home

Rewriting Dean's Legacy

By Big Tent Democrat

While some worry about the DLC jumping on the Obama bandwagon, I find the old Deaniacs now jumping on the bandwagon as the much more hilarious phenomenon. This Ari Berman article is a hoot. Look at supposed Edwards operative Joe Trippi do the Obama two step:

[A] number of his top supporters believe the Clinton-Obama contest has become a referendum on the kind of grassroots party building and citizen empowerment Dean pioneered as a presidential candidate and continued as DNC chair. On that issue most Deaniacs, not surprisingly, side with Obama. "Ever since the TV era began in 1960, every single presidential campaign in America has been top-down," says Joe Trippi, Dean's '04 campaign guru and an adviser to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race. "Only two have been bottom-up. One was Dean. The other is Obama."

This so trivializes what Dean REALLY did in 2003, that I am insulted on his behalf. There was SUBSTANCE to the Dean Revolution. It was about Democrats being proud to be Democrats again and standing up for Democratic values. Apparently, that had nothing to do with Joe Trippi. Does anyone remember this?

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting tax cuts, which have bankrupted this country and given us the largest deficit in the history of the United States?

What I want to know is why the Congress is fighting over the Patient's Bill of Rights? The Patient's Bill of Rights is a good bill, but not one more person gets health insurance and it's not 5 cents cheaper.

What I want to know is why the Democrats in Congress aren't standing up for us, joining every other industrialized country on the face of the Earth in providing health insurance for every man, woman and child in America.

What I want to know is why so many folks in Congress are voting for the President's Education Bill-- "The No School Board Left Standing Bill"-- the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our educational system!

As Paul Wellstone said-- as Sheila Kuehl said when she endorsed me-- I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

. . . We are not going to beat George Bush by voting with the President 85 percent of the time. The only way that we're going to beat George Bush is to say what we mean, to stand up for who we are, to lift up a Democratic agenda against the Republican agenda because if you do that, the Democratic agenda wins every time.

I want my country back! We want our country back! I am tired of being divided! I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore! I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together - black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! The Democratic Party! We are going to win in 2004! Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stand up for America, Stand up for America, Stand up for America!!

(Emphasis supplied.) I have written about Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and I think Berman and others do not understand it. But that is a debate we can have. But it offends me that people like Joe Trippi argue that Barack Obama is a natural extension of Fighting Democrats like Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone. Excuse me, I saw Howard Dean in 2003. I admired what he did to give Democrats their fighting spirit back. Barack Obama has no resemblance to the Howard Dean that helped make me proud to be a member of the Democratic Party.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Jack Nicholson Makes a Video for Hillary | Obama Plans to Appoint Some Republicans to His Cabinet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    big tent... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    sometimes i think you're just not fired up and ready to go.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    I am fired up and ready to go FIGHT for a Democratic agenda and for Democrats PROUD to be Democrats.

    Parent
    you have to hope (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    for change...

    Parent
    Great post, BTD. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    Count me in too.  I admired Dean and was proud to bits of him.  Unlike Obama who gave his speech and then went back to his comfy fireplace at home, Dean took heat.  It took tremendous courage for him to do what he did.  I had goosebumps listening to Dean.  

    The speech you posted is a perfect example. Dean wasn't a phony.  That speech wasn't a phony.  And BTW, Dean doesn't cite that fr*&ing speech everyday, holding it up as the greatest thing in the history of American.  Dean didn't have a fifth anniversary of my speech.

    Dean's passion and fire came from deep inside him.  

    Obama is just a typical politician who has been marketed to death.  The movement is fake.  It's just a giant i-phone marketing redux.  

    What is sad is that every supporter of Obama keeps saying look how he has inspired people.  What they are saying is that "I am for Obama since lots of other people seem to be for Obama".  Does that make any f**ing sense?? Not one of them could point to the fundamental principle of this movement.  Because there is none.

    I wish I could find the link which said that big rallies were always part of Axelrod plan.  They everything (such as aggressively getting people to Obama rallies) to give the appearance of a movement.   And then you know what happens with public "me too" when the seeds are planted.  And then air-heads such Bill Maher in the media and others follow.  

    Parent

    Marketing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by 0 politico on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    I agree it has been great marketing by the Obama campaign, mixed with good slight of hand.  A potential problem is that the marketing may be wearing thin, particularly if people find he is not the ideal candidate they all thought he was.


    Parent
    I wish it wouldn't take so long to wear thin. (none / 0) (#180)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    We're running out of time.

    Parent
    I know what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    It has been thin with me from the start.  Yes, I thought the 2004 speech was magnificent and impressive, and even moving, but my god, let's try to get a grip and take a really good look at what we may be buying.  The very notion or "kicking the tires" sets off howls of protest from the truly smitten and committed, those who seemingly will not recover from the hysteria.  I have no idea why the notion of vetting their candidate is so threatening.  It has become truly surreal.

    Parent
    One (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by tek on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    of my Obama supporter friends told me today, you just have to hope that a lot of what he says is campaign rhetoric!

    He's gonna vote for him anyway.

    Parent

    also heard that the Ocamp provided buses (none / 0) (#213)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    and lodging to volunteers from outside
    the state they were having a primary, ie:
    Wisconsin where it was hella cold.

    I give them that, but its at enormous expense. Even though the little people who supposedly fund his campaign are shelling out 5$ donations and of course the caps, mugs and t-shirts sales.How long before they're maxed out?

    I can't swallow that just yet. I commend him for
    doing it if he actually is or he's the biggest shammer on the planet.

    Parent

    Right on. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    And that's exactly what I've been trying to show Obama fans re: the difference between Howard Dean (of '03) and Obama in '08.  Dean's campaign was about the party and its values.  Obama's campaign is about Obama (and the more I read about Obama, the more I don't see him embracing core Democratic values or tactics).

    Obama's campaign is about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    I doubt most of his supporters would disagree much with this.


    Parent
    I guess that's what scares me. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    They don't seem to comprehend what that indicates.

    Parent
    I think they most certinaly would (none / 0) (#171)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    In fact I really can't imagine the head-space you must be in to see things that way.

    Parent
    Well, there's a lot of us in that head space. (none / 0) (#182)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:43:10 PM EST
    Try it. It's sane in here.

    Parent
    Many people (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    Many people think that H. Clinton has behaved as if she is owed the nomination. What you see in Obama is what many see in Clinton.

    Who running for office doesn't have a big ego.

    However, the article that Big D was referring to was about Dean's fifty-state strategy. And how Obama has used it successfully.

    Parent

    Hillaryd does it (none / 0) (#137)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    too is not an argument for Obama. But it seems to be the best argument many Obama fans have.

    Parent
    Running for office (none / 0) (#146)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:36:43 PM EST
    rewards a psychological need for ego gratification. Recognition. The overblown need for it is in every politician. People who don't possess that don't run for office. Believe me, I've survived enough elections from close up to see it.

    I'm surprised you wouldn't know that.

    Parent

    Except that it's hardly gratifying (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    actually WINNING a tough race over winning races where you systematically cleared the field (either directly or indirectly) before the elections.

    He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

    Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

    Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets -- to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district -- to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

    "A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."

    He lost his first bid for Congress because he couldn't do the same to Bobby Rush.  But then...

    Three years later, in January 2003, Obama announced his bid for the U.S. Senate, where he cruised to victory thanks to the self-destruction of his top opponents in both the primary and general elections.

    Obama joined a crowded field of seven candidates vying to fill an open Senate seat being vacated by retiring two-term incumbent Peter Fitzgerald. For months, he polled in the middle-of-the-pack behind frontrunner and former securities trader Blair Hull, who spent $30 million of his own fortune on the primary.

    But Hull's campaign imploded just weeks before the election when his divorce files were unsealed, revealing an ex-wife's charges of verbal and physical abuse.

    Obama unleashed a barrage of television ads just before the election, when the other candidates had largely depleted their war chests. He won the nomination with 53 percent of the vote.

    In the general election, Obama squared off against another multimillionaire: Jack Ryan, who later dropped out of the race after a judge ordered his divorce files unsealed. The documents revealed that Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, a former Miss Illinois best known for her role as Seven of Nine on Star Trek: Voyager, accused him of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public.

    Obama spent several weeks facing no opponent as the Illinois Republican Party exhausted a laundry list of replacement candidates that included former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka. The GOP ended up recruiting two-time failed presidential hopeful Alan Keyes from Maryland to fill the slot.

    source

    Parent

    This part is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:53:11 PM EST
    But Hull's campaign imploded just weeks before the election when his divorce files were unsealed, revealing an ex-wife's charges of verbal and physical abuse.

    It wasn't an implosion it was an explosion and the fuse was lit by the Obama campaign.

    About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull's second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story.

    The post-partisan politics of hope and change was birth by dirty politics.

    Source.

    Parent

    Shorter Joe Trippi.... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    I destroyed the Edwards campaign by running a top-down strategy.

    *****
    Howard Dean was never what you'd call a great speaker.  His applause lines were about substance -- and he wasn't afraid to take on the Democratic establishment.  

    In contrast...

    The Democratic wing (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:34:58 PM EST
    of the Democratic party...has left the building (or so it appears with all of the adulation for Mr. Obama)

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:46:42 PM EST
    That doesn't even make sense.

    That means that the candidate with the most votes and with the most delegates, and who is almost assured of getting the nomination now, is not a Democrat to your eye?

    Parent

    x (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    Why do you keep doing this? Throughout this entire thread you've been ignoring the point that BTD made in his post.

    The point is that Dean ran as a proud partisan and Obama is not. It's that simple.

    Look, it's fine to support Obama but let's be intellectually honest here. Dean's campaign rhetoric is the exact opposite of Obama's.


    Parent

    proud democrat (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by 0 politico on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    Correct.

    If I am asked to support a democratic candidate, I would like that person to be running as a democrat, with a desire to have a strong democratic party and agenda.

    Senator Obama has been campaigning more like he wants to be the national political mediator.  That is not the way to push an agenda, democratic or otherwise.  I do negotiations as part of my profession.  I have to know what is important for the side I am arguing and what is not.  What has to be kept at all costs, and what can be sacrificed.  In Washington, if you go in without a clear vision of what is important to your side, you will get taken by the other side.

