Howard Dean lays the smackdown on Bush, media

If Bush isn't a homophobe or a racist he has a really funny way of showing it.

Ooooh. Dean 2008!

I already have a "Dean '08" bumper sticker

One word: AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHH!!!!

Well, that, and the fact that the Democrats pussed out and followed the DNC "We need Democrats who are just like nicer Republicans" line again.

i'm still pissed about that bullshit.

is it cuz rove said that dean was the candidate they wanted?
a little reverse psychology for the dems?

Supposedly Howard Dean is considering running for DNC Chairman when Terry McAuliffe’s term expires.

This is exactly the sort of thing I believe that the Democrats really have to think about before going there. He has many positive attributes. He energized the party in a way that made them competitive in this election, which was definitely not a sure thing, even with the Bush Administration's on-going dance with competency.

However, if we are going to reclaim the vast “Red” lands in this country, is Dean going to be the one to do it? I would think that even having his name affiliated with party leadership would rule out many Republican-leaning swing voters.

Unfortunately, almost every big name Democrat may have this problem, and it may just be that it is our challenge to re-invent these people’s images in a way that we can sell in Georgia.

Dean Ponders Bid to Become DNC Chairman

Sorry for rapid posting, but I watched this speach live and was thinking how cool it was to have someone with that sort of optimism and passion in the running for the nomination.

Anyone who saw the whole speach probably would not walk away with the spin put on this by the media.

Unfortunately, I fear that the damage to his "Image" may be hard to repair.

[Edited on Nov 13, 2004 by mastvam]

dear howard dean:

please do not go away.

thank you,

those with hope

I would like to see Dean as DNC chairman, however, as I see it, he is not a viable choice for the presidency. I lived in Vt for 8 years, while he was in office. I met him numerous times. He is, without a doubt, a good, honest, well meaning man.

That said, there were problems in Vt during his tenure as governor that, I believe, would be exponentially worse were he sitting in the oval office. I agree with most of his platforms and ideals. I was proud to live in a state where children had access to schools and healthcare, and same-sex relationships were recognized and offorded protection under law. I was proud for all those things and more.

That said, his programs were based on ideals rather than practicality. His programs were easy to abuse, and created a culture of freeloading off of taxpayer money. I lived next door to a couple who would readily admit that they scammed the state into paying them disability and giving them section 8 housing. Between state funding, and babysitting for cash, they brought in $1200 dollars a week (approx $1k in state money), and were only required to pay $150 a month in rent. I knew another woman, this one with a masters degree in social work, who had signed up for section 8 housing and recieved state subsidies for food, who paid the state $300 a month for her apt, and promptly turned around and rented it for $850 a month. She did this for years. She was able bodied, of sound mind, and well educated, yet she still only worked 25 hours a week, because if she worked any more, the state would have taken away her benefits.

While these are only two stories invloving three people, this type of behavior was rampant throughout the state. Howard Dean may not be directly responsible, but he did implement many programs, funded by taxpayer dollars, that were easily abused at the expense of people like myself.

After I finished college and had established residency in Vt, I was working as a chef (not a McChef, but a proper chef writing menus and cooking in fine dining establishments). I was working 60-70 hour weeks and still coming home with less in my pocket than many of the people I knew who has simply chosen abuse Dean's programs and live off of my tax dollars.

As I said, I like Howard Dean as a man. He is a kind, and forthright individual, and I enjoyed my few chances to speak with him. I respect his ideals, his passion and conviction. I agree with him on many issues and believe that his voice is a positive and necessary one that should be heard on a national level for years to come. However, given many (though not all) of the practical implications of his idealsitic policy making, I do not believe that he would be a good choice for the presidency. He would, however be an excellent choice for DNC Chairman.

Of course, this is just my opinion. By all means, feel free to disagree. That is what our country is all about. Just, please don't fall into that all too common trap of telling me that I don't understand the 'reality' of the situation, simply because I disagree with your perception of it. Yes, I say this preemptively, simply because I run into that wall with people from all ends of the political spectrum. I understand. I just may not agree. Take my annecdotes for what they're worth. They are nothing more than my own experiences from living in Vt under Howard Dean.

*edited to add*
I do agree with the above statement that Howard Dean was unfairly lambasted and destroyed by the media during his run in the democratic primary. I do believe he was a better candidate than Kerry, though perhaps not Edwards. I would much rather have seen one of the two of them - or even Dennis Kucinich opposing Bush, but this is, indeed, a democracy, and winning or losing a popular vote is no reflection of right and wrong. It's just the way it went. Unhappy with the result? Make a bigger noise between now and the next round of elections. Perhaps things would have been different if more people 18-30 had actually turned out to vote. Perhaps not. As long as we continue to have the right to raise our voices and participate, I will proudly call myself an American, regardless of whether or not I agree with the person behind the desk in a funny-shaped, yellow office.

