From GOM
I’m not sure about this one. Dean isn’t anti-war, he’s “anti-this-war” and especially “anti-this-war-this-way”. Bartlett hasn’t commented on “this war”, since it isn’t happening on the show.
They are both seen as outsiders by the military.
Since we’re all working so hard on the analogies portion of our test, please complete the following:
McGovern is to Dean
as
Shriver is to X
(we’ll discount Eagleton as he withdrew after being nominated)
You know Dean supported the war in Kosovo, the war in Afghanistan, and Gulf War I, right?
He presents a real and credible threat to Karl Rove? 
He…he…ALLOWED GAY CIVIL UNIONS TO BECOME LAW!!
Haven’t you noticed the giant smoking chasm where Vermont used to be?
So is
Michael Moore.
You think they’re gonna zig, but then they zag. Zoinks!
I hope that Dean doesn’t turn into a McGovern. The other candidates for the DNC are at best embarrassing.
Liebermann? Sharpton? Braun? Kerry? No thanks.
the most amusing parts of the whole Civil Union issue, at least in regards to Dean, are that:
1.) He was reacting to a court order and had no choice
2.) He sighed it with the barest minimum of pubicity
I’m surprised he hasn’t taken fire from homosexual groups over it.
For that matter, why was McGovern considered radical? He was a WWII bomber pilot, for chrissakes. He is almost as rational as Kucinich. Read this:
“We hear much talk these days, as we did during the Vietnam War, of “supporting our troops.” Like most Americans, I have always supported our troops, and I have always believed we had the best fighting forces in the world–with the possible exception of the Vietnamese, who were fortified by their hunger for national independence, whereas we placed our troops in the impossible position of opposing an independent Vietnam, albeit a Communist one. But I believed then as I do now that the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them on mistaken military campaigns that needlessly endanger their lives and limbs. That is what went on in Vietnam for nearly thirty years–first as we financed the French in their failing effort to regain control of their colonial empire in Southeast Asia, 1946-54, and then for the next twenty years as we sought unsuccessfully to stop the Vietnamese
independence struggle led by Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap–two great men whom we should have accepted as the legitimate leaders of Vietnam at the end of World War II. I should add that Ho and his men were our allies against the Japanese in World War II. Some of my fellow pilots who were shot down by Japanese gunners over Vietnam were brought safely back to American lines by Ho’s guerrilla forces.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0405-06.htm
He strikes me as a humane rational person. But anyone who opposes the military-industrial complex’s advertising campaigns (i.e., all US military interventions post WWII) designed to boost weapons sales to corrupt right-wing dictatorships, is considered radical. America has really gone to shit since we allowed the Nazis to take over the Pentagon.
Fleshing out Telcontar’s point, only AFTER the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was “constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law” did Dean sign, behind closed doors, the legistlature’s civil unions bill. Although the House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor both favored same-sex marriage rights, Dean did not push for it and opted for the more conservative bill. What surprises me more is how Dean gets a pass from gay rights advocates for this:
[http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm](([url)]"‘It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,’ Dean said of gay marriage. ‘The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect.’"
…as well as getting a pass for his opposition to any federal law establishing civil unions, saying each state must come to “grips with civil rights” in its own way. (“Meet the Press”, 7/02 & 6/03).
A states’ rightist? Human dignity is good enough for one state but not good enough for another?
Radical or not, he seems just as opportunistic as anyone else, knowing that he can channel the anti-Bush anger effectively enough for people to overlook his actual positions. Remember how the left wailed about being betrayed by Clinton once he was in office? You can take it to the bank that if Howard Dean is elected, the left will be saying exactly the same thing.
I hate to say this , but I agree 100% with Minty’s shrewd politcal acumen here. It is not enough to win the Dem primary- and there is no doubt Dean can do this (he might not, but he certainly CAN). Too many Dems are going for the candidate they want instead of one they can live with- and who can beat Bush. And, sorry- Dean can’t beat Bush. I am a lifelong Democrat, and still I say that.
Dean is a Yankee dammit, and thus won’t carry a single state south of the Mason-Dixon. (OK, yes, if he has a great VP things are different). The NE states are already a Dem stronghold, along with CA & NY. The next largest state is TX- and no doubt, that is 100% Bush. Midwest & deep south is GOP (unless a deep southerner is the DEM nominee). Really, next election swings on one state- the 4th? biggest- FLA, just like last election. Penn. is also important (5th?). Vermont is a teeny state- - something like 49th in population.
FLA has several demographics. Hispanic & Cubans, retired Northerners (heavily Jewish), and those who might be called “rednecks”- altho I apologize for that term. Dean won’t carry FLA. Thus ispo facto Dean can’t win the general. I don’t care what his politics are- his region is more important.
For godssakes fellow Dems- we HAVE to “beat the Bush” next election. We need someone who can win the bloody General election.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m a lifelong libertarian who has consistantly voted Republican in my 25 years(yes, all 7 of the voting ones ;)), and not only is Howard Dean the first dem presidential canidate that I will vote for, he’s the first canidate I’ve ever been excited about voting for. I agree with him on most views, though I wish he was slightly more conservative on guns(though for a democrat, he kicks ass on that issue), and something about him just connects with me.
Conspiracy theory! Warning!
I think, but cannot remotely prove, that G. McGovern and H. Dean are alike in one respect: a lot of Republican money is going into thier nomination campaigns. The one deadly advantage the Pubbies have is money, lots of money, money up the ass and out the ying-yang. I cannot imagine it has never occured to them to support the weakest candidate of the Dems. Even less do I imagine they would disdain such an unsportsmanlike skullduggery. Hence, if follows that they must have. How else do you explain Mike Dukakis, for chrissake?
