Howard Dean 2008

[Beef]

Here's my bold prediction:

If we are out of Iraq by 2008, Dean will not run, and most Americans will go "Howard who?"

If we are still in Iraq, Dean will not only win the nomination.  He'll win the Presidency.

[angus]

Dean's a huge embarrassment.  All the things I don't like about bush:  the cockiness, the tendency to speak before thinking, the constant verbal gaffes, etc., Dean is constantly doing.  The things I do like about Bush, the strength of conviction, the clarity, the refusal to apologize for the sake of political correctness, are absent in Dean's character.  Dean is one of the few people who would be a greater national humiliation than GWB, and even the democrats know that. 

No way Dean wins his party's nomination.

[angus]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the  away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

[Beef]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the f**ck away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

The thing you have to understand about the Democrats:

See, the Republicans are now one, big, happy, unified base.  The Democrats are a loose coalition of independent interests.  You have
-The labor Democrats
-The minority-causes Democrats (itself made of disperate sub-groups)
-The poor-advocacy Democrats
-The moralist Democrats (gay rights, hate crime laws, driven by Mainline Protestants)
-The environmentalist Democrats
-The abortion-rights Democrats
-The socialist Democrats

None of these groups is particularly interested in the causes of any of the others (even though there may be considerable crossover membership).  Environmentalists aren't necessarily interested in increasing welfare payments or abortion rights, and gay-rights activists aren't necessarily interested in bringing down Big Business or forcing Wal-Mart to unionize.  But everyone kinda agrees to get along and support one another's causes under the general banner of "liberalism."

So, it's no surprise that the Democrats lack a clear message.  The have a mish-mash of ideas - some of them I find to be great, some of them I find to be abhorrent.  Nothing that is going to energize and captivate millions of Americans.

And therein lies the problem.

[angus]

well, it seems like the only glue holding them together right now is a general distaste for all things Republican.  So, pitting the GOP against the dems this year is kinda like having an arm-wrestling contest between gravity and the electrostatic force.

If the party is as you say it is, and I'm not so sure I buy that, then they really do have an uphill climb. 

Either way, Howard Dean and I agree on maybe more issues than GWB and I agree on, but there's no way in hell I'd vote for the bastard.  Might as well put Mickey Mouse up as a candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the f**ck away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

The thing you have to understand about the Democrats:

See, the Republicans are now one, big, happy, unified base.  The Democrats are a loose coalition of independent interests.  You have
-The labor Democrats
-The minority-causes Democrats (itself made of disperate sub-groups)
-The poor-advocacy Democrats
-The moralist Democrats (gay rights, hate crime laws, driven by Mainline Protestants)
-The environmentalist Democrats
-The abortion-rights Democrats
-The socialist Democrats

None of these groups is particularly interested in the causes of any of the others (even though there may be considerable crossover membership).  Environmentalists aren't necessarily interested in increasing welfare payments or abortion rights, and gay-rights activists aren't necessarily interested in bringing down Big Business or forcing Wal-Mart to unionize.  But everyone kinda agrees to get along and support one another's causes under the general banner of "liberalism."

So, it's no surprise that the Democrats lack a clear message.  The have a mish-mash of ideas - some of them I find to be great, some of them I find to be abhorrent.  Nothing that is going to energize and captivate millions of Americans.

And therein lies the problem.

Most Democrats fit in several, if not all of those catagories.

[J. J.]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the f**ck away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

The thing you have to understand about the Democrats:

See, the Republicans are now one, big, happy, unified base.  The Democrats are a loose coalition of independent interests.  You have
-The labor Democrats
-The minority-causes Democrats (itself made of disperate sub-groups)
-The poor-advocacy Democrats
-The moralist Democrats (gay rights, hate crime laws, driven by Mainline Protestants)
-The environmentalist Democrats
-The abortion-rights Democrats
-The socialist Democrats

None of these groups is particularly interested in the causes of any of the others (even though there may be considerable crossover membership).  Environmentalists aren't necessarily interested in increasing welfare payments or abortion rights, and gay-rights activists aren't necessarily interested in bringing down Big Business or forcing Wal-Mart to unionize.  But everyone kinda agrees to get along and support one another's causes under the general banner of "liberalism."

So, it's no surprise that the Democrats lack a clear message.  The have a mish-mash of ideas - some of them I find to be great, some of them I find to be abhorrent.  Nothing that is going to energize and captivate millions of Americans.

And therein lies the problem.

Most Democrats fit in several, if not all of those catagories.

If they do, they are DOOMED.

The problem with Dean is that when he announces, the networks run the "scream" tape.

[Nym90]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the f**ck away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

The thing you have to understand about the Democrats:

See, the Republicans are now one, big, happy, unified base.  The Democrats are a loose coalition of independent interests.  You have
-The labor Democrats
-The minority-causes Democrats (itself made of disperate sub-groups)
-The poor-advocacy Democrats
-The moralist Democrats (gay rights, hate crime laws, driven by Mainline Protestants)
-The environmentalist Democrats
-The abortion-rights Democrats
-The socialist Democrats

None of these groups is particularly interested in the causes of any of the others (even though there may be considerable crossover membership).  Environmentalists aren't necessarily interested in increasing welfare payments or abortion rights, and gay-rights activists aren't necessarily interested in bringing down Big Business or forcing Wal-Mart to unionize.  But everyone kinda agrees to get along and support one another's causes under the general banner of "liberalism."

