This is news - I wasn't a fan of Dean for a number of reasons, but I credit him for being a catalyst for energizing some previously uninvolved younger people in the political process. The good news is he's encouraging them all to stay involved. I'm just going to excerpt the final sentence of the following story, a good statement from Dean.
quote:"I will support the nominee of our party," Dean said. "I will do everything I can to beat George W. Bush. I urge you to do the same. But we will not be above in this organization of letting our nominee know that we expect them to adhere to the standards that this organization has set for decency, honest, integrity and standing up for ordinary American working people."
Meanwhile, things are getting unsettled in the race with the remaining contenders. Edwards made an unexpectedly close race of it with Kerry in Wisconsin, and could conceivably pick up some of Dean's support.
Super Tuesday is in two weeks - popcorn time for a politics junkie. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Caleb, if you're reading this, I'm sorry it didn't work out. Thanks for introducing Dean's ideas to me. I hope he stays involved...
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Once again, my faith in American politics is shattered.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't say that I liked or disliked Dean more than any other Democratic candidate, but I have to say that I've never seen a candidate be so negatively potrayed in virtually every segment of the press.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, he was mercilessly savaged. Then again, MY candidate -- Kucinich -- is pretty much mercilessly ignored, and I'm not sure which is worse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why is your faith in American politics shattered Ayelar?
I didn't support Dean, nor would I-- but I very much admire the strength of his convictions, and the way his campaign apparently grew from small contributors. Despite my opposition to his views, what a refreshing sight it was to see his enthusiasm.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I agree that the media had it in for him. I liked Dean. He had the Desire to do the right thing.
I'm very worried about Kerry right now. Bush has his own sordid past, but Why oh Why can't the front-runner democratic candidate have a nice clean history of boringness? At least that stupid intern scandal got shushed. But there are been too many stories about Kerry's l33tness and snobby actions.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's true that Kucinich has been ignored, Tom, and a sad commentary on the state of the press.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Yeah, Kucinich is probably the most in synch with most of what I care about. He's too smart to have thought he had much of a chance at the nomination - watching him in the debates, I think his voice has been underemphasized in terms of his affect on the other candidates.
My personal dislike for Dean came before the press started in on him. I had some very unpleasant dealings with his campaign - openly arrogant and dismissive of criticism, even from a group whose votes they were allegedly trying to cultivate. Some of this related to his much vaunted "shoot from the hip" style. I don't like "shooting from the hip" in our president and I don't apprciate it in any candidate.
All that aside, he energized a bunch of people to get involved - through small contributions of money and through the internet. And it seems like he wants to try his best to get his supporters - especially the newcomers to politics - to stick with it.
PS: Suneun, keep up with the news. The intern thing wasn't "hushed up" - it was fiction, courtesy of Matt Drudge.
[ February 18, 2004, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
It's exactly because of that, Scott. For the first time in a long time, we had the chance to elect a man who had sensible, deeply-held convictions that he wasn't afraid to stand up for. He had excellent ideas on how to improve our country, and he was the only candidate who was willing to admit that he wouldn't be able to do everything for everyone. He was decent, honest, inspiring, and brilliant, and started the most unique and successful grassroots campaigns anyone can remember.
He had it all, everything I wanted in a leader, even though I didn't agree with all of his stances. But he was too different, too unwilling to toe the party line and follow politics as usual. So the DNC, the GOP, and the mainstream media dogpiled him and systematically drove his campaign into the ground.
quote:Some Democrats cheated and looked into their hearts, where they found Howard Dean. But he was so appealing that he scared them. This is no moment to vote for a guy just because he inspires you, they thought. If he inspires me, there must be something wrong with him. So, Democrats looked around and rediscovered John Kerry. He'd been there all along, inspiring almost no one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The media likes horse races, not governance or politics. Whoever is the frontrunner before the primaries begin is gonna be mercilessly savaged as a "handicap just to make the horse race more exciting"
And ain't no need to have your "faith in American politics shattered". You just misunderstand the nature of the GreatGame. Dean brought in a lot of new Democratic Players* without getting into a permanent feud with any other candidate. And so he and, more importantly, his followers have a GREAT deal of leverage on the Party platform, and on what will occur should the DemocraticNominee win the Presidency. The only question is whether he and his supporters have the skill to wield that leverage effectively. If you were a supporter, the best way to turn Dean's vision (at least partially) into reality is to turn your energies into getting the DemocraticNominee elected.
