I could have sworn that a year or so ago, that John Forbes Kerry was the perceived front-runner for the Democrat nomination. I’m more or less aware of most of the notable politicians of either party, but I had no idea of the name of the governor of Vermont. Kerry seemed to have it all: name recognition (especially when his name was reported as John F. Kerry), money, and a solid northeastern base. What happened? How did this kid from nowhere (Dean) end up so far ahead in the polls? Was his message that much “better” than Kerry’s, or was he just a more marketable commodity (looks, sense of humor, etc.)? What’s the deal?
Lots of things. Dean is definitely more liberal than Kerry (although not as much as Kucinich, who sadly has no chance) and I think the traditional democratic base, which has felt disenfranchised for some time, is responding. His grassroots money-making efforts were highly successful (raising more money than any of the other Democrats through small donations on the 'net.) He’s definitely more liberal - and the big one for me is his opposition to the Iraq war, which Kerry supported.
Plus he’s probably more charismatic than Kerry (although I’d be tough-pressed to say either of them are marketable in terms of looks.
'Cause he’s pissed off just like so many Democrats. There’s a ton of untapped liberal rage at the blatent excesses and unmitigated gall of the current administration. And at the DNC’s pussiness in combatting it. Dean was the first to use this anger and give it an outlet instead of just toeing the “yes, massah Rebuplican” Democrat party line.
I gotta warn you democrat Dopers, though, you are headed for disaster.
I’m Republican. We’ve had pissed-off moments as a party, too, just like you. It usually preceeds a landslide loss.
Republicans were pissed off in 1964. Lost bad.
Democrats were pissed off in 1972. Lost really bad.
Democrats were pretty pissed off in 1984. The party was very divided after a bitter nomination battle, and Mondale went on to lose every state but one.
Voters don’t like pissed off parties. You’ll do better if you take a deep breath and relax.
Another Republican checking in here. I’ll even tip my hand and say I’m a Republican who is pretty cheesed off at Bush and honestly would like a viable alternative to vote for this election. As such, I’ve been trying to keep an eye on the Dem candidates for that alternative. Clark, so far, has my interest as a possible option.
I got to agree with Mr. Moto, this pissed off act is not going to play well with mainstream voters. Sure, it is great to have Dean pissed and preaching to the choir of the more left part of the party. The problem is, the choir does not an election make.
One thing about Dean supporters that baffles me. One of the big criticisms about Bush is his ‘jingo-ism’ or spouting off from the hip. Especially in international relations, well he just flubs up repeatedly. Now, I think it is a fair criticism of Bush - he just lacks the diplomatic tongue. I find myself mostly agreeing with his foreign policy efforts but repeatedly going :smack: at the ham-fisted way things are communicated and the constant “clarifications” from the White House press office.
Yet, Dean is as bad, if not worse but somehow it is a strength to those who support Dean. It seems very inconsistent and highly partisan but I’m open to an explaination.
I don’t think Dean’s only thing is “being a pissed-off Democrat.” After all, one can even-headedly ask questions like, “Why are American soldiers dying in Iraq for nonexistent WMDs?” or “Why does Bush want to give work amnesty to illegal aliens?”
I don’t think Dean has only anger going for him either. But I do think that’s why he gained a large and fanatical following early on and how he managed to distinguish himself from the pack (and certainly from Washington insiders like Kerry). I hope he will appeal to the masses but I’ll vote for anyone who isn’t Bush…
I’m a big fan of Dean, and he certainly has a good chance to get the nomination, but he does have to change his tactits if he gets it and is no longer debating and trying to get votes from democrats, but debating Bush and trying to get votes from independents, and Hell, maybe even some Republicans! (I do know a few republicans who are so pissed at Bush they would rather have Dean than him.)
In October, 2002, I was at a voter registration gathering at a local gay bar. Several local candidates were there, and, also, Howard Dean. He announced that he would be running for president.
It really impressed me that he would bother to show up in a gay bar. I seriously doubt that any other candidates (certainly not Bush) would do that.
Understand that I will support and vote for the democratic nominee, but I do hope it will be Dean.
While I groan occassionally at some of the things he says, he does seem to recover pretty well. His campaign counts a lot on what the grass roots people think; even to modifying their positions depending on feedback from them.
Pissed off is exactly the attitude we should all have towards the Bush administration.
The damage they have done to our constitution, our security, our financial well being, our international relations and our country in general, is beyond anything a couple thousand Osama Bin Ladens or Saddam Husseins could have done.
What emotion should dems be expressing?
Damage? I saw lots of it on September 11th, but things are going pretty well since. We fought a war most Americans saw as long overdue. Pissing off the French was, I believe, a happy side effect. The Clinton recession is over, job recovery is following suit.
Fears of rights erosion are way overblown, Since September 11th, for example, the FBI has subpoenaed nobody’s (that’s right, nobody’s) library records.
Act too pissed off in this environment, and people will wonder about the mental stability of the candidates and the party so aggrieved.
Following 9/11, we had almost the entire world rooting for us. What did we do with that overwhelming international support? We went after Iraq, which presented no threat to us whatsoever, and had nothing to do with the terrorism we were fighting. We did so in spite of overwhelming international opposition. In doing so, we squandered most of the good will we had acquired.
Most Americans supported the war because they were repeatedly lied to about the need for it. They were told that Iraq had all kinds of horrible weapons, ready to be launched against the rest of the world, and that Iraq was in bed with Al-Qaeda. None of that was even remotely true, as the adminstration has now admitted. A majority of Americans still support the war, I believe, simply because they don’t want to admit to themselves that they were suckered so thoroughly.
As for pissing off the French … given that fighting terrorism requires lots of international coordination, pissing off anyone who may be inclined to help us does not sound like a smart move.
a)he is the front runner at this point
b)he inspired this great “grass roots” internet following
c)In the 2002 election, a lot of dems tried not attack bush and lost. Dean is liberal enough to distinguish himself from bush’s policies, but not too liberal to be voted.
A hijack. I don’t like Dean. I think he is a smirking, over confident jackass who reminds me too much (personality wise) of bush. If he gets the nom, i’m voting green party.
This assumes that the French were inclined to help us in the first place, in the case of disarming Saddam Hussein. There is lots of evidence that they were not so inclined.
Anyway, hijack over. Safe to say Dean won’t win over many Republicans, and there are many of them out there.
ok…