    So, does the country need a President, or does it need a National Mediator?

    In my view, the President needs to direct the discussion, whatever the agenda is.  Not sit back and ask how we can accommodate everyone.  If that happens, not much of anything will get accomplished.

    Parent

    I think you take on this is mistaken (none / 0) (#173)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    He is not trying to be the national mediator. He is trying to show some respect for people who do not yet align themselves with us, so that the psycholigical barrier to joining us breaks down. He is trying to build our movement by increasing the number of people who join it (what a concept, eh?).

    Parent
    barriers (none / 0) (#224)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    the psychological(sic) barrier to joining us breaks down

    What are psychological barriers that would prevent someone from joining "you" and how are they broken down?  I am not trying to seem disrespectful but want to know. Many here seem to be having the some type of barrier to joining.  If Obama ends up being the democratic nominee, we will need to know.

    Parent

    there is a sense amongst lots (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:29:24 PM EST
    of Republicans and independents that they, as people, are not respected by the "liberal elites". I know, I know, media constructs and right-wing propaganda, obviously. But it has caught on because in some way it resonates with something these people feel - a certain alienation from Democrats.

    They may agree that the war was wrong, they may agree that the health care system sucks and they are afraid they will lose thier insurance, they may sense that the economic cards are stacked against them, but if they cannot feel a gut level connection with a candidate, then they will not trust them. That is basic human psychology.

    Obama doesn't make them feel that way. He speaks of values that underlie the partisan divisions. He speaks of a politics that invites them in, that extends to them some respect - not on the basis of the fact that they may have voted for the GOP, or that they beleived at one point the GOP policy line, but on a deeper sense - he shows them the basic respect of promising to listen to them, and he connects with their desire for the leader of the country to be someone who envisions the country as a united whole.

    Hillary has a confrontational attitude. She may mean well by it - seeing it as something focused on the GOP politicians and policies. But it comes across to those who might still be barely hanging on to a Repbulican identity as being confrontational to them as well. The message from her to them, from their perspective is, we will crush you. Obama's message is, we respect you and hope you join us.

    That is what I mean by lowering the psychological barriers to them voting their real interests.

    Parent

    thank you, mary mary. (none / 0) (#193)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    Not a Dean Democrat anyway (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:56:27 PM EST
    He doesn't have (none / 0) (#154)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    the most votes from Democrats.

    Does that make sense to you?

    Parent

    Not to me (none / 0) (#222)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    This is from ABC News on December 20, 2007: (none / 0) (#188)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:56:01 PM EST
    ABC's Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

    "It's premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean, I'm pretty confident. but I'm not all that confident. We still got a long way to go," Obama said.

    But then the GOP names started to flow.

    Sen. Dick Lugar: "He's a Republicans who I worked with on issues of arms control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think embodies the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible, that is not ideological, that is based on the idea that we have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world," Obama said about his Senate colleague.

    Sen. Chuck Hagel: "A Vietnam vet, similar approach and somebody I respect in a similar fashion," Obama added.

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "What (he's) doing on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don't agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington," Obama said of the California governor.

    Parent

    oh this is just icing on the cake, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:06:25 PM EST
    ugh.

    Parent
    and the 'progressive' blogs (none / 0) (#202)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    will cheer.

    Parent
    you're so right, btd. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    i'm dismayed at the wholesale re-writing of history throughout this campaign, aided by the likes of trippi.  dean was a fighting democrat and made me proud to be a democrat--that was why i loved the guy.  obama doesn't make me proud to be a democrat; he almost makes me feel ashamed for having to point out that i am one.  in a democratic primary, no less.

    False Metric (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    It's as though anyone who isn't Hillary Clinton is by definition a revolutionary.  Wrong.

    Obama doesn't come close to Dean.  Dean stood for something.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#195)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    i don't think we disagree.

    Parent
    The problem with your critique (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    The problem with your critique, Big D, is that the article was about Dean's bottom up, fifty-state strategy. To say that it didn't remember Dean's positions on issues in 2004 is beside the point. The article wasn't about his positions. It was about how to win primaries.

    Clinton has run a top-down campaign, concentrated on big donors, didn't plan past Super Tuesday and ignored red states. Those have been the typical strategies that have kept the Democrats, a party whose ideas represent the majority of Americans, a minority party.

    Dean's fifty-state strategy, as adopted by candidate Obama, is why Clinton has lost eleven straight elections. It's why she hasn't been able to win caucuses. And it's why Obama has been successful.

    The next firewall, Ohio and Texas, is now maybe Ohio and then wait until Pennsylvania. That's not going to win the nomination.

    Obama has not bottom up strategfy (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
    But that is a different point altogether.

    I strongly diagree with that too.

    But to ignore what I am discussing when discussing Obama is an heir to Dean is so ridiculous that it is the first point of rebuttal.

    Parent

    Think again BD (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:38:42 PM EST
    The stratagies by the Obama campaign took Dean's incredible organizational efforts in 2004 and did those strategies one better. In my state there are currently 96 Obama groups, all self-organized, all from the grassroots. The man who organizes his region of the state for Obama is an unpaid volunteer who simply held brown bag lunches and the people supporting Obama started showing up. Now that little group is 100+ strong. His group marched in last year's 4th of July parade. There was no contact with the Obama campaign until a couple of months ago.

    Moaning over Dean ought to be turned into celebrating Dean's fine organizational work with the Democratic National Party by getting your feet on the street.

    How many of you are familiar with Dean's new Neighbor 2 Neighbor program? Check your county organizations and ask them what it is and join up ASAP. The concept being implemented is growing at a furious rate.

    Whom ever is selected as the Democratic nominee will inhererit the magnificant work of Dean and his field representativesin all 50 states.

    Clinton still isn't on the ground in my state. The Obama folks were marching in last year's 4th of July parade all organized through those brown bag lunches I referenced earlier. We vote in our primary in May.

    It is predicted one Democratic presidential nominee will be handed a list of hundreds of Neighborhood Leaders who have been calling or canvassing 20 to 25 Democrats & Independents in preparation for the gigantic hand off from the N2N organization to the candidate.With several neighborhood leaders the work has been spread into manageable units and increases response time, rather than relying on over burdened precinct captains. That's Dean's legacy, not 2004 as a candidate.

    Only one campaign understands what Dean has created and only one campaign has been working for over a year from the bottom with the little people. That candidate took the diamond in the rough Dean developed and has cut and polished the diamond into thousands of sparkling rays of light.
    That candidate has troops ready to march. The other does not.

    Thanks Howard Dean!

    Parent

    Very good! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    What was the famous Joe Hill quote? "Don't mourn, organize."

    That's what will win the Democrats the White House, the House and Senate, and state houses across the country.

    Decades back, one of my jobs in my union was to talk with new employees and sign them up. I had people who'd come from countries where to talk union was a death sentence. Getting people together to work for change is what is going to change things.

    You don't like Obama? Develop a bigger and better organization.

    Parent

    Dean's substance (4.20 / 5) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    has been mutilated by the Obama campaign. I do NOT celebrate THAT.

    Parent
    What are their differences of opinion? (none / 0) (#199)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:19:07 PM EST
    Seems like Obama and Dean share basically all of the same policy positions.

    Parent
    Fifty-state strategy (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    I'd love to hear your take on the fifty-state strategy... but it's not part of the article either.

    But there is an explanation as to why Obama has won in many states where Clinton barely contested. Obama had people working for him in places where Clinton didn't bother going herself, or sending enough people, or getting enough people locally to organize. The example in the article is Idaho. Dems may never carry Idaho in the general election, but Obama beat Clinton there and got almost all of the delegates. Why? Either Clinton conceded the state (which is what I've heard over and over during the primary) or she battled head-on and lost (I've heard no one say this).

    If Obama is willing to campaign and to have workers in every state, that is a fifty-state strategy (okay, this year 48). If Clinton pours her resources only into large Democratic states then that's her choice.

    Oje makes some interesting points and his view on strategy is on target. (I disagree with him about what he portrays as the wide gap between Clinton and Obama. Clinton is a little stronger on ecology, Obama is a little stronger on the war. Neither healthcare plan is complete or workable, and there will be a lot of dickering and hopefully a large Dem majority before anything gets past Congress.)  

    But it's irrelevant to the article. The article was about Dean's fifty-state strategy and how Obama used it. And how Clinton didn't.

    Parent

    I put in the link (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    to my take in THIS post.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#98)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    But it's not part of The Nation's article. On this we can agree.

    Parent
    That is my complaint (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    It is a wonder you do not understand that yet.

    Parent
    Your complaint (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    is that you don't write for The Nation. Or that you don't write for Ari Berman.

    On this we can agree.

    Parent

    The Democrats who were terrified of Dean (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    ...are the Democrats behind Obama's campaign. The man who created the Osama bin ladin attack commercials against Dean in 2004, working for Kerry at the time, is now Obama's Communications Director. Kerry's organization, staff and financial backers (from Wall Street and elsewhere), along with those of Gephart and Daschle, were the early backers of Obama's presidential bid -- helping to provide him with more money than any other primary candidate in history BEFORE he had his online fundraising effort up and running.

    esmense (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    The article wasn't about Dean's candidacy. It was about his tactics, which Obama's campaign used and which Clinton's ignored at her own peril. That's a big reason why she's lost the last eleven primaries.

    Parent
    There you go again (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:10:59 PM EST
    Obama's "tactics?" That is to trivialize what Dean did.

    Dean STOOD UP for rank and file Democrats. That was his  first "tactic."

    The speech I highlight MADE Howard Dean.

    Then the bottom up aspect kicked in. The PEOPLE made Howard Dean a frontrunner, because of what he was saying.

    Obama is a "rock star" top down candidate whose message is Kumbaya Unity Schtick that has to be explained away to Democrats.

    There is simply no comparison between them.

