I was one of the first who got behind Howard, and I still think he would make a great President, but unless a miracle happens, I think the writing is on the wall.
The goal of Democrats like myself is to make sure Dubya isn’t re-elected to do any more damage. When Dean first started out, it seemed like there wasn’t a chance in hell for a Democrat to win the next election. But somehow, Dean tapped into a growing, silent rage and made it acceptable to express our wrath. Dean showed how the Internet can pull a lot of people together and get money to put muscle behind those feelings. MoveOn.com has fortunately joined in the fray.
Maybe it was the infamous Iowa speech, maybe it was just a case of bad timing…peaking in the polls too soon. Whatever. Recent polls show that Dubya would lose an election if it were held today. Yes, those polls will change between now and next November, but let’s give the credit to Howard Dean for igniting the spark. I hope he wins in Wisconsin, and who knows, maybe the winds will change and he will suddenly become the flagbearer again.
Whatever happens, I just want to offer a big thank you and hope any Wisconsin voters reading this will help give him a supportive vote of thanks.
I have to agree in part- a couple of weeks ago, before Iowa but after things had started going wrong, I took another look and decided Dean wasn’t my guy after all. But he played a big part in energizing the primary season, and that’s helped the Democratic Party and it’ll help whichever candidate ends up taking on Bush.
But if I vote for him am I not just encouraging him?
I’m not even sure which of the candidates are on the ballot here. I haven’t decided yet who to vote for. I was thinking maybe Sharpton, just to piss everybody off. Either that or picking up a Republican ballot (are they even holding a primary this year?) and writing in Roy Moore.
Anyway, the big issue this time (at least in Dane County where I am) is whether we’re going to allow the Ho-Chunk Nation to expand its local Bingo hall into a full-fledged casino. Nobody I’ve talked to is even paying that much attention to the primary.
Yeah, I’m not to sure about the vote of thanks but I feel much the same about Dean. He brought up issues that needed to be raised and galvanized the Democrats. If he hadn’t come along, I believe the other candidates would still be makes feeble, meely-mouthed swipes at the current administration…
Whoaaaa elfie, you should work on your reading comprehension. The idea is that Kerry WOULD have been going out on a major limb by making such comments if Dean hadn’t already riled everyone up- now it’s safe for Kerry to do so… but he should probably avoid any screeching… at least until he gets the nomination
I like Dean, and I’m disappointed that (as it seems) he won’t be the nominee. Not only do I agree with the OP that he made anger at Bush acceptable–as it should have been all along, my dear “opposition party”–but I appreciate Dean’s apparent candor on a variety of topics, including his own successes and failures. If the candor is a pose, it’s a convincing one. Normally I can’t sit through a politician’s speech or interview without wincing, but Dean is someone I actively enjoy watching. If nothing else, he seems to be enjoying the ride.
Also, a shout-out to Judith Steinberg Dean, one of the loveliest human beings I have ever seen on TV.
Seattle’s leading alternaweekly The Stranger ran an editorial before this past Saturday’s caucuses* where they basically said we’re better off with Dean in the race if for no other purpose than to keep Kerry (and anyone else who still has traction) honest. Makes sense to me; Kerry’s acquired a spine lately, which has translated into big numbers for him (and which is the only way he can win in November), but without Dean to galvanize the debate and show him what a firebrand can do, it’s possible he’ll backslide into the mealy-mouthed political wuss who was occupying his suit at the start of the campaign.
*in which Dean finished second to Kerry, FWIW
I also like Dean (in fact, after last Saturday, I’m a Dean delegate), but I’m a realist…
If nothing else, his campaign has gotten people to actually show up and say they care, which is amazing. 4 years ago, I was the only person from my precinct at my presidential caucus, the other precincts in the room had a handful at best. This year, there were 21 for my precinct, and the cafeteria we met in (with a few other precincts) was packed full. Standing room only - and there was discussion and debate and it was wonderful. this story from the Seattle Times is very telling (free registration required, sorry). I don’t think that would have happened without Dean. And I am thankful for that.
Okay, I haven’t really been paying attention so far - at what point did Dean get into trouble? I heard something about he offended some Iowans with his bad temper or something…?
I suspect we won’t have a choice anyway by the time Illinois votes on March 16th, but darn it, Kerry doesn’t make my heart beat any faster.
Dean started having trouble a few days before the Iowa primaries, less than a week I’d say. I’m not sure exactly why. I think part of the problem was that people started thinking he was too liberal.
