Nation-Building

"This is a brief moment in history when the United States has pre-eminent military, economic and political power. It won't last forever.... This is just a period, a few decades this will last, and I think that all of us who are Americans should think about this and ask ourselves how do we wish this moment to be judged 50 years from now."
-- President William Jefferson Clinton, 02/22/02.

"No serious candidate for the Presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy.... [It is] surprising and eye-opening to see a major candidate for president even ponder the possibility of not having the strongest military in the world."
-- Chris Lehane, John Kerry's Spokesperson, 04/28/03.

Continue reading/discuss Did John Kerry Insult President Clinton? ...

Buried inside Dionne's examination of Gephardt's healthcare proposal, one finds a glimmer of support for Howard Dean's alternative.

...the plan would be expensive. Gephardt's own numbers peg its costs in 2007 at $247 billion. Yes, it further subsidizes Americans who are already insured. Dean, a physician who has been saying sensible things about health care for months, wants new money spent primarily on expanding help to the uninsured. And Gephardt's plan won't satisfy those who think the country needs to move away from employer-based health insurance.

Dionne calls it accurately that Dean was an active advocate for healthcare reform much earlier than Gephardt. This contrast also serves to point out that the very existence Gephardt's plan makes it more difficult to paint Dean as a raving loony lefty* as his plan is the more practical of the two.

-----
* This link, by the way, should infuriate all of us. It's dripping with contempt and thinly veiled homophobia. As such, of course, it plays perfectly to the GOP base.

Continue reading/discuss E.J. Dionne on universal healthcare ...

I'm not sure how many of you got to see the Daily Show on Monday. If not, you'd better view the video I've linked above (real player required). This is rich! It basically points out how Bush the President is not the same Bush who ran for President.

Some choice excerpts:
Bush in 2000: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say 'This is the way it's gotta be'."
"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the Ugly American is for us to go around the world saying 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called Nation Building."
"Let me say this to you: I wouldn't use force."

Wha-wha-what?!?! ::rubs eyes:: Essentially, this is a good example of how dishonest Karl Rove was when he ran Bush's campaign. He ran Bush as a "compassionate conservative" who would conduct a "humble" foreign policy. Candidate Bush said things that today, the "left" is being berated for. So, was it unpatriotic of candidate Bush to profess a concern that we'd be viewed as imperialists if we went around the world conducting wars? Was it unpatriotic of candidate Bush to suggest that working WITH our allies, as opposed to AGAINST them, would be in our best interests? Was it unpatriotic of candidate Bush to suggest that the United States shouldn't go it alone? Of course not! Just like it's not unpatriotic for anyone opposed to the Bush Doctrine to suggest that we are walking down the wrong path.

Folks, this is the Grand Old Hypocrisy Party in action. Chris LeHane would fit in with them nicely. :^P

Continue reading/discuss Parody: Bush's hypocritical foreign policy ...

The Kerry Campaign continues to talk about the Dean campaign. Good news since this continues to raise Dean's profile and elevate his status as the candidate who can beat Kerry, and ultimately Bush. Dean draws the sharpest distinctions between himself and all the other candidates. And, he does it the good old fashioned way - by simply telling it like it is. Dean isn't scripted, he isn't careful - he is confident in his abilities, and confident in his views. Refreshing stuff, indeed!

William Saletan writes in Salon that not only does Kerry's strategy suggest that Dean is the Democratic candidate that he's most afraid of - but that actually Kerry loses twice by attacking Dean: he elevates Dean's visibility and stature; and he reduces his own credibility by showcasing his hypocrisy, having made similar remarks in the past.

Continue reading/discuss John Kerry's Hypocritical Attack on Howard Dean ...

as a public service, here are condensed versions of today's Notepad entries. I've taken the liberty of reading between the lines as well.

Graham: The Senator schmoozed in Iowa. He talked of everything from health care to education to the weather, except for whether he intends to run.

Kerry: I was a Vietnam War veteran, the horror! Regarding the strongest military, thanks for replying, Dean. Please reply, Dean.

Sharpton: I'm voting for Gephardt.