    Parent

    Tactics (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    There was a very interesting book written in 1944 called THE NAZIS GO UNDERGROUND. It's a fascinating study of how the Nazis figured out how to survive. You'll actually see people who are surprisingly like current public figures. If you can find a copy or find it online, read it.

    In one chapter the author Kurt Reiss describes the cellular nature of the Communists during the Russian Revolution, and how the Black Reichsfehr/Nazis adopted the same technique for their rise to power.

    Two different revolutionary movements used the same tactic to rise to power.

    You can harrumph all you want, but The Nation article to which you refer is about how Obama used the Dean example of the fifty-state strategy to grab a whole lot of delegates that Clinton never bothered to contest. And that's a major reason why she's losing the nomination.

    You may infer that any reference to Obama using Dean's strategies somehow besmirches Dean's legacy all the way to the convention. I don't see either candidate as anywhere near Dean on the Left-Right scale, but you can see it however you want.

    The article was about the fifty-state strategy, as used by Obama.

    Parent

    Consider this comment (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    a Harrumph.

    Parent
    And if we ever meet (none / 0) (#150)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:41:14 PM EST
    that harrumph is worth a beer on me! If you ever pass through Pacifica let me know. I'll buy it for you.

    Parent
    Howard Dean worship (none / 0) (#219)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:48:07 PM EST
    BD time to chill. You are so inaccurate and uninformed its amazing. Dean had some mo. Dean blew his mo. Dean became a very talented and different leader of the DNC. Dean has transformed Democratic politics. Keep grinding your teeth while the rest of us are way past 2003.

    Parent
    Rock star???? (none / 0) (#221)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:50:56 PM EST
    Only in the sense that Dean has the Democratic Party totally reorganized, not as a candidate. Sorry BD. Your fan worship is so over.

    Parent
    some of us care as much or (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    more about substance than tactics.  one of the largest causes of alarm for me in this election has been that obama has adopted the tactics and not the commitment to substance.  so i'm glad btd wrote this post.

    Parent
    kangaroo (none / 0) (#109)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    If you are interested in substance and not in tactics, then you probably weren't all that interested in The Nation's article.

    If you ever do become interested in why Clinton is losing the nomination, you might get interested in tactics. Your choice.

    Parent

    I saw Trippi on NOW last night (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    and I think he is absolutely right. BTD still, at this late date, doesn't seem to get it.

    The Obama campaign is wholly in the same mindset that the Dean campaign pioneered - a mindset that speaks not only to the modalities of grass-roots organizing in the information age, but, even more audaciously :), of a wholly new mechanism for citizen involvement in actual governance, after the election.

    Others in this thread have written about how the Obama campaign has worked so hard, and so effectivly on the ground in all 50 states, and how the Clinton campaign has approached this campaign in the typical fashion of trying to target just enough standard demographic groups to get the candidate over the line.

    The difference in mentality is striking. How to win an election for a candidate, versus how to build a movement for a party. The mobilization of a million small donors, of tens of thousands of volunteers, of countless points of engagement, especially on the net, the building of an information-age community that will form the popular backbone of support for the new Democratic majority - all this was first pioneered in the Dean campaign and brilliantly extended and built upon by the Obama campaign. The Clinton campaign seems mired in the last century by comparison.

    All the bitter talk of Obama as centrist, compared to Dean etc. is not worth much in my estimation. In the end, Howard Dean was not an attractive candidate, certainly not to the Democrats of Iowa, and we all know how his campaign imploded. Obama is an infinitly better candidate, and his positions are not any different than Clinton's on the ideological scale. Given that Clinton was a founding part of the DLC and Obama is not, given how Clinton is slightly more attractive to moderates, given how so much of the non-TL progressive movement has embraced Obama, the argument we see here don't seem very realistic to me. After 8 months of Obama campaigning against John McCain, I strongly suspect that most around here will come to some pretty stark realizations of how completely wrong they have been about Obama.

    There is a very powerful Democratic movement being built around us as we speak, or write. A movement that will define American politics for a generation or more. I am just so amazed that some people, who probably have been dreaming of just such a thing, can sit by and watch it happen and not ever realize what is going on.

    This is hilarious (5.00 / 8) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    The difference in mentality is striking. How to win an election for a candidate, versus how to build a movement for a party.

    Obama is not building the Democratic Party. He is building the Obama MOVEMENT.

    Nothing says it more than his absolute unwillingness to embrace the Democratic Party brand.

    You either do not get it, or willfully iignore my point.

    you have been consistent in this forever.

    You are simply not worth engagin on this issue because you refuse to actually address what I write.

    You may be convincing yourself but you are not and have never ever engaged my argument. EVER.

    It is very likely that Obama will be the nominee and we will see how he build the Dem Party brand for November.

    Then perhaps you will understand.

    Parent

    I think it is hilarious, too, BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    but somehow these Obama folks never make me laugh in a good, Democratic party, way.

    Parent
    I am not willfully ignoring your point. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    Your point is wholly wrong, in my opinion. And the more you are challanged on it, the more you defend it, and the bigger the hole you dig for yourself.

    Of course I have been consistent. You have been too. One of us is completely wrong. I think it is you, you think it is me.

    And you are right. We will all see what happens in the future. I do respect a lot of what you do, and I do fully expect that you will come to grips with reality at some point. I promise not to gloat.

    Parent

    tano, the difference between you (none / 0) (#197)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:14:59 PM EST
    and a lot of commenters here is that we hope we're wrong.  at least i do, anyway.  the fact that you even mention gloating makes me think you see this all as some kind of zero-sum game, and that you don't appreciate the seriousness of the stakes.

    Parent
    thats not a difference between us (none / 0) (#232)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:34:24 PM EST
    I hope you are wrong too.

    Parent
    I suspect (none / 0) (#157)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:53:31 PM EST
    I suspect that there hasn't been a Democratic President ahead of the people since FDR, and maybe not then, considering the rise of he radical left back then.

    I think that both remaining candidates are not as progressive as the majority of Democrats (or even all Americans) on Iraq, trade agreements, healthcare, etc.

    The more people who are involved in the Democratic primaries, the more Democrats who are elected in the fall, the more to the left that the country is. Whoever the Dem nominee is will have the dynamic of being pushed by his/her constituency.

    In 1992 I was a vocal opponent to Bill Clinton's NAFTA. It didn't take too much cogitating to realize what "free trade" without labor free to organize would do for working class jobs in the U.S., and knowing that it wasn't too hard to figure out who benefited. I supported Clinton in spite of this. He was worse than I imagined, but he was still better than Bush.

    Parent

    BD (none / 0) (#223)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM EST
    Obama needs the Democratic Party. He is working well within the structure of the party. If you really want to see a movement go on the History Channel and study Martin Luther King's Movement, the Peace Movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Obama is just a popular candidate for a variety of reasons, he's not even close to movement status.

    Parent
    obama and his tactics? yeah right! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    support for the democratic party? sorry, he has better things to do.  

    Parent
    I am still not sure, (none / 0) (#122)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    with all you have said, what this new movement is about.

    I think you are saying that "we" are taking over from your old antiquated ideas and you don't even know you have been marginalized.

    I hear you  telling me that I no longer belong in the party and that I can either join you or leave.

    Thanks for letting me know.

    Parent

    I cant help you (none / 0) (#151)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:43:00 PM EST
    if you are going to hear what you want to hear, irrespective of what I actually say. I never said anything of the sort that you accuse me of.

    And what is this feigned ignorance - I dont know what this movement is about? How has Obama in any conceivable way, not addressed the exact same issues, in the exact same details as Hillary has. They may have a different take on some of the details, but they are both pushing very similar agendas, and those represent an the overwhelming conensus of what Democrats see as important priorities.

    Parent

    I leave those who diusagree with this thought (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    Are those of us who think as we do compeletely without a basis for our concern?

    You can think what you want of me, but those of you who know me know my record on THIS issue is consistent from 2003 to the present.

    Weren't you (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:24:52 PM EST
    a Wes Clark partisan?

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:28:49 PM EST
    Wow the ammount of words that are used to explain the Obama position makes me think that it would be better to have a boiler-plate of some kind.  You know, What ____ meant was _____  or But ______ did the same thing. : )

    Hillary Is Death To the 50 State Strategy (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Justina on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST
    I'm baffled. BigTent writes:

    "Excuse me, I saw Howard Dean in 2003. I admired what he did to give Democrats their fighting spirit back. Barack Obama has no resemblance to the Howard Dean that helped make me proud to be a member of the Democratic Party."

     If you so strongly supported Dean's Democratic Party building values and his 50 state strategy, how can this website possibly support the Clinton  forces who attempted to block his election as chair of the DNC and who so viciously attacked Dean after the success of his 50 state strategy, a sucess which was demonstrated by the winning of a Democratic majority in both houses in the 2006 election.

    If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and thus control over the DNC, Dean and his strategy will be summarily dismissed and his strategy dismantled.

    I was a very active Dean supporter in 2004, and a Kucinich then an Edwards supporter for 2008, so I am by no means enthralled by the namby-pamby positions thus far taken by Obama.  

    I am not enthralled, but I will vote for him.  Why?  Because Obama was a Dean supporter in 2004 and has publicly supported his 50 state strategy.  Indeed, Obama has used his own 50 state strategy to run a very effective campaign. Clinton and her advisors have eschewed local party building.

    A Clinton victory means the return of James Carville and his DLC ilk to control of the DNC, which means a return to the party as a corporate fund-raising department for Republic-lite values.

    Dean's policies have elected thousands of progressive Democrats to office in both the state Democratic Parties and state elected offices.  

    These are the voices which will determine the future of the Democratic Party for years to come.  Hopefully, this will result in the election of a real Dean Democrat as president in the near future.

    Maybe Obama, if he wins, will govern as a Dean Democrat, that is a only a hope. But we can certainly know for sure that Hillary Clinton will not govern as a Dean Democrat.

    For the sake of our party's (and our country's) future, Clinton must not be the Democratic candidate.

    Obama Is Definitely Not Running As A (4.55 / 9) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    leader of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. His campaign could more accurately be described as the Reagan wing of the Obama party.

    this is just so absurd one barely knows (none / 0) (#174)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    where to begin.

