What blows my mind is how some of these guys just refuse to argue the merits, resorting to silly hyperbole instead. According to Deuce Rings he made a benign suggestion that Dean should watch his tongue and I pronounced Dean the second coming. He could have made a reasonable argument that I was wrong about Dean (which would have invited a reasonable response that I actually don't think I was - liked Dean then, am leaning away from him now. A totally defensible position, just like those who voted for a guy they thought was a moderate, compassionate conservative, found they'd elected a radical and changed their position on Bush.), but that wasn't good enough. He had to misrepresent the original dialogue. It reminds me of Jorge's list of reasons Dean shouldn't be elected, wherein he preferred utter hogwash to actual, good questions about the Dean candidacy. Problem is there are people here to refute those sorts of ridiculous assertions (like I did in Jorge's case before he ran away in shame). You guys'd do well to take a lesson from mrpaige and Cohen and HayesStreet and basso and Mr. Clutch and Max and Refman and giddyup. They don't need to reinvent history to make the conservative argument.
In real news, the daily tracking poll out of NH has... Kerry at 29% Clark at 21% Dean at 17% Edwards at 10% Undecide at 15% Also, here's a note from Moore to the Dean folks... __________ Dean Supporters, Don't Give Up ... from Michael Moore This morning I picked up the newspaper and read this quote from a young woman who had worked as a volunteer for Howard Dean in Iowa: "All the phone-calling we did, we'd have people who’d say, 'I'm a Dean supporter, I’m a Dean supporter,’" said Kelly Chambers, Dr. Dean's captain in Precinct No. 83. "But when it came to caucus night, we only had 11 people show up for Dean. It just seems like all my hard work's been for nothing." I was crushed when I read this. Her despair, her sense of "what's the use?" was something I'm sure many Dean supporters are feeling today. I can see, just from surfing the web, the debilitating affect the landslide loss in Iowa had on so many people who had placed so much hope in the man who created a grassroots revolution and was unrelenting in his attacks on Bush and on the war. If having the most volunteers, the most money (all small contributions from average citizens), and the boldest message can't win an election, say Dean's followers, then we might as well just give up. As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr. Dean's candidacy was -- and is -- worth it. He took on Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on notice that he is coming after them. And he called the Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the working people of America. Everyone in every campaign owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks. Though I am backing Clark because I personally prefer his manner and his stands on everything from jailing polluters to taxing the rich (not to mention his electability), the worst thing that could happen now would be for the Dean revolution to come to an end. If you have backed or worked for Dean, you must understand the remarkable things you have done and what you have accomplished: 1. 55% of those who voted in Iowa on Monday said that this was the FIRST TIME they had ever voted in a Caucus!!! That is a STUNNING statistic. Although the vast majority ended up going for Kerry and Edwards, I am convinced that the electorate in that state was invigorated by the Dean campaign -- whose entire message was that you CAN make a difference. Just the fact that you have people thinking this way is a gift you have given to America, a nation where the majority, in the past, have given up and refused to vote. I believe that you and Howard Dean will be credited with waking up a near-dead voting public. Thank you, thank you, thank you! 2. On top of first time voters, the overall turnout in Iowa was DOUBLE what it was four years ago. DOUBLE! To double the number of Democrats who showed up in Iowa this week means that many independents, Greens, and former Republicans have seen enough of the mess created by George W. Bush. And it was Dean in Iowa who, until the attack ads against him began, focused his whole campaign on educating voters on what the Bush presidency has truly done to America. The number one reason people gave last night for coming out in zero-degree weather in Iowa, ahead of the war and the economy and health care, was "Bush must go." This can only mean good things for the turnout come next November. 3. The number of young people -- the age group with historically the lowest percentage of voters -- also doubled on Monday night. Again, you have to credit the Deaniacs for this. Thousands of young people from around the country poured into Iowa to knock on doors and talk politics. Although Kerry and Edwards got the youth vote, I believe it was the Dean youth who made it cool to be political again, and the effect of their enthusiasm was contagious. 4. 75% of those voting in Iowa said that they are "anti-war." And who do we have to thank for that? Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. They put the war and its illegality and immorality on the Iowa map in this election year. They pushed Kerry and the rest to take strong anti-war stands (even though Kerry, et. al. had initially voted for the war). Some changed their positions, which we welcomed (Edwards and Kerry voted against the $87 billion Bush got to continue the war). Although Kerry got the most anti-war votes and Dean and Edwards split the rest, Dean was the man who converted them. Those who chugged through the streets and farms of Iowa preaching peace deserve our gratitude. Of course, the problem here, as I pointed out with all due respect in my last letter, is that for whatever reason, Dean himself is not going to give middle America the comfort level they need in choosing who they want in the Oval Office. Dean, as good and as right as he is, just isn't the man, on a personal level, to get Job One done: Bush Removal. That's OK. Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land. But he was still Moses. So, we now have two Democratic candidates at the top who voted for the war. We have two at the bottom who have been anti-war -- Kucinich, who got 1% of the vote in Iowa and Al Sharpton who got 0%. And then we have Howard Dean who, after a year of campaigning in every Iowa county (where it seemed practically everyone met him at least once), could only scrape together 18% of the delegates. And then there is Wesley Clark, who is backed by George McGovern, the anti-Vietnam War presidential candidate and the conscience of a generation. He said Clark is the one candidate whose plan will end the war and bring the troops home. Clark may be, now, the anti-war vote's best chance. I believe he is. But in the meantime, let's tip our hats to Deaniacs everywhere. They've set the tone and the bar and have jump-started the movement to save our country. Good friends in the Dean camp, please don't give up. We need you now and we will need you in November. And, to Precinct 83 Captain Kelly Chambers, all your hard work has NOT been in vain. We cannot win without you. One year from today, at 12:01 PM, Bush leaves office. But only if the revolution you ignited continues beyond this week. Yours, Michael Moore
http://www.slate.com/id/2094290/ Dean, Lobotomized He shouldn't take that abuse from Diane Sawyer. By Timothy Noah Posted Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004, at 10:00 PM PT You think Howard Dean is too angry? In his interview Jan. 22 with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, he wasn't nearly angry enough. After the (unmarried) New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd sniffed that "The doctors Dean seem to be in need of some tips on togetherness and building a healthy political marriage," and the first female editor of the New Yorker compared Dean's missus to "the mad wife in Jane Eyre, screaming in the attic upstairs," the little woman relented and gave what Sawyer revealed with mild disgust was her very first television interview. Dr. Judith Steinberg, M.D., explained that she stays at home because she has her own private practice and my patients are my patients and they really depend on me and I really love it. It's not something I can say "Oh, you can take over for a month." It just doesn't work like that. This cut absolutely no ice with Sawyer, just as similar previous statements cut no ice with Sawyer's fellow career gals Dowd and Brown. Doing her best imitation of a Stepford Wife, Sawyer continued this line of questioning with the man of the house: "I have heard people say 'Where has she been?' And the answer to that would be … ?" (Translation: "Who wears the scrubs in this family?") Of course, Sawyer also had to cuff Dean for abandoning his promise not to use his wife as a prop: "And, yet just before Iowa, we saw Mrs. Dean for the first time. And, she's sitting here for this interview." To which Chatterbox hoped Dean would answer, "Yes, I dragged her out here, away from her patients and away from our teenage son, because hypocrites like you pretended to be shocked that my wife has a career and life of her own. Don't expect us to do this again." Instead, Dean meekly answered, "She wasn't a prop here." Dean also kept what Chatterbox considered an inappropriate calm as Sawyer played the now-famous Iowa Screaming Tape not once, not twice, but three times (there may have been a fourth; Chatterbox lost count). The outburst was the other great subject of the interview. At first, Dean defended himself, pointing out, "I was having a good time, look at me," and it's true; he's smiling on the tape. (Dean might also have pointed out, as Garance Franke-Ruta does on "Tapped," the American Prospect's Weblog, that the crowd was making an awful lot of noise, the acoustics were bad, and you had to shout very loudly to be heard.) But Sawyer was unappeasable: "t is the sort of thing that can hurt … really hurt you," she pressed. Eventually she had Dean almost apologizing: "I would not make the case for a moment that that was presidential." It was horrible to watch. (And it wasn't today's only grovel. Before the interview, during the candidate's debate on Fox News, Dean allowed that the mockery of his "hooting and hollering" had been justified. After the interview, in an appearance on Late Show With David Letterman Dean pledged to "switch to decaf" and engage in "fewer crazy red-faced rants.") Seeing Dean beg for mercy over what was merely an untelegenic display of enthusiasm called to mind the last scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, when Chief Bromden finds McMurphy, and he's been lobotomized, all rebellion and mischief sucked out of him, and you don't know whether to rage or weep. If only Dean had taken a swing at Nurse Ratched before they wheeled him into the operating