The Bushiviks need to cement the loyalty of the bible-thumping right, which loyalty may well be wavering due to the Admins inability to deliver any substantial reactionary results. For years, they claimed that they were on the case, but the Libruhls kept thwarting God’s Will. The Gay Marriage thing is perfect for thier purposes, they won’t have to mention it and alienate the non-bigoted right, everybody already knows! You got a room full of Troglodyte Right, and you say “Howard Dean” to any of them, and “gay marriage” will be the first words out of thier mouth!
I think the one who scares Karl Rove is Kerry. The nightmare of GeeDubyas empty flight suit standing next to a Genuine War Hero must give him the heebie-jeebies. Which is good.
I like Dean better, but think Kerry would be a stronger candidate. And, as always, ABL…Anybody but Lieberman.
good god, first voting democratic and than whole heartedly agreeing with elucidator. what’s happening to me?!
Sez DrDeth.
It hasn’t been that long, just a few months, since minty, whom I love like a brother, was insisting that Dean had no chance to win the nomination. Perhaps that means his acumen really is shrewd, just a few months late.
I’m personally not sold on Dean yet, though certainly interested. I need to see how he handles himself when the full media glare is on him, when the RW-media hate machine finally realizes Hillary is a decoy and focuses on the real threat, and his preparedness for the job gets better scrutiny. I don’t pay much attention to policy statements, or the specifics of what a candidate has done under specific circumstances; I want to know how he thinks and how acts under pressure and what interests he best represents. That tells me the most about what he’ll do at the next level. We don’t even have that at a primary level yet.
If we’re gonna play the electoral-geography game, Dick Gephardt is the logical choice. The northeast and CA will vote Democratic pretty much regardless; Gephardt shores up Dem support in states like PA and MI, and probably puts them in the early lead in MO, OH, and WV.
I think this election is much more likely to hinge on the Rust Belt than on Florida. Certainly if the Dems lose large chunks of the Rust Belt, they can forget about winning the election.
The biggest difference between Howard Dean and George McGovern is that McGovern never had a prayer of winning the election, under ANY circumstances. Howard Dean CAN win. I don’t think he will, but the numbers make it possible. There are certainly enough winnable states out there with enough electoral votes to make “President Dean” more than a pipe dream.
But I’m rather curious as to why Dean lovers are so enamored of Wesley Clark!
WHAT, exactly, does Wesley Clark stand for? Almost nobody knows. Is he even a Democrat? Again, almost nobody is sure. Is there a single state that Wesley Clark’s name would add to the Democratic column? Nope, nary a one. Is Clark a charismatic figure, one who’ll draw voters? No, not that I can tell. He seems like a reasonably smart, capable guy, but there is abolutely NOTHING about him that recommends him as a Vice Presidential nominee.
His value to the ticket would be 100% symbolic. It would be a way for otherwise dovish, accommodationist, appeasement-minded Democrats to say, “See? We do SO care about defense and national security- see? We even have a GENERAL on our ticket! Neener neener!”
Wesley Clark DOES have some genuinely appealing qualities, but I don’t think those qualities are why so many Democrats are so enamored of him. I think Clark is enough of an unknown that Democrats simply project their hopes and dreams onto him, much as many Republicans once did with Colin Powell.
Of course, the more Republicans learned about Powell, the less enamored they were with him- not that he’s a bad man, he just isn’t what they thought/hoped he’d be. How sure are you Democrats that Wesley Clark won’t be a similar disappointment from the OTHER end of the spectrum?
“If we’re gonna play the electoral-geography game, Dick Gephardt is the logical choice.”
I’m a yellow-dog Democrat, and this statement made me throw-up in my shoes.
Gephardt has the charisma of a piece of wet toilet paper. He’s got tons of experience, lots of name recognition among Party loyalists, and I’m sure his mother loved him to no end, but he’s just so…bland. He’s also in danger of becoming the Pat Paulsen of the Party. He is the perennial candidate for President.
Either Dean or Kerry is going to take it. I’m more interested in the Vice Presidential pick, hence my earlier question.
-
You are not alone in thinking that… I recently heard a nationally respected commentator make exactly that same observation. I’m sorry, but I don’t remember who it was. I would sure like to get some facts on this.
-
There is NO scientific explanation for Dukakis.
Another commentator said this about Dean: He has a quick temper and he doesn’t like to be questioned. In fact, he went further than that. He said the only thing that can stop Dean now is Dean himself.
I’m sorry. I don’t remember who the commentator was. I’m 0 for 2 this morning.
Could well be, GOM. Clinton had the same reputation for a quick temper, but could control it in public. Dean may be able to as well - and a brief display at a judicious time may help him crystallize anger against Bush.
Dukakis’ nomination was based on “The Massachusetts Miracle” - the computer-industry-driven economic boom of the '80’s. The image presented was that he could do the same for the nation, and put “competence” above ideology. It wasn’t until late in the campaign that his inadequacies as a candidate became clear, even reaching the point where many of us thought he didn’t even want the job; just that Kitty was driving him along. Damn shame, really.
Clark’s appeal seems like Powell’s or Eisenhower’s - people who’ve had great success as international leaders and organizers, but without dirt on their hands from actual accomplishments in areas outside the military and diplomacy. People were/are able to read into them whatever they like, since they didn’t/don’t give substantive replies in public (some of that effect may be redounding to Dean’s benefit as well). It was already known that Ike was going to be nominated for President before he even said what party he belonged to, for instance, and he may not have won if he’d said “Democratic” after so many years of FDR and Truman. But who knows?