    Maybe you could list all the Reaganite positions that Obama takes. Given that his positions are 95% identical to Hillary's -good luck with that.

    Parent

    Obama's Right Wing Talking Points (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:19:57 PM EST
    Per Obama, Social Security is in a crisis. Dems spent a year debunking the Republican rhetoric of Social Security being in a crisis state. It was one of the few times the Dems stood united and defeated the Republicans while they were in the minority.

    Obama's Harry and Louise ad is straight out the Republican play book. It was used very successfully to kill any chance of Universal Health Care in the 90's and has a good chance of being a poison pill for any universal coverage being adopted now.

    Obama perpetuating the myth that Reagan was a great American president when in fact he was the white supremacists wet dream. Had he been successful in pushing through his agenda, he would have rolled back all the civil right gains of the sixties and the seventies.

    His positions on these issues are no where near Hillary's. They are very definitely Obama's very own.

    Parent

    Reagan ran (none / 0) (#204)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    a 'feel good' campaign.

    Obama is running a similar campaign, though it differs on the generation target.

    Parent

    But the difference is that Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    was always a partisan for his party and his ideology.  He just fudged over that with his genial manner and people were swayed into thinking he was such a nice guy. Meanwhile, people were starving on the streets waiting for that "tickle down effect" to kick in..

    Parent
    Strange (none / 0) (#208)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:11:27 PM EST
    Do you really think Obama's out there stumping for anything but a progressive Dem agenda? Are you really tricked by someone saying they're non-partisan but then offering nothing but the most standard partisan Dem policies? That rhetoric is meant for Indies and non-movement Republicans, to get their guard down and draw them in on pragmatic grounds. The base should be smart enough to understand the policies as presented. Perhaps he's over-estimating on that.

    What Reagan did is exactly what Obama is doing. Minus the people starving on the streets of course.

    Parent

    Let's see (none / 0) (#209)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:16:21 PM EST
    That rhetoric is meant for Indies and non-movement Republicans, to get their guard down and draw them in on pragmatic grounds.

    So he is being Hypocritical to them?

    What Reagan did is exactly what Obama is doing. Minus the people starving on the streets of course.

    Can you see into the future? or Is this wishful thinking on your part?

    Parent

    I can read the policies (none / 0) (#211)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    Which are the merest whisker away from those of that hard-fightin' partisan Dem icon so worshipped here, Sen Clinton.

    Only geeks vote on the basis of actual policy. To the rest it never goes beyond  "I want change" or "I want to see a woman in the WH." Simple marketing. Morning in America.

    As for hypocritical, I think it's called politics.

    Parent

    Yeah but when your candidate (3.50 / 2) (#214)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    is being sold as a different kind of candidate and he continually acts like any other candidate mind you the Republicans will make this come out in the GE.  And in reality, take this from a dissatisfied Republican it really doesn't work.  Those of us who know that Bush and his kind are bad for America and the Republican Party already made our decision in 2004 by voting for Kerry the other Republicans voting in the primaries and caucuses of the Democrats, I have my suspicions about them.  The best advice I would give him is to solidify the base and let the dissatisfaction with things as they are take care of the rest.  If he gets tagged as hypocrite and it sticks he is uphill from then on.  Just the opinion of someone who campaigned for Bush the father against Reagan in 1980   If people can not see what they believe is the core values of their Party in the candidate they may stay home or vote against that candidate.  I always so Reagan as a danger to America so I stayed home.

    Parent
    The best advice (none / 0) (#225)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST
    for a Dem is not to take advice from a Republican, dissatisfied or not. j/k

    I think he believes in what he's doing just as much or more than Reagan ever did, and that sincerity comes through, despite all the tawdriness of the politics that must be played.

    Parent

    I don't think Reagan was so sincere (none / 0) (#228)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    as most people seem to believe.  I am voting for the Democratic nominee regardless because McCain is worse than anything out there.  I just hope that the smear machine is not effective and I have seen elections for a long time.  They have gotten almost as dirty and mean as the ones in the 18th and 19th centuries. : )  I know that machine seeing it develop is what drove me away from being an activist in My Party.

    Parent
    Obama is running an organized campaign (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    A campaign that is bottom up, that has the people on the ground working their butts off not because it is a feel good campaign but because it is a different campaign then "top down Washington insider, Hilary Clinton." It doesn't feel good to make calls and walk door to door..it is hard work. It is the candidate who will take the country away from the old ways of Bush and of Clinton.

    Parent
    What Dean was and what Dean is (3.00 / 2) (#102)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    The possiblity exists that only one candidate will go forward in a short period of time. Trippi and Dean were internet small donor pioneers and  Dean's message took swats at the DNC leadership and establishment. Like any great leader Dean jumped into the DNC and turned it's way of doing it's business inside out.

    State Party Chairs sing Dean's praises for his extraordinary leadership and organizational talent. Gone are the days of top down within the Democratic Party. States have regional field reps paid for by Dean's DNC, communication directors for key states are on the DNC payroll and more. Training is provided in every state to understand and use the grassroots approach to win elections.

    Dean's organization was noticed by an outsider who wanted to become president. He was not a "within the beltway" thinker, he didn't have the years of being polished into a Washington insider. Like Dean, who'd been a Governor from a small state and was wrapped up in the inexperience argument, this candidate has endured institutional racism his entire life. He has seen the mean streets and moved to help pull others up from the bootstraps. He's worked outside the system more than he ever worked inside the formal Party structure.

    Because this candidate is more independent from the Democratic Party he's gained traction. He works within the Party, across party lines and resonates with the left of the left independents. Droves of Pacific Green's are changing their voter registration. The point is, a very careful grassroots organization by Dean is one candidates low hanging fruit to pick.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    You talking about Edwards? Obama was NEVER following the Dean model ever.

    Parent
    Those who do not (none / 0) (#170)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:27:07 PM EST
    learn from history, should at least understand the point of articles in The Nation.

    Parent
    Dean endured (none / 0) (#220)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    institutional racism?  Um....

    Parent
    Read carefully (none / 0) (#227)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    Obama endures institutional racism and Clinton endures institutional sexism.

    Parent
    I did. (none / 0) (#230)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:24:41 PM EST
    "Like Dean, who'd been a Governor from a small state and was wrapped up in the inexperience argument, this candidate has endured institutional racism his entire life."

    You have some good points in this thread but this isn't one of them.

    Parent

    you are no democrat! your attitude is an (none / 0) (#233)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:38:06 PM EST
    insult.

    Parent
    furthermore anyone who is a democrat (none / 0) (#234)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:40:24 PM EST
    knows republicans use democrat and refuse to use the term democratic as an insult.

    Parent
    Unles and until Obama plus his supporters convince (3.00 / 2) (#152)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    me that they are truly democrat and want to push democratic values, I shall opt out of this election in November, and I know that statement reflects MANY democrats that I have spoken with .......

    Tano! Tano! Tano! (2.66 / 3) (#138)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:28:33 PM EST
    It is truely amazing to watch what is going on and even more fun to be part of the Democrat Party with Dean's stellar leadership. The similarities between Dean and Obama coming from outside the party structure seems obvious. The fact that Clinton has been a Washington insider seems equally obvious.

    The new DNC oganization is fantastic! Those of us who avoided party politics at all costs have given the Dean strategy a chance. People are pouring into our Democratic Headquarters FIRST wanting to take back their country. No national or statewide campigns are in our minds until voters have solidified who the candidates will be. We work together following Dean's organizational plans to strenghten the grass roots organization. It is remarkable and interesting work. Once we have a candidate, we will pull the curtian back and say, "Look what we've done to help you win."

    My job and yours is to have a Democrat in the White House. This site has done much to divide and little to unite Democrats.

    Thanks Tano for your great post.

    poster, you say you are of the (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    DEMOCRATIC PARTY and yet you use an insulting term only used by republicans. democrat party? naw!

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#167)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    Maybe the Clinton campaign needs a theme song to bring people together. Or at least over.

    hellothere, you have proven Jane's point.

    Parent

    My oops! (none / 0) (#216)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:39:55 PM EST
    Sometimes my fingers don't cooperate with the ol' brain. Thanks for the catch and the insult. I am an officer in the DEMOCRATIC party in my county and a life long Democrat.

    Parent
    Dean was NOT an outsider from the party (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    To my knowledge, he's the only person to run for President who's been a Democratic Party County Chairman.

    He was a Washington Outsider, which is a different thing.

    Parent

    if you were a strong, long time democrat, (1.00 / 1) (#236)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:45:45 PM EST
    you would know that the use of democrat as an adjective is insulting is only used be partisan republicans. insulting? frankly that is what i see you do in a number of posts on here. i actually wonder why you are at talk left. i truly do.

    Wow How Nostalgic (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    Dean is was really inspiring. Too bad he couldn't wake most of the sleepy Bush enablers from their slumber.


    Dean is was really inspiring (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    he was indeed.  and I gave him money starting in about 2002.
    the media did a hatchet job on him too.


    Parent
    I too want to fight for a democat and (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    democratic values....But I am not inspired by Obama being that person...

    Very soon (none / 0) (#172)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    Very soon you may have a choice between McCain and Obama. Then all you have to do is vote. Your choice.

    Parent
    The third choice (none / 0) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    is focus on Congressional offices and obstain from the prez election...

    Parent
    The Third Way (none / 0) (#189)
    by tree on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Substance (none / 0) (#10)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    At least he has The Economist and the WSJ running scared that he's actually offering "doctrinaire liberal positions" with rhetoric persuasive to more than liberals, and that can't be an entirely bad thing.

    But I do have to say re the campaign itself, some of the mindlessness, the chanting, the religious fervor about it really creeps me out. Good thing a charismatic person like this has emerged on the centerish/center-left instead of the hard right. Then it would have been all over for America I think.

    The Economist sez (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    The man who claims to be a "post-partisan" centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know "Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight--upon the side of `the idle holders of idle capital' or upon the side of `the struggling masses'?"

    link

    Sounds good to me.