The Phony Dean 'Meltdown' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and media. The so-called Dean "meltdown," the claims that his campaign is finished, and his forced contrition are all symptoms of how debased the political dialogue has become. It's true that Dean yelled at his Monday night rally in Iowa. And so what? Basically, at a pep rally, he yelled like a football coach. This is described as being "unpresidential." But says who? Besides, what's the definition of 'presidential?' Isn't giving insulting nicknames to world leaders unpresidential? Isn't sending hundreds of American soldiers to die for uncertain and misrepresented ends in Iraq unpresidential—or worth considering as such? Isn't having an incredibly poor grasp of essential world facts and an aversion to detail and active decision making unpresidential? As far as I can tell, the worst Howard Dean has done is to try to be himself. (And, when criticized for that, to show some willingness to alter his demeanor.) But neither of those is good enough for a media that smells a good story—allegedly about personality, much more interesting than issues. We saw and see nearly every news outlet playing the footage of the rally again and again. We see headlines in the less-cautious papers about Dean "imploding," and gleeful spin from Republican strategists that Dean is "finished." From Slate magazine ("Mean Dean Loses Steam") to The New York Post ("Dean's Ballot-Box Conspiracy Theory"), it's all about painting him as unseemly, unstable and irrationally angry, rather than focusing on his ideas. And yet, carefully scrutinized, virtually everything the man has said accords with the beliefs and understanding of a significant portion of the American populace, and, significantly, of what has been reported in the media. But once something like this "meltdown" story gets started, the media go into a kind of inexorable black hole, and the pull is so great it becomes hard for thinking journalists and editors to resist. And not just journalists. It takes extraordinary mettle for anyone in the limelight to resist this. Once the howl of the pack gets loud enough, questioning the seriousness of Dean's so-called 'problems' becomes tantamount to downplaying allegations against Michael Jackson. Sometimes it's hard to remember, but presidents aren't primarily dinner party hosts or recruiting posters for perfection. They're supposed to be smart people who can make intelligent choices, mostly in private, that serve our interests. And they're supposed to be human. Ed Muskie probably wouldn't have been a bad president, nor would George Romney or John McCain, all of whom got slammed for showing quintessentially human traits on the campaign trail. Muskie didn't like his wife being attacked; Romney admitted to having been "brainwashed" on Vietnam (obviously less so than those fellow GOPsters who couldn't admit their mistakes), and McCain was charmingly blunt if occasionally brutish. As each could attest, candor isn't a priority in this society. People want to hear what makes them feel good and safe and strong, no matter the reality. As for Dean, one doesn't need to take sides to see that the treatment of this man is unbecoming of the media. It's also going to be seen in retrospect as colossally one-sided, not in any way balanced by comparable scrutiny or criticism of his rivals. If anything, this affair is a kind of test. Dean seems too tough a customer to back out after such a setback. And the fact remains that he essentially still holds exactly the same constituency he did before. If his supporters keep their eye on the ball, if Dean refuses to be distracted or rattled, and if the media somehow manage to restrain their headlong rush into tabloid-land, this country may yet have a meaningful conversation on what really matters. link
January 21, 2003 Dean in Freefall Howard's End? By SAM SMITH Dean is in trouble, no doubt of it. Primary cause is the most excessive and gratuitous media assault on a presidential candidate in recent times...Dean failed to accept the fact that before you can get elected by the people you have to be selected by the crowd in charge. You don't just run for president in the Democratic Party (unless you're a Sharpton or Kucinich doomed from the start); you ask permission nicely just like Clinton did. Show the elite that you want to come to Washington to serve them, not lead others. It's bad enough when a Georgia peanut farmer like Carter tries it, but Dean came out of the establishment himself so his crime was worse: betrayal rather than naiveté. And he paid the price. It's not political. Washington is a place where more things are done illegally or under the table than just about anywhere in the world. Where your laws are made--and broken--as Mark Russell used to say. And it's the world's most powerful private club. If you want to get ahead here the first thing you've got to do is shut your mouth. And show you respect the people who really run the place. Dean didn't do that. Dean had some other problems, though. The exit polls suggest that he had far narrower appeal than it originally appeared. He had the young and the very liberal but these were the only groups squarely in his camp. They were out there and being counted early. What wasn't being counted were the undecideds and the initially apathetic. Part of the really bad news for Dean is that he was unable to expand his core constituency. link
How is he elitist if you don't mind me asking? Tax cuts for the rich won't suffice as an answer either. I heard a guy talking about a meeting he had with Bush the other day, and how Bush made sure that he jogged on his treadmill and said his prayers before meeting with him. Elitists usually scoff at such actions, pray to God? What a simple man, I'm going back to reading the newest issue of the New Criterion.
