And being liberal is a bad thing? This nation is great because of our liberal values. Our constitution being the beacon of global liberalism. Our economy's strength is in our liberal values. An extreme liberal is an anarchist and by no means does Dean, or any national Democrat, represent anarchy.
Which is at a maximum, 52% of the 50% of the United States ignoring the fraud that occurs on both sides. And the American public is by no means conservative. Just because George Bush was re-elected does not mean the nation is conservative, it means he had a better campaign. edit: Bush ran a patriotic campaign, not a conservative one. In times of war, patriotism tends to trump the economy.
Kos has some comments on this- by kos Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 10:55:30 AM PDT This piece on the DNC fundraising this past year starts as a hit piece: The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fundraising race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1, a slow start that is stirring concern among strategists who worry that a cash shortage could hinder the party's competitiveness in next year's midterm elections [...] Now, the latest financial numbers are prompting new doubts. From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank. Sounds horrible! Except we must put it all in its proper context: In the previous election cycle, the DNC had raised $31 million, compared with the RNC's $80 million, at this point in 2003 [...] So Dean has cut the RNC's traditional 3-1 advantage (or more) in fundraising to a 2-1 advantage and raised $11 million more than McAuliffe raised in 2003. Not to mention that Dean's numbers come the year after a presidential election -- the worst political fundraising time possible, while McAuliffe's came during the presidential cycle. Meanwhile, the RNC has remained static. Dean has also been fundraising in the states, FOR the states. Past DNC chairmen would sweep into Lousiana or California, raise some money, and then ship the cash off the DC. Dean has garnered raves in the states for funneling that money to the local parties. Those are dollars not tallied in the RNC versus DNC comparisons. Mehlman isn't out tirelessly raising money for state parties. The more worrying figure is the Cash on Hand numbers, with the RNC sitting at $34 million and the DNC at $6.8 million. While it would be nice to see more transparency in the DNC's spending (they'll need it if they expect to raise signficant money online), fact is that Dean has invested seriously in building up local parties. He's put three DNC staffers in 38 states, and will be staffed out in all 50 states by the end of the year. He's fundraised for the state parties, rather than pilfering all that cash. So what's the source of all the kvetching? The big donors are upset that Dean hasn't kissed enough ass. As some see it, Dean's larger problem is with the care and feeding of wealthy contributors, people capable of giving the maximum $26,700 allowed annually under federal law. Bob Farmer, a past DNC finance chairman, said that "where the chairman can make an impact is with the big donors and the big fundraisers." Dean does not enjoy long relationships with these people and remains uncomfortable asking for a significant contribution after just meeting a donor, said party operatives familiar with his style. One high-dollar donor in the Washington area said the outreach by Dean has been woeful: "The only explanation I can fathom for the virtual total lack of quality communications is they are still in the process of figuring things out in terms of who their major donor list is." What, did this high-dollar donor lose the address to the DNC? What a whiny sack of ****. High dollar donors who care about the party and the nation should be able to give without getting wined and dined by Dean. Long term, that is where the Democratic Party needs to go -- funded by small dollar donors and supplemented by big donors who have their priorities in the right place. Oh, and let's talk about this gem of a quote: Several Washington Democrats not favorably inclined toward Dean said the party was willing to gamble on his "potential for hoof in mouth disease" -- in the words of one lobbyist -- because of the unexpected fundraising prowess he showed in the 2004 race. The "party was willing to gamble"? What ******* Democrats made that asinine quote? "Washington Democrats" didn't have a choice. Dean was selected by outside-the-beltway Democrats, despite proclamation from establishment DC-based Dems that Dean would be the death of the party. If it was up to the DC crowd, Dean wouldn't have gotten within 500 miles of DC. Again, Dean has already surpassed McAuliffe's vaunted presidenital-cycle numbers. Period. And they'll only get better. Dean has started rebuilding the state parties -- something DC Democrats could care less about (considering they never bothered trying to do it before). And as to establishment and DLC fears that Dean would be an electoral disaster for Dems? Two words: 2005 elections. 'Nuff said. http://www.dailykos.com/
Howard Dean is an improvement over Terry McAuliffe, but that is like saying dying of cancer is an improvement over dying of AIDS. Both parties are in severe need of new blood and new leadership.
Dean is new blood, and new leadership. The party is not going to win without taking back the local and state positions back. Dean is doing that, and he is doing well, in my opinion.
Totally agree. I still don't get it why he lost to Kerry. He's the only has a mind on something and couragous enough to speak about it. The problem with Dems are that some of them consider themselves too smart, that they can say whatever people like to hear, and tried so hard to please everyone. On the end, not a single one is pleased. Just get your message out, as clear as possible, as determined as possible, let the voters choose. If they don't chose you, it's just not your turn. It's not like you can pretend to be someone you are not, everyone starts to like you. You can never please everyone, so make sure you please those agree with you. Dems should clean house first, kick morons like Zell Miller out, get rid of fake liberal like Liberman. There is a long way to go, as bad as GOP is, if Dems don't send out a clear message, I am afraid that a rosey picture is still a rosey picture in 2006 or 2008. I heard lots of people said that some hate Hilary, so what? It's not like everyone loves Kerry. In fact, no one loves him and no one hates him, so he won't get elected, even facing GWB after 4 years of bad job. There are people hating your candidate, which means there are also people loving him/her. Look at GWB, that's how one get elected. You have to have a color, like Dean, not grey as Kerry.
Let me remind you why.... http://dean.ytmnd.com http://yakkodean.ytmnd.com http://quickhands.ytmnd.com
Thanks for reminding me that how clever people are, that they decided to dump a candidate because of one scene. Yes, I am aware of that famous scene on TV, and I am still scratching my head. Why it's so bad, comparing to record high debt and lost lives in a pre-emptive war. Image is everything, but I don't see any bright spot in GWB's image either. But, what do I know?
I didn't think that whole screaming episode was that bad either. Kind of showed me how fickle a lot of voters really are. The perception that Republicans wanted Dean to win probably hurt him too. Maybe Dean should have been a little more self-depricating and poked a little fun at himself in the immediate aftermath. This could have diffused the whole situation and given Dean the chance to show his own good humor and joviality.