Kucinich: Kerry and Dean didn't ask me about how I feel about our nation's military, so I'll tell them. They both suck.

Edwards: Following Clinton's advice, I will put the phrase "Ma'am, that may be. But don't forget who won." on a bumper sticker.

Dean: Chris Lehane is an asshole, but our campaign is too nice to say so. These guys, on the other hand...

Gephardt: Sharpton likes my health care plan. I'm voting for Eric Alter.

Lieberman: Dear Strongbad. LINK. I want to start a new website LINK. but I don't have any ideas LINK of what to do for my website LINK. I LINK was wondering if you could give me some ideas for my new website LINK LINK. This website will be cool LINK and I'll e-mail you when I'm done. Sincerely Yours: Joe. PS. Is there really a 200-word lim

Continue reading/discuss Shorter ABC Notepad ...

The problem with playing dirty politics is that it works. Bush successfully portrayed himself as a reformer and McCain as insensitive to cancer patients back during the 2000 GOP primaries. He won North Carolina as a result and ended McCain's bid. Much of the reason Bush was able to successfully pull this off was because his team was able to leverage their attacks, through simple repetition and a fat war chest, into the conventional wisdom.

Kerry is clearly playing by the same rule book. He is targeting Dean with aspersions against his character. Rather than elevate himself into "Presidential" stature compared to his rivals, he is pulling the others down. The goal is to increase his relative fitness for the nomination in the eyes of the voters - and the pattern of attacks (always contracted out to flunkies) is a systematic campaign to solidify that desired perception as conventional wisdom.

An excellent example is the MSNBC article linked above. The tag line to the article reads:

While the other Democratic presidential contenders have refrained so far from attacking each other, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has made himself the Democrat who grabs voters’ attention by slamming his better-known rivals. This week, Dean pounded Rep. Dick Gephardt, deriding his health insurance proposal as “a pie-in-the sky radical revamping of our health care system that has no chance of ever being passed.”

Note that this is factually incorrect - the article was written well after the "UN Veto over National Security" flap that Kerry instigated last time. But worse, the article lays out the thesis of Dean as the rogue rabid candidate in the very beginning. The reader is told what to think up front - and the Dean campaign responses downstream are thus viewed from that perspective, greatly undermining them.

Note that the followup article on MSNBC in response to the military-strength flap has already absorbed that CW. Were this a level playing field, MSNBC would note that Kerry is also playing the role of attack dog - and not just on issues like Dean, but rather a personal attack on Dean's character and fitness for office. Mud, not issues. But instead the article tag reads:

With a televised debate among the nine Democratic presidential contenders coming up this weekend, rivals Howard Dean and John Kerry resumed their fractious debate over foreign policy Monday. Reacting to a statement by Dean that the United States “won’t always have the strongest military,” Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane said the remark “raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as commander in chief.”

Note that Lehane's slander against Dean is given top billing. This confluence of repetition, lavish media spending, and deliberate manipulation of the conventional wisdom is straight out of the Bush-Cheney 2000 playbook. Which leads me to think of a new slogan. "A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush."

Continue reading/discuss attack-dog persona? ...

In comments, I keep seeing questions like, "Well, what did Dean mean when he said that the U.S. 'won't always have the strongest military.'" Frankly, I think it is pretty clear. He said that the U.S. won't always have the strongest gosh-darn military. Is that really unclear? And do some Americans really believe that after World War II, God granted America with an eternal gift of a military that would always be strongest?

Cause that's pretty much what you'd have to believe to disagree with this statement.

But, that explanation doesn't seem to satisfy, so here's my full explanation.

Dean is recognizing that within the world, power revolutions occur. Powerful dynasties are destroyed. Empires are pulled apart. Colonies rebel. Regional powers become regional hegemons, play strategically, and soon are close to ruling the world. But nothing lasts forever, not even cold November Rain.

And what these comments imply, to me, anyways is that Dean is pointing out that if the U.S. military is not so superior to all other forces in the world that it renders them needless that diplomacy will be necessary. And that recognizing that we rely on allies for bases, intelligence, and military support, it is important to see diplomacy as a key component of national defense. The sentence right before the one in question deals specifically with diplomacy.

