealists operating in an arena where we needed Chicago style ward bosses, precinct leaders, and Tammany hall influence peddlers.

Again, a perfect description of a grassroots effort and the challenges such an effort ALWAYS faces in the face of an established political machine.

But we learned a lot, and we learned it fast....so watch your back.

;)

[andym]

123. Actually, this article is misguided

Actually, this article is misguided in at least two ways.

First, the idea put forth in the article that it wouldn't matter even if Dean had millions of internet users in his grassroots organization,
is silly. Numbers do count, if Dean could have achieved 10-20x more people he would be closing in on 20 million people and 500 million dollars (assuming the pattern held), which would be substantial enough to guarantee the nomination.

Second, I suspect that Dean came very close to winning it all. The article does describe that Dean was successful in converting internet attention into money, and money into media attention. He also succeeded in getting very impressive endorsements from mainstream Democrats. He led in the polls (due to the media attention he earned) in IA and NH, if he had won them he would be where Kerry is now. Why did he not succeed? Well, he came under blistering attack from his opponents in IA, but as the front-runner his campaign must have expected it. The problem is that it is very difficult to fend off negative media. I think that real "teflon" comes from having an established positive image in the media. Dean probably should have spent more time earlier on popular TV shows yucking it up with Leno and Letterman and Imus, etc, to diminish the possibility of demonization. Btw, this strategy was good for all the candidates, I think Clark in particular would also have benefited.

Btw, both Kerry and Edwards still have a long ways to go in positive media exposure before they can even begin to think about earning teflon for the GE.

[mb7588a]

129. First rule of internet theory:

"ALL BUBBLES WILL BURST."

'nuff said. :(

[xxqqqzme]

130. I am getting very fed up

w/ all these talking heads 'knowing' EVERYTHING that went wrong w/ the Dean campaign. I have been a supporter of Howard Dean's candidacy since Nov. '02.

The campaign collapsed because the talking heads said it collapsed.

At the February Meet Up, we had 21 new people - never been 2 a Dean Meet Up B4, oh no, the ceiling's cracking; at a house party on MONDAY, we had 12 new people, raised $550; OMG the walls R crumbling.

All the nasty, rude remarks I C posted here R amazing. Although busy bashing Dean,(and BTW, when U bash his campaign, U R bashing MY campaign)I am guessing U R busy supporting your candidate of choice by actions?

So tell me please - To which primary state did U travel in support of your candidate? walk precincts at home or away? phone bank from your house or other location? How many letters did you write to voters in Iowa? New Hampshire? Wisconsin? Michigan? North Carolina? I am willing 2 guess the only people answering ANY of those questions R Dean supporters. And THAT is why the campaign is/was grassroots.

The campaign was not supported by special interests or corporations. Nor was it supported by the DNC/DLC in any way. Which was fine w/ me. The DNC abandoned me a long time ago. Howard Dean was one of very few Democrats speaking out against squatter's policies.

I am sorry none of U got a chance 2 B part of something truly unique and the Dean campaign was that. The last time I felt this passionate about a candidate was in 1968, about Robert Kennedy.

I met some truly amazing people thru the Dean campaign. People I never would have met otherwise. A record company exec, an author, a choreographer. I would not trade the last 16 months 4 anything. So bash away. I got to use my passion and anger. The rest of U R still searching.

[Nicholas_J]

133. As far as I can tell

Dean did extrememly well until there were other candidates to compare him to, and to compare him to closely. No one was really looking into either Deans record as a Governor, or into the differences between his past statements about his political philosophy,or in fact his total behavior as a candidate which, anger or not, was not the kind of behavior and image that most of the American electorate want to see in a presidential candidate or a president.

It didn't take much media attention to bring Deans campaign to a grinding halt. The nomination process is exactly designed to focus attention on the candidates. It winnows out those who will not be able to deal with the even fiercer attention that will be cast on them once they are the nominee.

The blame is not the medias. Bill Clinton was able to stand up to a lot closer media scrutiny and still come up looking good and acceptable to the Democratic electorate. This is what the media does. They have been doing it for the 220 odd years candidates have been running for the presidency. Its their job.

[DannyRed]

138. Sigh....

1) "Dean did extrememly well until there were other candidates to compare him to, and to compare him to closely."

Sorry, but Dean started off double digits behind the major candidates, and single digits behind Braun and Graham.

He continued to do well, and, frankly is STILL doing well compared to where he started, which was with nothing, no name recognition, no money, and no organization or base of support.

The spike in the curve was NOT Dean's "implosion" - the spike in the curve was Dean's surge to the front - remoive that spike, and compare where Dean started and where he "finished" (he's nowhere near done, and neither are we, his supporters), and you will begin to see what we are talking about.

2) No one was really looking into either Deans record as a Governor, or into the differences between his past statements about his political philosophy,or in fact his total behavior as a candidate which, anger or not, was not the kind of behavior and image that most of the American electorate want to see in a presidential candidate or a president.

I cannot write anything in response to that obviously false and incorrect statement directly, because my post will be deleted.