I don't think I've ever seen a guy $hit his whole campaign away like the way Dean has. What he did was not that bad but he should have known better.
That was my point a month ago to Batman Jones whether he decides to grow a set on this board and admit or not. I don't really care about the actions themselves, but I do care that these actions show very poor judgement by the candidate and that should be a problem for voters. I commented a month ago that I was surprised the democratic party would want to put all their marbles behind a loose cannon like Howard Dean. If I were the party's leaders, I would take the current opportunity to distance myself from Dean and back another candidate because I think Dean has proven on numerous occasions that he lets his heart get the best of his mind in front of the camera and that has and will continue to get him into trouble and it sure as hell won't get him into office.
He shot himself in the foot again last night when he said, "in other words, I lead with my heart and not my head." Not exactly the comments you want to hear out of a president.
A month ago that's why I liked Dean. The party's leaders were never for this guy. That has always been one of his strong points. He had major support and fund raising all on his own. It was a real grass roots kind of thing and it was the Democratic's traditional leadership's worst nightmare. Then Dean stopped doing what he was doing, and the laughable rally speech was only the straw on the camel's back.
I can tell you why I think he might appear that way. Ivy league school, failed businessman who was able to still cash in because of top notch connections, able to attend to Yale because of top notch connections, CT, and Maine New Englander in all the 'best' clubs etc. The fact that he prays doesn't preclude him from being an elitest.
Yap yap yap. Look, a lot of the Dean hype was because Rove and FOX and such reliable sources made sure the media hyped him up. When it comes time to vote, people want someone who can beat Incurious George. You should be praying for Dean's miraculous turnaround. Kerry or Clark can actually beat George W.
What really is collapsing is the whole conglomerate of Democratic hopefuls sans Lieberman,... He is the only one who isn't going this way, then that way regarding the War against terror in Iraq...He is the only one who exemplifies integrity and professionalism, while the others are looking angry, amateurish, and downright silly (Dean, cough, cough...) You democrats best choice is Lieberman, because he seeks to reach out to other interests in political ideology while remaining set in democratic principles for homeland issues...but the Moore-ish fools want a whole new deal and candidate that won't work and win, because the vast majority of people are more appalled by the wayward nature of neo-democratic radicalized thinking...Clark, Dean, Kerry,...They all seem enamored with the radicalized ideology and this will prove their downfall... So far the characteristics of this "new-age" democrat is to #1. Be angry, and show it with the heart and not with the head...just what people want in a President #2. To shift positions multiple times on a subject in regards to wording, and to restate the meaning behind the wording, as if the wording is in another language or something... #3. Feel justified in permitting bombastic name-calling against the President of the United States without need to repel this stance or to distance their own position with this outlandish behavior...Listen here, You or I can call the President an assh0le or "deserter" till the cows come home...But in the political arena, this is death, and it may well be as Clark was most unwise in his wording when responding to how Moore called Bush a "deserter", and how he feels about this stance in light of Clark, himself expressing profound gratitude for Moore's support. Clark, came across as unprofessional, amateurish and frankly, more and more without integrity or class.... The fact is points #1, 2, and 3 can apply to all the front-runners thus far, and I would find these facts unsettling...I am not 100% happy with Bush, and I wouldn't mind a change in domestic issues and to can the moon/mars thing, but if this is the culmination of what democrats want, they absolutely are doomed before the get go... From an outsiders' point of view, Lieberman has the qualities that I see as best exemplifying leadership from the left, ...come hither...
Bush made sure that he jogged on his treadmill and said his prayers before meeting with him Come on, twhy, is that all you can do. Now Bush bought a little ranch a few months before he started to run fro the presidency. I suppose that makes him a cowboy. BTW, have you ever heard of what used to be called "the plain folks" version of political propaganda. It has been used for centuries by politicians. I guess you've fallen for it.
I hear that a lot of Republicans are coordinating a huge under-the-radar cross-registration in SC so that they have a lot of Repubs voting in the primary. The order is to vote for Dean.
Thanks for calling me plain folk. Ok either you guys think he's dumb or you think he's an elitist. Elitist is an attitude, the one most likely found on SamFisher's face as he reads posts in a little internet cafe someplace in the Village and complains about how dumb other people are, and deep down, he feels as if only one as brilliant as a Rhodes Scholar should be fit to rule. So, you claim to love the little guy, the common man (intelectually), and then when one becomes president you hate him. Come on guys pick it, is he a dimwit or an elitist, make up your mind.