    Parent

    is that why one of wsj's editors (none / 0) (#55)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:13:57 PM EST
    a while ago on npr praised obama's economic plan above hillary's?  or why the wsj has been vying for months with the wapo and usa today for first place for most fawning coverage of obama?

    Parent
    You should see their (none / 0) (#71)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:26:31 PM EST
    obsession with him on Redstate. They just can't work up a hate no matter how much they want to.

    Parent
    thank you for reminding me (none / 0) (#11)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    of how much I really owe to Dean.  That speech and his 2003 campaign lifted me out of a deep depression.  

    I knew his specific policies weren't as advanced as I would've liked (especially his health care plan) but he stood up for the issues when almost no one else dared.

    What I want to know now is, what happened?  Where is Dean now?

    he was beaten down by the media. (none / 0) (#26)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    sound familiar, anyone?

    Parent
    the dean scream, the hillary cackle? (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    yeah, it does just like ignoring the faults of the golden one just like bush!

    Parent
    ah, no (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    he was beaten down by the voters in Iowa. Then the media dismembered the corpse.

    Parent
    Do I remember it? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    I have the video of that speech and still watch it!

    You have said it many times, BTD, that Obama is running Bill Clinton's '92 campaign. Which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Dean campaign.

    I think it's a little unfair (none / 0) (#15)
    by dk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM EST
    to Bill Clinton to say that he ran on a campaign that is as vacuuous as Obama is now.

    Sure, he ran on the "hope" and "change" stuff.  But, he also ran on a platform calling for fundamental health care reform (at a time when practically no one else was talking about it, I might add), gays in the military, etc.  

    You can be frustrated with Bill that he wasn't able to implement these reforms once he became President, and even hold him partially responsible for not getting them done.  But at least he ran on those platforms as a candidate.  A lot better than what Obama is doing now.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    I have no problem with Bill Clinton's presidency at all (except for the Lewinsky part).

    But his '92 campaign was specifically not partisan. He wouldn't have won otherwise.

    I do agree that he can wonk with the best of them, which Obama certainly does not, and your point in that respect is a good one.

    Did he run on gays in the military or did that issue arise shortly after he took office? I remember the Dem senator from GA stabbing him in the back on that one.

    Parent

    My recollection is that he (none / 0) (#29)
    by dk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    ran on gays in the military.  Then once he got in, as you remember, Sam Nunn (the Georgia senator) stabbed him in the back, and Colin Powell made all those bigoted statements against the idea too.

    Parent
    That was not my recollection (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    Which part? (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    Do you think Clinton waited until after the election to end the ban?  I thought he made the comment during the campaign, but I suppose I could be wrong.

    He did campaign on health care reform though.

    Parent

    He did say, when asked, that he would (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:20:29 PM EST
    end the ban on gays in the military during the campaign and won in spite of it.  It was fairly late in, but he sure said it.


    Parent
    "When asked" seems different to me (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:22:36 PM EST
    than "running on it."

    Parent
    No question (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    but I was just surprised he answered it affirmatively instead of developing a sudden hearing problem.  :-)


    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    I stand corrected, then, and now that you say it, I seem to recall the same.

    I think we can agree, though, that it wasn't a major part of his campaign.

    We'll have to get the guy who has the Clinton/Gore platform from way back when to check and see what it says.

    Parent

    which Lewinski part? (none / 0) (#30)
    by hue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    Bill's approval rating went to an all time high, higher than Reagan ever had, on the day after he was impeached.

    Starr and the Republicans couldn't find nothing on Whitewater after $50M and 5 years. And don't give me the perjury argument. It was about sex. We've have regressed in this country. Can you imagine if we had applied the Clinton standard to JFK?

    Maureen Dowd's (the hated MoDo) brothers were Senate pages. And she said Senators' wives were constantly calling looking for their husbands, saying I know he's with that b---tch. The Senate sargeant of arms would be scrambling looking for the senators.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    As for his approval ratings, I approved of him then WRT accomplishments in office and I approve of him now.

    However, he should not have been fooling around. ESPECIALLY in the White House. Period. That's his business, of course, but I think we'd be looking at President Gore today if Clinton hadn't done what he did. My theory is that the media were infuriated that they couldn't take down Clinton (using your point about his approval ratings), and this made them come down so hard on Gore.


    Parent

    it's convenient to blame clinton. (none / 0) (#59)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    a lot easier than looking at the media and republicans, which have screwed our country time and time again.  gosh, now if only democrats had been good little boys and girls and behaved, the media and republicans wouldn't have been so unfair to us, right?

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    I don't intend to have an argument tonight, and CERTAINLY not one over the 2000 election, so I suggest you quit trying to pick one.

    Parent
    okay, (none / 0) (#75)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    then stop using republican talking points to trash bill clinton.  i'm tired of democrats saying that it's our fault--because for all the mistakes we may have made in the past, they just don't compare to the outright deception, manipulation, and political strangling and suffocating we've been subjected to.  obama's continuing that tradition, and so are you.

    Parent
    the sooner we understand that repubs (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    are our enemy and cannot be trusted under any conditions, the better off we are. unity? bull!

    Parent
    Gore was an idiot to run away from (none / 0) (#70)
    by hue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    Clinton and his record. And Gore ran a terrible campaign, losing Arkansas and Tennessee, his home state. How can a Senator from Tennessee lose in Tennessee? I think if he had won either state, then Florida wouldn't have matter. Gore was different, stiff as a politician, and not like he is now. People used to say Gore was different in person, more charming, than as a candidate. I've heard the exact same about Hillary. Politicians don't learn that they can be themselves until it is too late.

    Parent
    Gore was in some ways, himself (none / 0) (#87)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    the press and people didn't want him to be him so he tried to change.  Al Gore, in his reflecting period, admitted that he is a little stiff and like Hillary, wonkish.

    Another time the media decided the election of a President; a guy they "could have a beer with".
    And they did it with Dean and now they are doing it with Obama. You see...people still believe a press that has long been dead.


    Parent

    It's convenient to blame the media ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by hue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    Just so you know, "the media" has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not "get behind" candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy... or gal. Nor does it "buy" this line or "swallow" that one. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's doing.

    How many times have the media been wrong in this election, counting out McCain last summer, making Hillary the inevitable candidate last fall.

    I've been a member of the media, as a newspaper reporter. The business desk and city desk trip over each other covering the same story. For people in the communications business, we had a hard time communicating with each other in the same newsroom. In my experience, the media follow the culture, doesn't lead it.

    Parent

    I was a reporer also (none / 0) (#140)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:30:50 PM EST
    my experience was a little different.

    It was a powerful position, particularly with a following. The more power you accumulated, the more powerful you believed you were. Pretty soon it became easy to put yourself in the story and let the world know who you liked and who you didn't.  And hey...it was acceptable, no matter how nuanced it was.

    However, I had an editor and an old journalism teacher who still believed in the old way of "reporting". Damn those ethics.

    Parent

    yes. I'm afraid those old school journalists are (none / 0) (#207)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST
    long gone now.  The new ones have no scruples and have never been taught to be neutral and that their job is to report the news not try to make it.  That's why 70% of the country is troubled by today's journalism and why people are going to the internet for their news.

    And then the newspapers and TV people think that it all has to do with technology! It would be nice if they would get a clue.

    Parent

    actually, no-- (none / 0) (#200)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    it's inconvenient to blame the media.  i've commented on this before.  willful ignorance doesn't make inconvenient facts go away.

    Parent
    non-partisan in name, (none / 0) (#38)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    but fundamentally democratic in substance.  i have a copy of his and gore's policy book from their '92 campaign in front of me right now, and i can tell you that this book is chock-full of democratic party substance--albeit with a nice non-partisan spin to it.  obama's campaign has imitated the superficially non-partisan strategy beautifully, while left the underlying commitment to partisan substance behind.

    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#104)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    with the evisceration of habeas corpus? As Jerilyn has noted, Bill Clinton began the assault on civil liberties that GWB has taken to greater extremes.

    Parent
    Former Deaniac and proud of it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lora on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    I wish the ole Dean spirit was with us again.  I think Edwards had some of it but he got marginalized and dismissed, pretty much like Dean.  The Dean Scream, the $400 haircuts...media hatchet jobs and they were done.  That's because they could have actually threatened the corporate stranglehold and that wasn't allowed.

    Obama is a brilliant, audacious politician (none / 0) (#19)
    by cygnus on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    He TELLS everybody what he's going to do--"transcend partisan politics"--and the so-called progressive movement can't figure out that he's going to cut deals with Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.  John Edwards knows this.  It's why he's so reluctant to endorse the guy.

    What makes him so reluctant (none / 0) (#20)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:47:05 PM EST
    to endorse Hillary?

    Parent
    Did Big Tent Democrat already vote for Obama? (none / 0) (#23)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM EST
    I read somewhere he lives in Puerto Rico part-time.

    By the way I do love the Dean message that it's not so much about Dean, but about civic engagement. That if you don't like what's happening then you have to act, run for precinct captain, school board, whatever. He was fired up but he fired us up to work within the system to change the system.

    Why then are you missing (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    seeing what is simply the latest iteration of it - dare I mention it here - that "Yes We Can" thing?...

    Parent
    It doesn't work for me! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    This is the funniest primary in that respect - the "Yes, We Can" (which by the way is a Cesar Chavez saying from his days with the United Farm Workers) turns some people on and others off.

    To me, the "Yes, We Can!" is saying yes, we can get Obama elected! And if Hillary is the nominee harrumph we're staying home and disengaging from the civic process. It's coupled with all sorts of statements from Obama and Hillary that gives me this feeling.

    Parent

    Chavez (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    I rallied with Chavez when I lived in CA.  I don't remember the "yes we can" slogan. I was there pretty early though.

    I believe you I just don't remember ever hearing or using it.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    Si Se Puede??

    It is a trademark slogan of the UFW.

    Pretty funny.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    I've never understood that slogan to mean "Yes we can get Obama elected." I understand it to refer to what he actually says - that we can take back the levers of government again for the people instead of the well-connected interests, i.e., a populist insurgency.

