Is Arianna Huffington really considered a "liberal" nowadays? Unelectable, My Ass! By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet January 7, 2004 I swear, if I hear one more Democratic honcho say that Howard Dean is not electable, I'm going to do something crazy (maybe that's what happened to Britney in Vegas this weekend). The contention is nothing short of idiotic. Consider the source. The folks besmirching the good doctor's Election Day viability are the very people who have driven the Democratic Party into irrelevance; who spearheaded the party's resounding 2002 mid-term defeats; and who kinda, sorta, but not really disagreed with President Bush as he led us down the path of preemptive war with Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts and an unprecedented deficit. Dean is electable precisely because he's making a decisive break with the spinelessness and pussyfooting that have become the hallmark of the Democratic Party. So, please, no more hand-wringing about Dean being "another Dukakis." And no more weepy flashbacks about having had your heart broken by George McGovern, whose 1972 annihilation haunts the 2004 Democratic primaries like a political Jacob Marley, shaking his chains and warning of the Ghosts of Landslides Past. There is a historical parallel to Dean's candidacy, but it's not McGovern in 1972, as the DLC-paranoiacs would like us to believe – it's Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Like Kennedy, Dean's campaign was initially fueled by his anti-war outrage. Like Kennedy, Dean has found himself fighting not just to represent the Democratic Party but to remake it. Like Kennedy, Dean is offering an alternative moral vision for America, not just an alternative political platform. And like Kennedy, Dean has come under withering attack from his critics for the very attributes that his supporters find most attractive. "He could be intemperate and impulsive... the image of wrath – his forefinger pointing, his fist pounding his palm, his eyes ablaze." Sean Hannity on Howard Dean? No, Theodore White on Bobby Kennedy in "The Making of the President 1968." It's the same ludicrous charge of being "too angry" that's being constantly leveled at Dean. Have his Democratic opponents (and the notoriously decorous Washington press corps) suddenly morphed into Miss Manners? Personally, I could never trust a man who does not occasionally get hot under the collar. Of course Dean is angry. Take a look at what's happening in Iraq, where another 236 American soldiers have been killed or wounded since Saddam was dragged out of his spider hole. And take a look closer to home, where we have 12 million children living in poverty, six out of seven working poor families unable to afford quality child care, record levels of personal debt, and more and more U.S. jobs being "outsourced" overseas. If you still have a pulse (are you listening, Joe Lieberman?) you should be royally pissed. "I have traveled and I have listened to the young people of our nation," Kennedy said during his announcement speech, "and felt their anger about the war that they are sent to fight and about the world they are about to inherit." And young people have been the spark that has lit the fuse of the Dean campaign. As he pointed out this weekend in Iowa, "One-quarter of all the people who gave us money between June and September were under 30 years old." So while the Democratic establishment is once again dusting off its tried-and-untrue swing voter strategy, Dean is running, as he put it, "a campaign based on addition, not subtraction. We want to add new people to the Democratic Party so that we can beat George Bush. It's the only way we can beat him." Kennedy was drawn into the '68 race by his indignation over the direction of America's foreign policy. "This nation," he said, "must adopt a foreign policy which says, clearly and distinctly, 'no more Vietnams.'" Dean has been saying, clearly and distinctly, No More Iraqs, even when 70 percent of the public said they approved of Bush's policy. That's leadership, and that's the kind of boldness the Democratic Party has been sorely lacking. Far from Dean not being able to "compete" with Bush on foreign policy, he's the one viable Democrat who isn't trying to compete on the playing field that Bush and Karl Rove have laid out. No Democrat can win by playing "Whose swagger is swaggier?" or "Whose flight suit is tighter?" Instead Dean unambiguously asserts that "We are in danger of losing the war on terror because we are fighting it with the strategies of the past... The Iraq war diverted critical intelligence and military resources, undermined diplomatic support for our fight against terror, and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits." In the same way that Kennedy was able to take his outrage over Vietnam and expand it to include the outrages perpetrated at home, Dean has gone from railing against the war to offering a New Social Contract for America's Working Families that harkens back to the core message of FDR: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." It's a message that Bobby Kennedy made central to his campaign but which the Democratic Party has since abandoned. Howard Dean has resurrected it and made it his own because, as he says, 2004 "is not just about electing a president – it's about changing America." That is a big vision. But anything smaller guarantees the reelection of George Bush.