And a lot of people seem to condemn Dean for perhaps suggesting that U.S. superiority could falter in the near future (by which, I mean, next 50 years). While I doubt the U.S. military will weaken, it is likely that China will strengthen very, very quickly. And keeping the peace with another world power on the stage will require more than military might. It will require a strong military, strong diplomacy, and a well thought-out foreign policy.

The best way to make sure that the U.S. comes out of the next century in good shape is to make sure we're ready for all contingencies. Denying likely ones, like Lehane wants to do, is foolhardy. Dean is being honest about foreign policy.

And, of course, there's the fact that no one with foreign policy credentials has attacked Dean for this statement. Lehane was probably a comm/poli sci major in college.

Continue reading/discuss What exactly did Dr. Dean mean? ...

Here's the NYTimes story on Kerry's misrepresentation of Dean's comments. Dean acquits himself well and gets in the last word.

Continue reading/discuss NYTimes on Dean/Kerry Flap ...

Matt Singer has a very important post below about the Kerry campaign's latest descent into scorched-earth politics by questioning the fitness of their opponent to serve. Dean supporters and all Democrats should know that this has become a disturbing pattern of behavior from the Kerry camp.

Indeed, the eerily similarity of the latest personal attack to a previous one demonstrates the Kerry campaign has decided to try to take the low road to the nomination. John Kerry needs to own up to this strategy and either repudiate what his aides have said or say these things himself to Howard Dean's face at this Saturday's debate.

The latest below-the-belt punch from the Kerry's spokesman/amoral sniper Chris Lehane:

"Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States 'won't always have the strongest military,' raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief. No serious candidate for the Presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy. [Emphasis added]

Back in February, it was Kerry Campaign Manager Jim Jordan doing the dirty work for his boss:

Kerry’s campaign manager, Jim Jordan, fired back, “Governor Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That’s an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency.” [Emphasis added]

There is no doubt that this will be the Kerry line against Howard Dean. With his strategy Kerry has set a new standard of sleaze. It took a certified loss in New Hampshire for candidate George W. Bush to launch the full Manchurian Candidate/he-has-a-black-daughter campaign of character assassination and innuendo against John McCain in 2000.

Write to John Kerry and demand that he repeat what Jordan and Lehane have said to Howard Dean's face this Saturday at the debate in South Carolina. If Kerry really believes that Howard Dean, governor of his state for over a decade, is not even fit to serve as president, he shouldn't rely his whore aides to sacrifice their own credibility and decency with such remarks. Let him say it to Dean's face himself.

Continue reading/discuss Not a Gaffe -- A Strategy ...

(Before I begin, let me say that this is just my post, wasn't asked for by the campaign, by Aziz or anyone else.)

I just came across the CNN story on the fight that Lehane started and is deciding to continue:

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi responded with his own written statement, calling Lehane's comments absurd. Trippi said Dean would never tolerate an erosion of American military power, but the war on terrorism cannot be won by relying solely on military power and must include diplomacy.

"Governor Dean believes that even the most sophisticated military in the world acting alone cannot eliminate all sleeper terrorist cells, nor should it be called upon to take on every dictator for the purpose of regime change," Trippi said.

Trippi said if Kerry supports Bush's approach to foreign policy "then John Kerry is running for the nomination of the wrong party, because the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war must stop here."

Lehane said the Trippi statement is a "non-answer response (that) doesn't explain the unexplainable or defend the indefensible, his statement in Time Magazine that America wouldn't always have the strongest military."

[...]

In an interview, Trippi criticized Kerry for sending "his boys out" to criticize Dean instead of answering questions about his own position.

"This is crass politics," he said. "This is an important debate about what kind of country we are going to be in the international community and there is no serious candidate running for president of the United States who doesn't believe in maintaining America's military strength in the world. John Kerry knows that, his campaign knows that."

Did Lehane actually just say that Trippi's answer couldn't explain the unexplainable or defend the indefensible? I think he did.