    Whether it's possible or successful is a different matter, but that's what it refers to. If you think otherwise you've been getting your information too exclusively from Obama hate sites. If I believed it referred to what you say - "vote for Obama or stay home" - I wouldn't support him either. But it's only the Obama hate sites that are saying that's what he's about.

    Parent

    Yes we can take bakc the levers of gov';t (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    and DO WHAT????

    Parent
    Read his policies (none / 0) (#79)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    He's laid out quite a few in detail.

    More centrist than I want, but more likely to succeed with them in the current ideological state of the country than Sen Clinton is with her rather similar policies.

    Parent

    Now is his change to TALK (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    about those policies. He's got a rapt audience, and he could really move the public in our direction, if only he would talk openly about this stuff. Referring people to read through his website is not going to convert the unconverted.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    Here is that speech of his I mentioned at Tulane.

    And here, from this week, on NCLB and changes he wants to education policy. (For a general audience.)

    Lots of other speeches are linked off that page too if you want to watch them.

    Parent

    Read his website (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    for what we will do. Yep, that is selling the Democratic Agenda to the American People.

    Sheesh. Did you read Dean's speech?

    Parent

    I don't see why this is hard to grasp (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by s5 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    He lays out his larger themes in speeches, and he goes into detail on his website. Should he be reading whitepapers from a podium?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    He should be selling DEM values and issues on the stump.

    This constant misdirection from Obama supporters is truly infuriating.

    Parent

    If you're constantly infuriated (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by s5 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    Then try switching to decaf. These are important discussions to be had, and they're not going away, even after this election has come and gone. I personally enjoy hearing both sides of the argument.

    For dems, this election will clearly be a referendum on whether Democratic values can be reframed as common sense. I think it would be an interesting cultural change for Americans, and no candidate has really tried it in recent history.

    If he's wrong and loses against McCain, I'll gladly eat crow and fight against any future attempt to reuse his strategy. If he's right, I'll be really curious to see how our keepers of the conventional wisdom react; whether or not they'll spend the rest of the careers stubbornly insisting that even though he won, he really lost.

    Parent

    remember John Edwards? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:26:20 PM EST
    There was a man passionately advocating Democratic values every moment of his stump speech. He wasn't exactly boring. Compare and contrast with Obama however you like.

    Parent
    oh, so lets see (none / 0) (#185)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    ending the war, having a foreign policy that focuses on engagement with the world, rebuilding alliances, going after the real people who attacked us, implementing an energy policy based on green-tech, affordable health insurance available to all, ethics reform, addressing global warming issues, countering the politics of fear of terroism, or of gays, or of immigrants, a societal acceptance of shared responsiblity for the education of all children, an effort to rebuild the physical and informational infrastructure of the country - just a few of the things that come off the top of my head, and ALL OF THEM found in the speeches he gives on a regular basis - these are not Democratic values?

    Please specify. Just what has Hillary ever said, that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about her as a Democrat, that Obama has spoken to as well?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    I could give you a link to some pretty fiery speeches of his on youtube, like the one in New Orleans where he talks about everybody having a responsibility to pitch in and work together for the common good, and how government needs to be used along with people power as a synergistic force to accomplish the things people want, and how that's a Democratic approach to governing. But I doubt anyone here would care to watch or listen to such a thing. Your minds are made up. Obama is pure political slacker! Pure evil!

    Parent
    Funny how no one (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:20:31 PM EST
    besides his staunchest supporters can tell you a single issue Obama is selling.

    You know this. Pretend all you want.

    You are very intelligent and you know exactly what I mean. Read Mark Schmitt's Theories of Change piece. that is the BEST defense of Obama's strategy.

    Pretending he is out there fighting for Dems and Dem issues is just silly.

    Parent

    Funny how no one pays attention at all (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by s5 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    I challenge you to find a majority of candidate supporters for any candidate running for any office who know the details of that candidate's issues (single issue candidates excepted, of course). It's because only the staunchest supporters of anyone are paying attention. The others are voting out of name recognition, or incumbency, or personality, or because they had a better ad, or because their friends or family convinced them, or because they're not running in the other party.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#175)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    I am convinced that probably five percent of the people who voted for Bush thought that they were voting for his father.

    And as little as the vast majority of people follow the candidates, damned few elected Presidents deliver exactly what they promise. Maybe none. Congresses are there to mediate, at least until the concept of the Unitary Executive came along.

    Parent

    I agree with you to some extent (none / 0) (#145)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    on the partisanship issue. But on the other hand, the DP hasn't managed to cover itself in glory over the past eight years (or more). Maybe the best thing that can happen is that Obama runs as Obama, and as prez rebrands and restores the party with his own fabulousness. Worse things could happen.

    Parent
    In 1992 (none / 0) (#177)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    the majority of Democrats in Congress was to the left of Clinton. I suspect that will be the case for either candidate.

    Parent
    Work together for the common good (none / 0) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    and develop synergies.  That's policy specific?

    Parent
    ready on day 1 (none / 0) (#186)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:52:34 PM EST
    thats policy specific?

    What are you trying to accomplish here. Repeat a slogan and point out that it is not policy specific. Brilliant.

    Obama has every bit as much detail on a similar number of issues as does Clinton. Why are you so invested in denying the obvious? Its almost as if you had some deep seated need to paint the guy as some cartoon character. And all you manage to do is take yourself further and further away from reality.

    Parent

    This was a reply to another (none / 0) (#190)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    which you probably didn't read.  But go ahead.  That doesn't stop you from jabbering incessantly about everything under the sun anyway.

    You are a joke!


    Parent

    Most of the policy papers (none / 0) (#105)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    on the site appear to be rehashed boilerplate which has been around for a decade at least.  And they are a lot like some of Clinton's position papers.  I did learn that he had stopped the genocide in Darfur  :-)

    A website is no substitute for pushing the aganda in the campaign.  But I guess that wouldn't mesh well with "undefined change".  I'm always left with the same question.  Change what?

    Parent

    yup, a little of clinton, a little edwards and (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    wow, a policy paper under another wraper! not very inspiring!

    Parent
    Have to wonder why (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:07:11 PM EST
    he doesn't put this stuff in his speeches....

    Maybe he doesn't want to go on record as having said it?

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#80)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    We got the levers back. What do we do now? Go home I guess.

    Parent
    Head of the nail (none / 0) (#82)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:37:19 PM EST
    That is THE question for us in the 'non-believer' column.

    Speaking for me only, I'll likely remain a skeptic that anything will change in government should Mr. Obama become the president.

    Parent

    Hey now (none / 0) (#73)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    You're assuming a lot about me. I run into this a lot - people say you don't support Obama!?!?! You must be a racist. You must not have enough information. Because those are the only two explanations.

    But here's something a linguist explained on the dailykos about why some people react differently to the yes, WE can Obama message:

    The second person plural pronoun "we" is a more complex subject.  Semantically, there are two different types of "we."  First, there is the inclusive "we," which includes the speaker and those spoken to.  This would seem to be the "we" that Obama supporters point to as being a message of unity.  

    But there is also the exclusive "we," which refers to the speaker and others represented by the speaker but excludes those spoken to.  

    Many languages use two different words to distinguish the inclusive and exclusive "we," but in English both meanings are placed within the same word.  Due to this semantic ambiguity in English, Obama's fabled "we" can just as easily exclude as it can include.  "Us Obama supporters" versus "you Clinton supporters."



    Parent
    You're the one who said (none / 0) (#81)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    To me, the "Yes, We Can!" is saying yes, we can get Obama elected!

    Whatever.

    Parent

    thanks for channeling trippi (none / 0) (#24)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    and trivializing btd's positions.

    Shhhhhhh (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    I wasn't going to mention that. ;-) (My Daily Kos ID is 1100 something and I well remember the primary wars there)

    Those days are long behind us, though, and I trust Clark a lot more than I did back then. Back then I thought I saw an ambitious guy who thought Dems were easy meat. I was wrong about him and glad to have been wrong.

    The substance and the form of.. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    The 50-state strategy comprises two elements and different periods in Dean's work for the Democratic party. I agree with BTD's characterization of the substance and how critical Dean was in changing the tone and substance of Democratic candidates positions. By the end of 2004, like many candidates down ticket, Kerry's (and Teresa's) messages expressed pride in the transformation in American society since the 1960s and 1970s that reflected Democratic principles.

    However, since he has been in the DNC, Dean set to work on a structural reformation of the Democratic party to favor a 50-state strategy. In that respect, Dean had to define and concentrate on largely nonpartisan reforms that made it possible for insurgent candidates, regardless of their message, to effectively challenge trenchant establishment power in the Democratic party. (My wife and I contributed to that and attended a DNC speech by Dean describing what they were doing, I was a Kerry supporter, she was a Deaniac in our state primary). Perhaps, establishment actors like Carville who opposed the Dean's DNC were not able to distinguish between the substance and the form of Dean's campaign and DNC leadership. But, the DNC effort never seemed partisan in tone or nature or explicit ideology.

    So, I see Obama as a consummate DLC candidate who fails to defend liberalism/progressivism or the Democratic party in strong terms despite the fact that he is not a member of the DLC. And, that the 5% of his policies that differs from Clinton and Edwards is what makes his program much, much further to the right of his closest competitors. Substantively he is not Dean. But, while Clinton's campaign early on (it has changed since Feb 4) strategized about which states were winnable and which states were not, Obama built a political coalition around an ideology that transcends state borders and puts him into play in every state. In that respect, the formal technologies of the 50-state strategy that the DNC built proved useful to Obama.

    I think partisans like Trippe do no realize they are threatening the work of Dean at the DNC by conflating Dean's partsan message in 2003 with his work at the DNC since 2005. Dean has been pretty reasonable in his response to the Obama campaign's engineering of party rules to exclude Michigan and Florida and to nullify the role of superdelegates.
    I have wondered about his neutrality in this race and each time there has been an issue, he has fallen on the side of the interests of the Democratic party as a whole. If establishment outsiders like Trippi begin to affirm what establishment actors like Carville always suspected, Dean's strategic and structural contributions to the Democratic party could be threatened.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    although I don't think that there's as much difference between candidates as you suggest, and the conflation was done by Big TD.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    When you are going to discuss the legacy of Howard Dean, you can not ignore the most important part of it and the fact that Barack Obama is the santithesis of it.