Dean's electable. Here's one of this talking points via an interview in North Dakota that will resonate in most places... _________ Dean - Historically it should be an uphill battle, but the truth is, there are a lot of jobs that have disappeared in North Dakota. Tell me what Republicans have done for North Dakota lately. I can't think of much. They've lost jobs. They've gone elsewhere. No Child Left Behind passed. It's costing North Dakota a ton of money. Property taxes are going up. 7 schools have already closed. I don't see how these Republican initiatives help North Dakota. Me - If Republicans don't do anything for North Dakota, why did Bush win it 61-35? Dean - Well, now they have a chance to take back that mistake.
Eleven more months of 'expert' opinions. (And possibly another month to decide which ballots to count) I'm not good at waiting. I want the election NOW.
The liberals traded Dennis Miller to the Conservatives for Arianna and a pundit to be named later. Arianna's points are well taken but if anyone she should be aware of how carefully nuanced and focussed a politician needs to be to win. Her shot at being governor of CA in the recall was torpedoed by the "anger" she showed during the Gubanatorial debate with Schwarzennegger. While Arnold was leading already he picked up a lot of steam fending off Arianna's shrill attacks while her own campaign plummeted. My opinion is still out on Dean but think he has good shot. IMO if Dean is going to win not just the Dem. nomination but has a fighting shot at the general election he needs to move away from just campaigning against the war but convince people in his own vision. He also needs to play up his moderate, and even conservative record as governor of Vermont to convince people he isn't another McGovern or run of the mill liberal.
I disagree. Dean's anti-war stances are the foundation of his "grass roots" support. His anger about the war resonates with the voters. And this will likely mean that he would push GWB hard in the debates over the Iraq War (if Dean makes it that far and if Rove loses his mind and allows GWB to debate).
I hope he does, I really do. Then we'll know for sure just how much his anti-war anger "resonates with the voters".
And we will see how GWB taken to task over starting a war with false pretexts and which did not further the War on Terror at a great expense to our budget and our foreign relations. GWB has some explainin' to do, which is why I seriously doubt that Rove will let GWB debate.
I would love to see Dean and Bush debate. Remember the disaster that was Al Gore's arrogant sigh during the debates in 2000? Dean's arrogance puts Gore's to shame. His fringe candidacy would lose even more momentum. Face it, liberals, Dean represents the *extreme* left wing of your party. He doesn't have the coalition building skills needed to persuade the middle. This 'middle' is where elections are decided. Dean's policy views on national security, foreign policy, and taxes are just so extreme that no independent minded voter would consider him. This is why the Republicans are so excited about seeing him win the Democratic primary. Dean's personality and policies attract a very passionate, active group within the Democratic party -- the overeducated elitists and the undereducated hippie lettuce smokers. This is great for a primary -- they donate, voice their opinions loudly, and volunteer their time. When the voting base extends beyond those who would ordinarily vote in a primary (i.e. the hard-core), then Dean's base becomes marginalized. Clinton and McAuliffe are well aware of this situation.
don't you think if people bought into that the way you have, that we'd see it more reflected in his polling numbers? i don't think that..as we get further and further down the road..this becomes MORE of a hot-button issue.
So MM if GWB gets re-elected which countries will he invade in his next term? Thus, there is revelance to this issue.
By independents, he means centrists, not people left of Phish that don't happen to associate themselves with the Democratic Party.
there is to you...i'm saying america doesn't seem to be buying into your logic. and i'm saying, if that logic were going to have momentum, it would have it by now. i don't think you're going to win this election by pointing at the war in iraq. i'm sorry...i just don't think most americans agree with your assessment of it.
I agree. No need to limit the discussion of GWB's FUs to Iraq. The Dems would certainly also want to mention the 2.5 million net job loss, half a trillion 2003 budget deficit, the clean sky initiative, the healthy forest initiative, tax cuts without spending cuts, stonewalling the 9/11 comission, out-ing a CIA operative, ... I could go on and on and on. I also disagree. In the Summer of 2004 if we are still losing soldiers daily in Iraq, the American public may change their mind