And I think it's time we gave the Kerry campaign a piece of our mind. We're Democrats. We're all Democrats. And it's one thing to have policy disagreements. If Kerry disagrees with Dean's stance, he can disagree, but let them know that you will not stand to see Dean's words twisted by a man running to represent us.

You can e-mail

info@johnkerry.com

or go here.

Title your message "Stop Misrepresenting Dean" or something similar so they know that lots of people are a little less than happy with their actions.

Continue reading/discuss Dean Defense Forces: Call to Action ...

Chris Lehane, Kerry Communiations Director, turned on Dean once again yesterday (via the Note):

"Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States 'won't always have the strongest military,' raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief. No serious candidate for the Presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy. A President Kerry, who will bring the perspective of having served on the frontlines to the job of Commander-In-Chief, will guarantee that America has the strongest, best trained, most well equipped military in history," Lehane wrote in a statement.

Is Lehane slow, a liar, or an asshole? The statement that the US "wont't always have the strongest military" seems to me to be an entirely defensible claim. And it seems to me that keeping that in mind is the best way to keep it supreme the longest. A notion that the U.S.'s superiority is inevitable is in fact very threatening to that superiority. On top of that, Kerry's camp is raising doubts about whether a governor has the foreign policy credentials to win the Presidency. From what I've seen, Dean is doing pretty well at flexing his foreign policy muscles. I have a lot of concerns over foreign policy and he's taking care of them, which is amazing even me.

Update
Well, the Dean camp responds:

You see where this goes, Chris? Tit for tat? Never mind that our first instinct was to send you a few history books for your edification. The US will continue to have the strongest military in the world under President Dean. The difference between President Dean or President Bush or Kerry, apparently, is how that military will be used, and in what context, and to what end. Get back to us when Senator Kerry decides where he stands on that issue.

Continue reading/discuss Dean Defense Forces: Eroding the Military? ...

Christopher Curtis has already ably handled the recent New Republic Online piece by Ryan Lizza on the 2004 candidates, but I worry that some of Lizza's many conjectures are seeping into the ether unquestioned. With nine candidates in the field, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is getting complicated. Lizza makes a heck of a lot of presumptions and Dean supporters should be on the lookout for shoddy interpretation of their candidate's situation.

Again, it's complicated, so for your convenience we present a true/false guide to this Democratic candidate round-up piece using the following format:

RIGHTNESS:

Excerpt.

Reason: If necessary.

From "Field Test" by Ryan Lizza at the New Republic Online:

FALSE:

If Karl Rove had designed the ideal setting to magnify the stature gap between the wartime president and his Democratic challengers on the day tanks rolled through Baghdad, he could hardly have done better than forcing the viable candidates, such as John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, to share a stage with Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol Moseley Braun, and making all of the above genuflect before Marian Wright Edelman, the [Children's Defense Fund] president and liberal icon whose husband quit the Clinton administration in disgust over welfare reform.

Reason: Only insiders and candidates' supporters were paying attention; there was no inter-party consequence to that event.

FALSE:

Howard Dean echoed Moseley Braun's lefty isolationist belief that rebuilding Iraq would simply cost too much. (Only Edwards made the obvious point that Democrats could actually be in favor of spending money abroad on Iraq and at home on health care.)

Reason: Howard Dean argued that the cost of both disarming and rebuilding Iraq should be borne by a truly global coalition. President Bush, by failing to lead the world and effectively losing a popularity contest to a murderous dictator, increased the amount of American blood and treasure necessary to do the as-yet-unfinished job of disarming Iraq and assuring stable, democratic government there.

INADVERTENTLY TRUE:

Dean then added perhaps the most stunning line from a Democratic candidate during the war: "We should have contained Saddam. Well, we got rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing."