    Well you and Ari Berman can, but I will call you on it every time.

    You need to change your name from Bob from Pacifica to Bob from Kumbaya.

    Parent

    hahahahaha (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    that was hilarious, btd.  i am laughing so hard right now.

    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    I see you now.

    Good bye.

    Do not comment anymore at this site.

    They will all be deleted.


    Parent

    The article was about (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:23:17 PM EST
    Dean's fifty-state strategy. It wasn't about Dean's legacy, it wasn't a eulogy. It was about a strategy that Obama has effectively used. You are the one to call into question the article ignoring what the article wasn't about.

    As I recall, personal attacks aren't permitted at this site. I believe your use of the term "kumbaya" is racist in your usage and directed at anyone here perceived to support the black candidate. Maybe you don't see it, but some see the ugliness behind that kind of comment. Considering that "Kumbaya" was used as a signature song during the civil rights movement, does your use of it disavow or in any smear the civil rights movement or the people who struggled, some of whom gave their lives, to it?

    Big Tent, do you censor yourself?

    Parent

    It was aabout Dean' s CANDIDACY (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:27:43 PM EST
    Did you NOT read Trippi's traitorous quote (he worked for Edwards)?


    Parent
    I think you're really (none / 0) (#77)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    pushing it with the Kumbaya thing and would be surprised if BTD didn't warn you about it.

    Parent
    agree on the kumbaya thing. (none / 0) (#92)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:51:00 PM EST
    So there's no racial content? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    He just uses that word by accident? There are plenty of words not so loaded. I find it disrespectful of the civil rights movement and black people.

    It's his choice. He's judged by the words he uses. I believe he used the word to offend and belittle me and anyone who he perceives supports Obama.

    It's all really silly. Big D's arguing that writing an article about how Obama's campaign used Dean's tactics is terrible because it wasn't about Dean's political legacy instead. You may or may not like what is presented, but it's foolish to get upset about an article that's about something not being about something else.

    Parent

    Racial content to kumbaya? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    Am I in the Twilight Zone?

    Parent
    Loaded to those looking for (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    opportunities to insult.

    You are full of crap Bob from Kumbaya.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    you have no idea how Kumbaya is used today. Yes I know the story of its origins. I am speaking to ITS usage TODAY.

    No one would EVER think to call Jesse Jackson a Kumbaya figure. They WOULD think to call Joe Lieberman a Kumbaya figure.

    I will NOT be intimidated by truly made up outrage from you.

    Parent

    I find it rude. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:23:25 PM EST
    It's a song that was used in the civil rights era, a bringing together of people. I don't recall smarmy comments about Joe Lieberman and Kumbaya, but it's irrelevant if it were. You use the term as an insult to a black man and to insult people who support him.

    Try the stranger test. Walk into group of Obama supporters in a black neighborhood and make a Kumbaya remark. See how well it goes over.

    If you don't see how Kumbaya could be offensive, so be it. That's you. Proceed at your own risk.

    Parent

    That's just crazy talk. (none / 0) (#165)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST

    You're talkin' crazy now.  You DON'T seem to know Kumbaya at all, ascribing racialism towards it the same way JJJr/the Obama campaign did towards Bill Clinton's comments (the only difference here is that BTD/TL won't let you get away with such).  It's NOT racist for BTD to refer to it as he does.

    Though the song was originally associated with unity and closeness, it is now often referenced sarcastically to connote a blandly pious and naively optimistic view of the world and human nature.

    Same goes with "Kumbaya Moment".  or "Kumbaya Movement", as it's applied to Obama's campaign.

    Parent

    Peter Paul and Mary (none / 0) (#147)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    recorded the song and it was a hit.

    Kumbaya    

    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbaya

    Someone's singing lord, kumbaya
    Someone's singing lord, kumbaya
    Someone's singing lord, kumbaya
    Oh lord, kumbayah

    Parent

    Girl scout camp (none / 0) (#163)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    brotherly (sisterly) love.  Marshmallows, smores. Sway to the music.  Go sleep in the tent/sleeping bag.

    Zero racial connotations.  

    Didn't even know that it came out of the civil rights movement until today.  I don't think many people did.

    Implying it's a racist term?  What a stretch.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#169)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM EST

    Didn't even know that it came out of the civil rights movement until today.  I don't think many people did.

    It didn't.  That's just something Bob's putting out there to enforce his contention that it's "racist" for BTD to say what he said.

    Parent

    YUCKY - Racism rears it's ugly head (none / 0) (#181)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:43:01 PM EST
    Again. It seems to be a pretty good barometer of when the argument is going south for Obama supporters. Good 'tactic', that.

    Is there a corollary of Godwin's Law we can use for any political debate involving Obama? It's hard to find a Democrat who would attempt to bring race in as a negative. At least until I found out that Bill Clinton was a racist. And so was Quincy Jones, for supporting Hillary. And so was every black person who supports Hillary, according to JJJr; they have to support Obama or be seen as some kind of traitor, right?

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#198)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I remember Pete Seeger singing it at peace rallies and civil rights marches. I'm old enough to remember these things. It was about bringing diverse groups together. So maybe it's just the sneering at the idea of bringing together people that I find offensive. I still think my stranger test would find the comment offensive to African Americans, at least those old enough to remember the song.

    I went to wikipedia and and was surprised at how it's been used, made fun of and degraded and so I guess I will concede that the word's meaning has been devalued, just as what it stood for has been devalued. Maybe I'm reacting, like people reacted over the use of the word "pimp" a little while back.

    I found this from wiki interesting:

    "After a private farewell dinner on December 5, 2006 at the White House for outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Secretary-General 1996 to 2006), soon-to-resign U.S. Ambassador John Bolton joked that "nobody sang 'Kumbaya.'" When told of Bolton's comment, Annan laughed and asked: "But does he know how to sing it?""

    Nice. Annan pointed to the ugly reactionary opposition to the idea of bringing people together and was able to laugh at it.

    Maybe if Clinton supporters knew how to Kumbaya a little she'd have had more votes.

    Parent

    many in the MSM and (none / 0) (#203)
    by tree on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    many leftwing blogs have not been singing Kumbaya towards Clinton. Apparently, throwing Clinton under the bus is considered a Kumbaya moment for them.

    What I dislike about the all the Obama "unity" talk is that it sounds like capitulation to me, or to use a more loaded term, appeasement. And I have seen very little effort on Obama's part to reach out to the Democratic base. If he's more interested in getting the support of Republicans and Independents than shoring up his base, why should I as a Democrat think he cares about the issues that are important to me?

    Parent

    You stated my feelings so well (none / 0) (#205)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    I'm not sure you're not me! ;-).

    (okay, I'm being silly now. where's my dinner!)

    Parent

    same here (none / 0) (#196)
    by tree on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    Girl Scout memories.

    Parent
    oh please. (none / 0) (#46)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM EST
    dean didn't pander in 2003, and that's one of the main reasons he was torn down.  obama is the model of pandering at its persuasive and misleading finest.

    Parent
    If Obama is pandering (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    (and I'm trying to think of one candidate who doesn't and is still in the race) then he's pandering in fifty states. The article was about Dean's political strategy and how Obama adopted it. Dean's campaign was barely mentioned except as a narrative to take you to Dean's work as DNC chairman and Obama's use of the fifty-state strategy.

    Parent
    so btd is pointing out (none / 0) (#84)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    the importance of glossing over substance for strategy.  he's serving a pretty valuable function in this election, which has been consumed by strategy at the expense of substance.  now you're trying to narrow the discussion back to strategy.  the bigger point for some of us is that substance matters more.

    Parent
    Gee, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    and I thought Big D's pointing out the article was about the substance of the article. It wasn't about the article at all. It was about the article that Big D wanted the article to be.

    Well, shame on The Nation for having an article about Dean that didn't include a hagiographical inclusion of his substantive speeches and instead wrote about strategy and tactics.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    I am just trying to say the establishment substance (DLC thought) and form (swing state strategists and big donors) form one pole, grassroots substance (Deaniacs) and the 50-state form (Dean's DNC) being four different elements to the formula. These are just my characterizations, but I see:

    Edwards was closest to the 50 state substance;
    Obama is clostest to the establishment substance;
    Clinton is closest to the establishment form; and,
    Obama and Edwards were closest to the 50-state form.

    So, arguably and ironically, what the Deaniacs and grassroots built may have launched a DLC candidate with a populist postpartisan message into office (Broderilla feels warm and fuzzy inside).

    As for BTD, I did not see it as his conflation, but he may not even agree with my simplification of Dean's substance and form.

    Parent

    See my link (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    to understand my take on the 50 State Strategy.

    Parent
    I did and... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    I think what you have written is more clear than my hastily written comment. I think we have a similar take (as non-Deaniacs who value what he has done at the DNC), especially when you distinguish the message from the method:

    "We can find a message that works in purple AND blue.... But that is not to say that multiple local messages are not also necessary. The Big Tent. And Howard Dean understands this."

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#141)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    I matched up best with Kucinich, supported Edwards until he pulled out. I don't see much difference between the two remaining candidates except one isn't doing very well over the last month and probably won't win the nomination and the other's popularity is attracting a lot of new voters to the process. By using Dean's fifty-state strategy.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#37)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    I saw Howard Dean as a naive and awkward person who, at the height of his powers, could inadvertently and simultaneously insult White Southerners, insult fans of stock car racing, and endorse the Confederate States of America.

    And I opposed him all the way because of this, and so, I am sure, did a lot of other proud Democrats of all alignments, which is why he lost big despite having been made "inevitable" by media coverage.

    If the MSM contributed to knocking Dean down, they were just evening out their role.

    Even if all that were true (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    then you missed the most important parts of what Dean was.

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    I think I already told this guy that I didn't think TalkLeft could handle the Obama/Clinton wars and the  Dean war simultaneously. You really want to give the new server that kind of workout? :-)

    Parent
    I was a Clarkie in 2003-04 (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    But I saw what Dean did to tranform the Party.