So, it's no surprise that the Democrats lack a clear message.  The have a mish-mash of ideas - some of them I find to be great, some of them I find to be abhorrent.  Nothing that is going to energize and captivate millions of Americans.

And therein lies the problem.

Actually, there is a unifying theme there, at least to a degree.

Liberals stand for social freedom and equality of economic opportunity. You are correct that the groups often have disparate motives, but it does tie together at least somewhat.

Republicans have similar divisions, of course (free market economic conservatives, social Religious Right conservatives, neo-cons, etc.), but right now they are unified, while the Dems are divided. It always happens right after a Presidential Election, especially one in which an incumbent gets reelected. Clinton unified the Dems in 1996, and the GOP was a big mess of competing interests.

[Beef]

Republicans have similar divisions, of course (free market economic conservatives, social Religious Right conservatives, neo-cons, etc.),

Somehow, though, they have managed to tap into something that has united a lot of people.  This whole moral crusade thing.  Tie the moralism of the RR together with the "crusade" mentality of the neo-cons, and small-business, rugged, work-ethic-orientated economic theory.  It's worked even better than the small government thing that brought Reagan so much power in the 80s and the Newt so much power in the 90s.

The more I think about it, however, the more I become convinced that it will soon fly apart.  Ultimate dissolution will come about sooner or later, and that will be the end of the great Republican Moral Crusade.  Government is not interested in morals.  It is interested in power.  And I don't care how many times a day Bush prays, it's just the way of things.

But for now, they've found something to unite lots of people, and not tick off enough people to bring them down.

The Democrats need to do this.  They haven't actually stood for a single, tangible thing since their meltdown in 1968.

but right now they are unified, while the Dems are divided. It always happens right after a Presidential Election, especially one in which an incumbent gets reelected. Clinton unified the Dems in 1996, and the GOP was a big mess of competing interests.

I don't know.  The Contract with America was a fairly well-designed, simple-to-understand, unified message.  And were the Democrats really unified, or were they just kinda trucking along with Clinton because they were a minority in both houses and Clinton was their only key to any kind of control? 

[Nym90]

Republicans have similar divisions, of course (free market economic conservatives, social Religious Right conservatives, neo-cons, etc.),

Somehow, though, they have managed to tap into something that has united a lot of people.  This whole moral crusade thing.  Tie the moralism of the RR together with the "crusade" mentality of the neo-cons, and small-business, rugged, work-ethic-orientated economic theory.  It's worked even better than the small government thing that brought Reagan so much power in the 80s and the Newt so much power in the 90s.

The more I think about it, however, the more I become convinced that it will soon fly apart.  Ultimate dissolution will come about sooner or later, and that will be the end of the great Republican Moral Crusade.  Government is not interested in morals.  It is interested in power.  And I don't care how many times a day Bush prays, it's just the way of things.

But for now, they've found something to unite lots of people, and not tick off enough people to bring them down.

The Democrats need to do this.  They haven't actually stood for a single, tangible thing since their meltdown in 1968.

but right now they are unified, while the Dems are divided. It always happens right after a Presidential Election, especially one in which an incumbent gets reelected. Clinton unified the Dems in 1996, and the GOP was a big mess of competing interests.

I don't know.  The Contract with America was a fairly well-designed, simple-to-understand, unified message.  And were the Democrats really unified, or were they just kinda trucking along with Clinton because they were a minority in both houses and Clinton was their only key to any kind of control? 

I agree that the unity and disunity of the parties was really only an illusion in 1996, just like it is now. That was my point.

I also agree that the Dems need a unifying message; a bad message always beats no message, if people are forced to choose.

[angus]

unity schmunity.  of course they're a big tent.  just like the reublicans are, but that's beside the point.  I'd offer that if the GOP (with 55 senators representing 27.5 US states over a 2.7 million square-mile area) can come up with a theme, or message, the the Democrats (with 45 sentaors representing 22.5 US states over a 1.2 million square-mile area) should certainly be able to.   My 'beef' with the description of the dems having too big a tent isn't one of outright disagreement (since I think, to some degree, all 19 or so political parties have disparate interest groups), but one of degree.  You cannot possibly make the argument that the Dems haven't a chance to rally around some basic platform (no, you don't have to buy into all the planks) and then sell it to the people.  IF the GOP can do it, and they have, convincingly, for the last 3 general (even-year) election cycles, (Al's "notional" arguments aside),  then the dems should be able to do it also.  Look, you know many of us don't buy into this Zell Miller "national party no more" B.S.  At least I don't, and that's not the point I'm making. 