Reason: Dean's point is that the US could have neutralized the threat posed by Saddam -- that was the whole point, remember? -- in a number of ways. For all the maligning of Dean's position on the war, it seems that his idea that North Korea represented the more immediate threat (and, even if we ignore the nuclear threat there, that the US should lead something more than the Coalition of Client States into Baghdad) no one has made a convincing case that Iraq was the greatest threat to the United States. In that way, if the US Army had marched on Harare and liberated the people of Zimbabwe, it would be "a good thing" but not the course of action most likely to furthest advance the US national interest. Dean's line was stunning only insofar as he has not allowed himself to be pushed around by the glib mass media storyline that anyone who questioned the Bush policy on Iraq was somehow proven wrong by victory of the world's only superpower over the conscript military of a backward dictatorship.

MAYBE:

[I]f the media's impressive ability to pivot quickly from 24-hour coverage of the war to 24-hour coverage of Laci Peterson's murder is any sign, the Democratic presidential campaign may abruptly emerge from its wartime media blackout when the nine candidates gather May 3 in Columbia, South Carolina, for their first big debate. The format for the evening, 90 minutes split between nine candidates, will only allow for snippets from each of the contenders, but on that day the new contours of the campaign should start to come into focus.

Reason: The relevance of that event will depend on whether each candidate will get a different question or whether all candidates will answer a single question before the next one is asked. The format for the CDF gathering was, as I said at the time, too unwieldy for the size of the field. With nine candidates, debate is impossible unless they are seated around a conference table and allowed to guide the flow of the evening themselves with minimal interruption. That won't happen. At this stage the best way to gauge the candidates would be at an event where each gives his or her stump speech and sits down. To the extent that every candidate speaks on each question there will be the opportunity for some meaningful comparison.

POSSIBLY TRUE:

The first postwar question that the Columbia debate will help answer is whether or not Dean remains a force.

Reason: This will be true only if the format allows candidates enough time to speak and viewers the opportunity to compare responses on the same question.

TRUE, BUT IRRELEVANT:

Until now, Dean has been the darling of Democratic beauty contests, hamming it up and basking in the glow of liberal interest-group cheers, from NARAL Pro-Choice America to the Iowa Federation of Labor to the CDF. But, unlike most of the recent Democratic events, the South Carolina debate will be hosted by ABC News rather than an interest group on the liberal edge of the party. There will be a lot less time for pandering and applause lines.

Reason: Dean was the darling of most of those events, but his best performances were to the California Democratic Party Convention and the DNC Winter Meeting, both less extreme audiences than those Lizza lists. Given that much of Dean's support comes from people who haven't been politically active before and aren't part of the special interest crowd, South Carolina itself -- and, really, what are we talking about as far as this debate goes? the studio audience? -- should not be a problem, and will likely be a strength. Not enough has been made in the press about Dean's line that he will aggressively pursue the white vote in the South, and thus roll back the alarmingly prevalent Republican strategy of covertly playing the race card there, by [paraphrasing] "reminding the white guy with the Confederate flag decal on the window of his pick-up truck that his kid doesn't have health insurance, either." Dean's strength is his plainspoken manner -- see his handling of the liberal-label question at the CDF forum. But, of course, one should never underestimate the ability of all the candidates to work in significant pandering and ample applause lines, no matter how tangentially related to the question.

FALSE:

Dean may also find South Carolina a little outside of his comfort zone. Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, where Dean has spent most of his time campaigning, South Carolina has a Democratic electorate that is 40 percent African American--not a natural constituency for the ex-Vermont governor.

Reason: Dean has been the most outspoken Democratic candidate against the Bush administration's assault on affirmative action. He has repeatedly called President Bush to task for using the word "quota" to describe the University of Michigan policy, which -- even according to his own subordinates' briefs filed with the Supreme Court -- isn't really true. The Bush administration's case against the Michigan policy rests on the highly contentious claim that the policy "amounts to a quota." Aside from actually being black, it's not clear what more Dean could do than having a more coherent agenda on civil rights (and providing health insurance and better education for the poor) than the two black candidates.

TRUE:

Dean's performance in South Carolina and beyond will have a significant ripple effect on the rest of the field. Kerry, whose status as front-runner was undermined during the war when he placed second behind Edwards in the money race, must soon decide if Dean's candidacy represents a mortal threat or not.

TRUE:

Dean's road to the nomination runs over the carcass of Kerry's campaign....