Apparent candor, yes. Other times he could be just as self-serving as anybody else. His style and habit of sometimes saying too much probably convinced people he’s more sincere than he really is. He did seal his records as Governor of VT and (though he stopped talking about it) DID endorse a war resolution that was not much different than the one that passed.
I’ve said elsewhere (GD’s Election Predictions thread, I believe) that even though I don’t want Dean to be the nominee, the Dems should erect a statue in his honor if they win this year, because (as the rest of you have been saying here) he gave the party a backbone transplant.
But I don’t believe Dean has presidential temperament, for lack of a better word. He’s willing to shoot off his mouth. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, and in either case he can be scary. He was right when he said that Saddam’s capture didn’t make the US any safer. He was wrong (at least, let’s all hope and pray) when he refused to close the door on the possibility that the government knew about 9/11 ahead of time. Both of these remarks (as well as some others that would have been best left unsaid) came before the Iowa caucuses, and contributed to his slide there. That, and the emergence of Kerry and Edwards as reasonable answers to the question, “If not Dean, then who?”
I think there may be something to the idea that the longer Dean stays in the race, the longer Kerry will be forced to be a passionate candidate, rather than the empty suit he was for most of 2003. If he does it for long enough, he might actually learn to like it.
I understand your point, but what does this really mean these days? Does anyone seriously believe that Little Georgie Shortpants of Crawford, Texas has “presidential temperament”? If such a quality is not required of the incumbent, we should hesitate to require it of the challenger. A little more statesmanship from all parties would be nice, though.
Well, it’s my requirement. And it’s still my requirement, even though 50 million Republicans in 2000 had what I regard as a lesser standard.
And that’s the great thing about America: we all get to determine our personal requirements for the Presidency.
If Dean wins the Democratic nomination, which he won’t, I’d vote for him over Bush in a heartbeat. But I’d still strongly prefer Kerry or Edwards or Clark.
I am a bit disappointed that Dean appears to be out of the race. But I think he did a lot for the Dems this year. He showed them that you can raise a lot of money on the internet and through a grass-roots campaign. To me, this was the truly remarkable thing about Dean’s campaign. I had never even considered contributing money to a candidate before, but this last year I did THREE TIMES! That is truly amazing.
I admit I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, I don’t care who (now that Lieberman’s out, thank the goddess) because I think the most important thing is to keep Bush out of office.
I remember “Bush I” was thought to be a pretty strong candidate for a second term, but he raised taxes when he promised not to. (or was it that he created new taxes?) I think the exact same kind of disgust is rippling through the public now with Bush II, and the timing couldn’t be better. I’ll support Kerry with all of my heart if he is the one who can get these types of votes. And I think he has a better chance than Dean of doing that.
Dean helped raise the number of voters registered in the 18-25 group. Having some students actually care about the political issues of today has, in my opinion, helped the Democrats more than it has aided the Republicans as the younger age group generally has a lower income and them being Commies and all
Dean is only the latest casualty of the old “we’ll energize the young people, and they’ll make a real difference in this election” canard. Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, John Anderson, and now Howard Dean have all found out the hard way that the 18-24 year old demographic in this country is the LEAST politically active group around. The few who ARE politically active tend to be very enthusiastic, which gives an exaggerated impression that the press picks up on, but when you comes right down to it, the bulk of the 18-24 year olds have other things on their minds…
I guess the Deomcrats can thank him if they want, but I have never been that impressed by him. I have seen him do two or three interviews and the only thing I ever hear him say is rehashed, almost meaningless cliches like, “We need to get rid of Washington insders” and “We must resist special interests.” This is considered a revoluationary message to Democrats? This is the same message that every party challenging for the president always uses. I rarely hear him say anything that is thought provoking or inspiring. Not that George Bush does that either, but if you’re looking for an alternative to the president, from an intellectual standpoint, I don’t see Dean being it. He seems to peddle a bunch of shallow, easy answers.
And for the record, no poll has shown that Bush would lose the election if it were held today. There are polls that show Bush behind Kerry and others, but as we found out in the last election, you don't win the election based on the popular vote. You can't poll 1000 or so people an somehow extrapolate that to predicting what the individual outcomes will be in 50 states, which is what you would need to be able to do to predict Bush would lose the election if held today. The more accurate statement is that Bush now trails some Dems in the popular vote based on current polling. And it will change may times before the election.