[Edited on Nov 13, 2004 by eidolon]

AAAHHHNNHH happened after it was decided that Dean wouldn't be good for the Democratic party. That was just the final nail in the coffin.

Yoink

Dean would be good for Dems. As has been pointed out in so many places, the rightward or centrist movement of the party is having little effect. Hearing Dean speak on the radio a few times (including his debate with Nader) gives hope. Here is a man who has no problem bringing up the morality of war, or the morality of economic disparity, and sounding like he gives a shit. That is what we need.

But what do I know, I wanted Sharpton.

yes, DNC chairman is perfect for him. the dem base needs to remain energized and passionate thru these next 4 years of stockula's moronitude - sorry, i mean bush's second term...

[Edited on Nov 13, 2004 by dead_ringer]

I was annoyed to see what the media did to Howard Dean.

True, the guy sounded a bit like a nutbag in that one post-primary speech,, but 1) it reminded me of Macho Man Randy Savage, and as a part of the young voter demographic I thought it was kinda cool. 2) In an age where every word a politician utters is scripted, why is it considered a gaffe when someone shows passion? (so I very much agree with you there)

I don't agree with Dean's politics and I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think he's a much more interesting, resolved leader than Kerry ever has been, and I think he would have been better for the Democrats.

Yeah, turn the DNC over to a guy who clearly can't count votes. In each of those eleven states, more people voted to ban 'gay marriage' than voted for Bush. In most cases 500,000 or more Kerry voters also voted to ban same-sex marriages.

A case could be made that Dean's whole campaign "had only one effect, which is to appeal to stereotypes and fear and activist-baiting in order to win a presidential election".

I'll take this time to point out that Dean was outmaneuvered in Iowa by Kerry, and that surprise win not only knocked out Dean, but also revealed his weakness: strategic thinking. You really want to place the next to elections in the hands of a man who couldn't turn his immense name recognition, huge bankroll, and front-runner status into a blow-out win in Iowa?

lol true.

I'd vote for him in 08'

I'm not saying it didn't counter the higher numbers of the youth vote, or that it wasn't an effective strategy. I am saying that more people were against gay marriage than were FOR Bush, and I am noting a salient point that Dean, and most liberals, want to gloss over. The fringe issues cost you more votes than they win, firebrand politicians cost you more votes than they win, and the myopic vision of the left has cost them power every election cycle.


[Edited on Nov 13, 2004 by Sadistic_Bastard]

Dean is the only political candidate that I've ever given money to.
I tend to not like Democrats, but I liked Dean.
I liked that he stood up to his own party rather than towing the line. I liked that he said what he thought, even when he knew it wouldn't be popular.
(Did you know Dean is a registered member of the NRA? Not your usual democrat there, or a hundred other ways.)

That being said, I don't think he has much of a chance to take over the party, for the very same reasons that I like him.

Libertarians for Dean, '08, yo.

Can you lay a smackdown if you're no longer in the ring?

While I'm not going to agree with everything S_B says above, I will agree than the gay marriage issue was not a major issue in this election, all things considered.

The GOP used that issue as a rallying cry, appealing to mainstream voter's latent homophobia and fear IMHO - and it seemed to have worked, eclipsing huge issues such as Bush's inept handling of the war in iraq, his awful performance on the economy as well as his alienating most of our historic allies and the rest of the world.

The Democratic party seems to be putting the horse before the cart here. For any nationwide acceptance of gay marriage to occur, first the average people of the country must be accepting of gays in general, and that hasn't happened yet.

You gotta walk before you can run. In the meantime, it would behoove the Democratic party to get a brilliant candidate with some real charisma. Tough call, I know, but we've got an uphill battle over the next four years. Democrats must once again convince the average Joe that we're the party that's looking out for the little guy, not the GOP (party of tax breaks for the rich, Enron, Dick Cheney, Big Government, "1984"-style Big Brother and out-of-control spending and defecits).

...and don't think for a minute it can't get worse. Once the GOP gains enough seats for a 60-person fillibuster-proof majority, the democrats bacome nearly irrelevant in that body. Think about how much that would suck, eh?

Stiles,
It mattered where it counted. It was a major issue in some places...Our fun lovin' Carl Rove worked closely with state GOP committees to make sure that these supposed "moral issues" turned out a large vote for the Bush / Cheney. Don't even bring up the possibility of a filibuster-proof senate. At that point I will join my friends in Vancouver.

As a republican, I can't think of a better person to run the DNC.......in to the ground. Seriously, I want him to get the job. Y'all think you're getting your dough popped now, just wait until Dean does things. He'll be worse then McCaulliffe and we'll get our 60+ seats in the senate. You liberals don't seem to get it. America doesn't want what you offer. That's why the republicans have gained seats in both houses in the last two elections. 1960's style liberalism is dead and serves as the anchor around the neck of your party. Keep it up America needs you to self destruct