    I called him the MVD - Most Valuable Democrat. I did not think he was the best candidate to beat Bush.

    Parent

    Ditto....and here's my favorite (none / 0) (#184)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:47:22 PM EST
    part of the article:

    "Obama has fused a tightknit group of advisers with a mass of ordinary people, creating what Trippi calls "command and control at the top while empowering the bottom to make a difference."

    Heh.  Empowering the bottom (the little people!) to send them money...over and over and over.  Oh...and come to rock-rallies to chant and sway.  I don't expect to see them at Democratic events.

    Parent

    Rationalize however you want (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    but Howard Dean made it clear who he was:

    I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

    It appears that Obama and his supporters don't understand that or, I suspect, do not care about the substance if it.  I, for one, believe and support that 'wing" even as it is being demonized by the orange and many of the left blogs.

    I understand it because the Democrats believe that you can't win elections believing in the Democratic wing. However, it is truly uncomfortable trying to be a Democrat and having to enter through the back door. Speaking for myself of course.

    Parent

    the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (none / 0) (#113)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:11:53 PM EST
    voted against the war.

    Just what do you think defines this wing. Does it all come down to mandates in a health care plan?

    Parent

    IS there nothing more to it than that? (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:15:59 PM EST
    This feeds the argument that Obama has been living off that speech to show his progressive bona fides forever.

    Nothing more need be done for some of you.

    Heck, John Chafee would have been a GREAT candidate for the Dem nomination by those lights.

    Parent

    I think Chafee would have been a better candidate (none / 0) (#124)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    why not answer the question BTD? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    Obama has a more liberal voting record. He is favored more by the very liberal parts of the party. She was a founder of the DLC. I find your take, and the take of many here, that he is somehow the centrist candidate, to be highly idiosyncratic.

    What is it based on? Besides mandates?

    Parent

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    is it too much to ask a Democrat to occasionally be a Democrat....

    Yes, the electronic cheeto-colored wing (KOS) of the Democratic party is really depressing me.

    Parent

    More on the Dean/Obama Connection (none / 0) (#116)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    In the New Republic, Noam Scheiber made many of the same points of the Ari Berman piece in this article in January:

    Amid all the gravity-defying uplift of his campaign, it's easy to forget that Obama is an organizer at heart--a believer in the power of concerted action to bring tangible results. Certainly, that's the way he sees himself. Obama never fails to remind voters of the years he spent as a community organizer in Chicago, calling it "the best education I ever had." He spends several minutes introducing his local field staff at each event, after which he surveys the room for undecided voters and urges supporters to fill out "pledge cards," which help produce a precinct-by-precinct tally of expected votes.

    In this respect, the best analogy for Obama may not be a famously inspirational figure like Robert Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy, but the famously disappointing Howard Dean. Like Obama, Dean built a movement on the back of a cutting-edge organization. But it was ultimately the flaws in that same organization that did Dean in. And so, improbable as it may sound, Barack Obama's presidential hopes may hinge not on what he's learned from New Hampshire, but on what he's learned from the Dean campaign.....

    .....As it happens, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was a longtime friend of Trippi's. Axelrod was sympathetic to Trippi's ideas but hyper-conscious of the Dean campaign's failures. "They aroused a great deal of enthusiasm," Axelrod told me at a recent Obama event. "But I don't think they developed a way to turn [the enthusiasm] into tangible action, into value to the campaign in terms of organization."

    There were two failures in particular. The first was that Dean's base was far too narrow. With only a few exceptions, according to a subsequent Pew Research Center poll, the Deaniacs resided on the left of the political spectrum. The problem this created was one of basic math: Once you get that far out of the mainstream, the pool of potential supporters is relatively shallow, meaning you need to claim a large fraction of them in order to succeed.

    So, rather than tacking left, the Obama campaign went straight up the middle, where a much larger universe of potential voters awaited. One of the most remarkable political stories of the last generation or so is the rise of a massive bloc of people who, by ideology or disposition, should be voting Democratic but, for whatever reason, aren't. This includes apolitical young people, nominal Democrats who rarely turn out, and, more recently, moderate independents and Republicans like the Vosses. Poll after poll shows that these people favor Democratic positions on most key issues. (The New Republic's John Judis once wrote a book arguing that the last group would help Democrats cement a long-term majority.)



    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    but I do not hear it speaking to me.

    Why is that? Am I too far left? What does that mean...being too far left? Tell me how to be in the 'middle'?

    You see, I think you believe too far left are words like Medicare and Medicaid and health care and affirmative action and school integretion and choice and compassionate immigration and welfare. Almost any social service I am betting is too far left.

    To me it is the same old Republican theme now dressed in couture.

    Note: BTW those most benefited by the above are women

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    That was a lousy piece too.

    Parent
    An Incredibly (none / 0) (#192)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:02:37 PM EST
    brilliant analysis.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    "Once you get that far out of the mainstream, the pool of potential supporters is relatively shallow, meaning you need to claim a large fraction of them in order to succeed."

    and

    "Poll after poll shows that these people favor Democratic positions on most key issues."

    Do you see how these two statements contradict each other? I think that article is not very well reasoned.

    Parent

    i dont see any contradiction at all (none / 0) (#156)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    those statements refer to two different groups. The first are the Deaniacs - mainly young, very lefty kids, or at least that was the driving group. There are only so many of them, and if you define your movement around them, there is little scope for growth

    The second refers to all those people who occupy the middle ground in American life, and who are mainly in agreement with Dem values, and are available to recruit, since they often are either apathetic, or vote one way or another without much conviction.

    Parent

    x (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    No, the statements do not refer to two different groups.

    In case you are very young, I will revisit 2003/4 only to say that Dean is not a lefty and I am not a lefty or a kid, and I wasn't four years ago, either. He didn't "define his movement" around kids. He didn't have a frigging movement, he had a political campaign. Quit with the stupid "movement" talk.

    You don't know what you're talking about. Really, you should stop.

    Parent

    yes they do (none / 0) (#191)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    The first statement:

    "Once you get that far out of the mainstream,..."

    was a reference to the phrase at the end of the previsus sentence: "the Deaniacs resided on the left of the political spectrum".

    The second statement:

    "Poll after poll shows that these people..."

    reference a phrase in its previous sentence: "apolitical young people, nominal Democrats who rarely turn out, and, more recently, moderate independents and Republicans"

    I may not know what I am talking about, but I do know how to read.

    Parent

    Video of Trippi on NOW (none / 0) (#212)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    By way of Crooks and Liars, here's Trippi on NOW.

    Why do we listen to that guy? (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:47:22 PM EST
    Isn't he the guy who blew it?  Isn't he the guy who spent all that money on the world's worst tv ads in Iowa?  And here he is, waxing philosophical about how there were 4 527 groups coming after his candidate.

    Here's how I remember the Dean campaign:  me in my kitchen watching CSPAN in the summer of 2003, when the war was only a few months old and people like Chris Matthews were saying that Bush was just so f'ing HOT, and the Democrats were just so f'ing screwed for ever resisting him for even a moment.  And magazines like the Atlantic were printing articles titled "What If Bush Was Right?"

    And it truly felt like all of us were living inside the mad queen's tea party.  And Dean stood up and said that what he wanted to know was . . .
    well.  You remember.  It was like someone had blown the roof off my house to listen to Dean say out loud what so many of us had been muttering.

    That's what it looks like when somebody stands up for Democratic values.  I went to see him down at the Westlake Center in Seattle that August.  He said that any kindergarten teacher worth her salt knows which of her students will be going to college and which will be dropping out.  He said that it's long past time to be thinking in 4-year cycles and start thinking in terms of 50 or a hundred years.

    He was the opposite of cautious, or conciliatory, or tentative -- but by God he embodied HOPE to me.

    We don't have a candidate doing that right now.  We have one who is pretending to, and that's offensive to some of us.

    Parent

    Hillary and Rudy to open SNL tonite (none / 0) (#215)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:38:09 PM EST
    I have heard....Should be fun to watch....Now all I need is for my DISH network to come back after all this cloud cover lol.....very frustrating...

    SNL (none / 0) (#235)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:43:19 PM EST
    She was great!  Must be on YouTube by now........

    Parent
    The 50 State Strategy (none / 0) (#237)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    is intended to help many candidates win many elections, no?  I am impressed by the way Obama has won primaries and caucuses for his ONE election, but I am unconvinced that this is really the 50 state strategy.  Obama excites people, but I think he excites people for himself.  His 'we' is he and his supporters, not the Democratic Party in general.  I know he is a Democrat, I know he has a Democratic agenda.  I know he wants people to be more involved in the government.  It is probably not his role as a Presidential nominee to stump for anyone but himself, so I get that.  When he hands over his donor list to the DNC, I will believe he is Mr. 50 State.

    The Democratic Party's Brand (none / 0) (#238)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    We have no brand, haven't for decades.  When we decide to, then someone can champion it.  Until rank and file democrats decide they want to demand an actual identifiable party brand, then we'll have one.  But that would mean we'd have to literally take to the streets and protest and sacrifice.  Willing to get hit with a police baton to end the war?  No?  You're not a liberal.  And I'm as guilty as the next person.

    There IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY, it's long and gone.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#239)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:07:20 PM EST
    We're well over 200. Thanks for your thoughts.

    dean (none / 0) (#240)
    by disappointed on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    I have thought alot about this argument since I read the post earlier today.  I have to agree.  I know quite a few Obama supporters, and they do not seem to know what the Democratic party stands for--it is evident in many conversations that they support Obama and not the party.  Perhaps he will bring these people to the relevant issues, but I am not so sure.  I am not going to accuse his followers  of being members of a cult because I too once was in  thrall to JFK and, more importantly, Bobby Kennedy.  The difference is--I was in thrall because I believed they stood for the issues and ideas I believed in.  So much of my conversations with my Obama acquaintances are about their belief in him.  I am not sure they would vote for Hillary (my candidate)--although I know I will vote for him because of women's rights, Supreme Court justices.  He is right when he says his supporters would not vote for her, I fear.