And this is from someone who placed Kerry 7th of the 9 Democratic candidates in my preferences. Admittedly, I wouldn't have voted in the primaries for 3 of my top 6 preferences because they didn't have a chance of winning the Presidency.
*Any voter who donates money and/or donates time to the hard work of campaigning becomes a Player.
[ February 18, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ayelar- Just because a person connects with you emotionally is no reason to support them in politics.
Heaven knows I'm not a conservative because THEY inspire me personally-- they're rather dull and pedantic. But their general STANCE I support.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
In other words, ScottR, you vote for the candidate who talks pretty -- ie postures as if s/he supports your positions -- and what they actually do with the powers of their office has no effect on your vote.
[ February 18, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Or perhaps Scott means that he votes in people whose opinions he feels represent him (a representitive democracy ideal), and whose actions have supported their firmness in those positions.
Hobbes Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hey sndrake, I do read the news. "shushed up" doesn't mean I thought it was true. I've seen the follow ups.
*growl*
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
When it comes to Dean's showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, even the campaign admitted they deserved a lot of the blame. They did great on the internet, but didn't work the physical streets and the voters the way the other campaigns did. Both states had a lot of exposure to Dean - indpendent of any negative media spin.
That's not to take anything away from what the Dean campaign accomplished. But in primaries, what counts is organizing your supporters to hit the streets and the phones and getting your supporters to the polls.
No matter how "pure" you are, that is a nuts and bolts reality.
After Iowa and New Hampshire, of course, the media did have a heyday with Dean - the "scream" was good for a giggle for a day but it was way overplayed. He was also hampered by the inexplicable exhaustion of the bulk of the record amount of money he had raised.
This is politics - whoever ends up a nominee is going to be the recipient of attacks that will make anything that has happened so far seem very tame. Right or wrong, that's how American politics is played in the 21st century - much like the 20th and 19th. Some of us remember how Michael Dukakis was ground into mincemeat when he ran for president. The real crime was that Dukakis never was able to figure out how to effectively respond to the attacks and ridicule aimed at him.
**OK, it's late and I'm rambling now. Think I'll stop.**
Edited to add hasty apology to Suneun before the growl is followed by something more substantial.
[ February 18, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Accepts apology.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hey Tom -- sometime this weekend remind me to tell you about the Kucinich delegation at my precinct caucus.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, now you know how a good many of us felt when McCain lost steam. But then, Dean has had so few votes, there's no way it could be the result of republicans puffing up Kerry in open elections. I'm not really sure how many of those there have been. I just remember the old "a vote for McCain is a vote for Al Gore" tactic.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Fascinating comment on McCain - I've heard more than one commentator say that if McCain had been the nominee, the election wouldn't have been close at ALL - meaning McCain would have won both the popular and electoral votes by a wide margin. I agree with that.
I think (and maybe that's your point) that McCain wasn't liked by the party regulars - not to mention the donors - both business and folks that like Pat Robertson.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh, I felt exactly the same way when McCain was destroyed. McCain or Dean, either one would be an excellent president, IMO.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you vote for the candidate who talks pretty -- ie postures as if s/he supports your positions -- and what they actually do with the powers of their office has no effect on your vote.
I'm not sure how you pulled THIS position out of my comments, aspectre. Can you explain your stance?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Just don't write Edwards out...
I like when he points to a problem (just like all of the candidates) and then says something very, very important:
"And here's what we are going to do about it:"
Finally, a candidate who says more than just "This isn't working" but goes on to simply and straight-forwardly state what common sense dictates is the solution.
He's taken the high road and not degraded his opponents, he's not been in the Senate long enough to be beholden to special interests, and he does genuinely care.
Please, give him a listen the next time you see him on TV speaking. Perhaps Kerry won't break in with a press conference in an effort to forestall his opponent's momentum. That was just tacky.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
This could be an interesting development.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I thought the other candidates let Kucinich hang out with them just to make them sound more moderate Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's the funny thing, Geoff. The media gave everybody the idea that Kucinich was this kind of wacky radical leftist, when he was actually more moderate than a lot of people in the race. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I liked a lot about Kucinich....with the exception of "we need to pull *all* of the troops out of Iraq *now* and hand the operation over to the UN." Noble, to be sure, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
[ February 19, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)