How many stories ran about Dean's "sealed records"? How many stories ran about Dean's accomplishments and activities as governor? How many stories ran with the underlying theme that Dean was "angry" or "fiery" or "populist" or "Anti-war leftist"? How many times was his campaign compared to McGovern?

Please.

3) It didn't take much media attention to bring Deans campaign to a grinding halt. The nomination process is exactly designed to focus attention on the candidates. It winnows out those who will not be able to deal with the even fiercer attention that will be cast on them once they are the nominee.

Laughable, just laughable.

Only true if you count "not much" as 900 showings of an audio filtered, boom mic two ten second clip. Only true if you count hundreds of hit pieces, op-eds, political cartoons, and attacks from other candidates and smear ad campaigns from as yet undetermined sources comparing dean to osama bin laden.

In short, only true if one is in complete denial.

4) The blame is not the medias.

You heard it here first, folks. That's right, there is no rightward, pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-populist bias in the media.

Funny, how this comment is in response to an article written by an acclaimed media critic whose entire central thesis is based around the hypothesis that the media is one of the main organs used to contain, control and direct popular opinion into channels approved by and benefitting the ruling class....

Try again.

[xxqqqzme]

141. OK, that reply is hot!

actually it sizzels!

[RetroLounge]

140. I have nothing to say except

Poop!

[Andromeda]

142. Lol...

:kick:

[edzontar]

145. If Dean was such a failure and had no real movement, then why

Are so many still trying to bury him, discredit the movement, and dance on it's "grave"?

I'll tell you why I think they are doing this.

It is because they are afraid.

It is because they are confused.

It is because some of them backed candidates who were even bigger losers, and can't get that chip off of their shoulders.

It is because they missed out on the big political story of the season and spent time that could have been used productively, building a strong and unifed progressive movement to launch gratuitous and self-serving attacks on Gov. Dean and his supporters--who are (or could have been) your natural allies in the fights to come.

Indeed, I would argue that it is testament to the impact of our movement that it still atttracts so much derison, dismissal, and contempt from these quarters.

So guess what?

I just want to say to those who have hated and feared us in the past that you have every right to be afraid, because you are NOT going to get the active support of our "non-existent" grassroots movement for your candidate(s).

And I for one am ready to commit here and now to taking this fight to every corner of the Democratic party and the nation as a whole.

This is not about Dean anymore (though I will still vote for him).

And this is not, for me, about boycotting Kerry or whoever else is the Dem nominee this year (I live in PA and must vote to oust Bush).

And this is not just about this year or next year, but about the next ten or twenty years.

It is about cleaning the sleaze, corruption, and hypocrisy out of American politics.

I's say THAT is something that the powers that be should be afraid of.

VERY afraid.

We shall not go gentle into that good night.

[deutsey]

146. Right..."cyber-bubble" indeed

Critics of Dean just don't get it, or, if they do, "it" scares the hell out of them for some reason.

I live in a rural area of Maryland that is traditionally a GOP stronghold. NO other Democratic candidate has energized progressives here the way Dean has. We have built a very large network here thanks to the Dean campaign. Kerry's campaign has not done that. Edward's has not. Kucinich's has not. Sharpton's has not.

This is "real world" activism, not cyberspace (in fact, many people in our network use the computer occassionally).

What's most important, we're all planning to stick together even though Dean's campaign is over. I've voted Democratic since I voted the first time in '84 and I've never seen this kind of involvement among "regular" people in the political process.

No "cyber-bubble" could accomplish that. Dean spoke to something many of us have not heard from Democratic candidates in a long time.

[edzontar]

147. And they ask" "Why are we angry?"

Gee. I wonder why anyone would get a little hot under the collar after readong solomon's piece or some of the more approving answers?

It seems we never existed at all, accordint to them....but this was really so, then why do they keep writing about (and against) us?

Curious indeed.

[Rich Hunt]

150. I must be crazy

Everywhere I go....I see Dean people! :)

Guess we're all as crazy as ol' Howard.

[DannyRed]

156. The anti-dote to Solomon's pieces

Is greider's piece in the Nation....

Deans Rough Ride...

It is honest, critical, and insightful...

[bitchkitty]

157. What a POS article.

Surely you can do better than this.

It wasn't about money, Will. It was about truth - something I should think you would be concerned about, given the name of your employer's publication.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

158. If It's Such a Shitty Article, Why Kick It Back to the Top After 1.5 Days?

:shrug:

DTH

[bitchkitty]

159. Oh, sorry -

I forgot that you have to be here 24-7 and have 50 million posts before you express an opinion. My bad...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

161. Express Whatever Opinion You Want

I'm sure the author appreciates you keeping his "POS" article front-and-center here at DU.

:shrug:

DTH, Who Thinks Kicking an Article You Hate Is Pretty Silly

[janx]

160. Shitty articles about Dean are always revealing.

Let it stay kicked. Why not?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

162. LOL

Oooooooh-kay! :-)

DTH

[NewYorkerfromMass]

163. I agree! eom