What I am saying is that Dean is a loser.  Even those of us centrists (i.e.,, roughtly zero on the left/right axis, negatives on the anarchy/authority axis) who generally have a great deal of issue agreement with Dean (and who voted for Clinton!) can see what an undiplomatic stinker he is.  Find someone else.  Or lose again.

[chadnat1019]

Dean Who?

That will be the main comment in 2008.

But please Democrates, I would love to see a Howard Dean/Micheal Moore ticket in 08

[Erc]

There is a segment of the usual Republican base that is at least somewhat dissatisfied with Bush and the current state of the Republican party.  As the last election and numerous polls have shown, however, this segment isn't that large, and is composed of people who generally don't matter (Pat Buchanan, conservatives buried deep in the liberal strongholds of California, New York, and New England).  Even then, the Democrats really failed (at least in my estimation) to put forth a candidate who could appeal to these segments (and, therefore, to the undecideds as well).  Of course, it would have been worse with Dean, but at least Dean would have energized the base.  Combine Kerry's failure to rally the base around him with his failure to get undecideds and marginal Republicans, and boom.

The only place Kerry did succeed in this election was in New Hampshire (and to a much lesser extent MN/WI), which is filled with so many of the social and foreign-policy non-conservative conservatives that Kerry's limited appeal to these groups actually allowed him to take the state...by 10,000 votes.


Dean's political ambitions are not exhausted yet, mark my words.  He's running again.  Unless the 'Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party' finds a better liberal candidate (and other than Hillary, who is there?--well, other than Gore), he'll be their darling, no matter his prior centrism.  And then it'll be up to some centrist to stop him--which shouldn't be that hard to do, given the legacy of the scream.  But you never know...

[angus]

who knows?  I found Carl's post (elsewhere) intriguing.  He pointed out that even though the talking heads favor Senators, the Governors actually have a better track record.  I should have noticed that before.  But here we are touting Bayh, Feingold, Kerry, and the like.  So, yeah, Dean would be the intellectual centrist's choice, if what you're looking for is a centrist with executive experience.  Still, I think he's so easy to mock.  So easy, in fact, that he couldn't even outpace the likes of Sen. Edwards and the stiff verbose John Kerry in the primaries, due to the bad press the (obviously Dem.-friendly) network television news was giving him.  True, they may have wanted Bush out too badly, and felt that Dean was too easy to mock, and would thus loose.  Therefore it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, but still, for an economic centrist (i.e., "new" democrat), anti-war, anti-Bush former Governor, can't they do better?

Davis?  yeah, right.
Richardson?  Hmmm, there may be some advantage here.
Napolitano?  naw, I hear she likes bathing with little boys.

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

[lidaker]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

[angus]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

you do realize Paul Tsongas is dead, don't you?

[lidaker]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

you do realize Paul Tsongas is dead, don't you?

I dreamed I saw Tson-gas last night,
Alive as you and me
Says I "But Paul, you're eight years dead"
"I never died" says he

"Your liver failure killed you Paul,
along with pneumonia as a result of your many cancer treatments"
"Takes more than that to kill a man"
Says Paul "I didn't die"

"Tson-gas ain't dead" he says to me,
"Tson-gas ain't never died
Where moderates are fighting on
Tson-gas is at their side"

[Beef]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

you do realize Paul Tsongas is dead, don't you?

I dreamed I saw Tson-gas last night,
Alive as you and me
Says I "But Paul, you're eight years dead"
"I never died" says he

"Your liver failure killed you Paul,
along with pneumonia as a result of your many cancer treatments"
"Takes more than that to kill a man"
Says Paul "I didn't die"

"Tson-gas ain't dead" he says to me,
"Tson-gas ain't never died
Where moderates are fighting on
Tson-gas is at their side"

Also, his name is an anagram for "Get Nasal Soup."  And "Gaseous Planet."

(no disrespect for the dead intended)

[Beef]

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

Not enough hair.

[Ben.]

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

Not enough hair.

He's fairly moderate too, a good candidate but i think he could make a better VP if a southern candidate where nominated. 

[angus]

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

Not enough hair.

He's fairly moderate too, a good candidate but i think he could make a better VP if a southern candidate where nominated. 

well, he may have been born in New York, like Bush was born in Connecticut, but now he's from PA.  And that's Mullet Country.  So, as a "regional strategy" it's a good choice.  There's potentially lots of appeal to flyover country folks for a guy who's currently from the three-mile island area.

[Democratic Hawk]

If Howard Dean wins the nomination, my colours will no longer be 'Red'!

I want to see a Democrat in power not tooting from the fringe!

Dave

[Richard]

I'd love to see Dean up for 2008.  You're making this too easy for Republicans!  It is like you're designing your party to fail.

[Giant Saguaro]

Yep, I hope Dean makes a go of it again and I hope he gets it. What was his last comment, Bush used Milosivic style tactics to get re-elected? Get him up there with Hillary and Michael Moore, I want to keep the win streak going.

[AuH2O]

Dean was compromised the minute he joined the establishment, which he did when he strongly backed the Kerry campaign.

He has no future.