FOOLISH:

[I]f the governor shows staying power, Kerry will be forced further to the left to dispatch Dean. ... "The question is, can [Dean] keep the lefty real estate?" asks a Kerry adviser. "Do liberals suspend their disbelief on this guy for much longer?"

Reason: This line of reasoning reared its wrong head back in February. The idea then was that the entry into the race of ultraliberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich "leaves Howard Dean without a constituency" and is "Howard Dean's worth nightmare". There has not and will not be any traction to the definition of Dean as the ultraliberal in the race. Those who read Dean's support as coming only from the far left do so at their own peril because the Dean coalition is broader than it is deep and captures something quintessential than his ideology, which is, if anything, pragmatist. Liberals haven't suspended their disbelief; they have swallowed their pride.

TRUE:

Just as Kerry is threatened by Dean in Kerry's must-win state of New Hampshire, Gephardt is threatened by Dean in Gephardt's must-win state of Iowa.

TRUE:

Gephardt's new health care plan, which expands the kind of coverage currently offered by employers (through a new tax credit) and by the government (through opening up Medicare and the SCHIP program), is similar to what Dean has outlined but may be actually more comprehensive--and more expensive--placing Gephardt to the left of Dean on the issue.

TRUE, AND FUNNY:

The other candidates, especially Lieberman and Edwards, neither of whom is expected to win in Iowa or New Hampshire, seem delighted by the prospect of a titanic battle between Dean and Kerry. "Dean could slay Kerry for us," says an aide to a rival campaign. Without the burden of having to win in the two early states, both Edwards and Lieberman are elbowing for advantage in what might be called the February 3 strategy. That's the first primary day after New Hampshire, and, while it originally was to be monopolized by South Carolina, now Arizona and Missouri are also scheduled for that day, with Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Tennessee preparing to move there as well. Aides to both Edwards and Lieberman envisage a strategy where their candidates do respectably in Iowa and New Hampshire but then break out with victories on February 3. ... Edwards [is] the fund-raising champion who, as a Southerner, may be positioned to do well not just in South Carolina, where he has to win, but in the other states that will hold their contests on that day as well.

Reason: Besides the proximity of their home states, Dean and Kerry are doing well in New Hampshire because they are the only candidates that many voters take seriously. There is no other explanation of why Lieberman -- who is from Connecticut, which isn't exactly on the other side of the world from New Hampshire -- and Edwards -- who, despite having raised the most money of all the candidates, can't buy a double-digit showing in polls there -- should be doing so poorly. Pursuing the February 3 strategy and choosing to sit out Iowa and New Hampshire might deprive Lieberman and Edwards of valuable experience and exposure -- and could mean they never get in the game at all.

Continue reading/discuss Clarifying the Conventional Wisdom ...

The Dean Call to Action Blog is beginning to run a series of posts called "On the Road" which will be written regularly by Kate O'Conner , the Governor's traveling sidekick. One of her first dispatches about their exploits in Iowa was posted a few hours ago!

Continue reading/discuss From the Road with Kate O'Connor ...

An op-ed out today at Truthout.org, written by Howard Dean, takes Bush to task for praising Senator Rick Santorum:

Equal Rights is the Responsibility of Every American
By Governor Howard Dean

George W. Bush ran for President on the promise that he would be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier this week, Senator Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. On Friday, President Bush praised Santorum as ``an inclusive man.'' With his praise, this President has once again demonstrated his willingness to follow the extremist Republican tradition of dividing our country for political gain. The President knows that his defense of Santorum's inflammatory words deeply offends millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their family and friends; his praise also raises grave concerns about this Administration's commitment to civil rights and civil liberties.

Click here to read the full article.

Continue reading/discuss Op Ed on Equal Rights By Howard Dean ...

The Georgia Dean for America group writes:

You asked for it, so we created it…. The original Howard Dean Dance Mix. Lovingly called “What I want to Know”, this song mixes snippets of Dean’s speech to the California Democratic Party Dinner and a popular dance song to give our campaign both momentum and an ANTHEM. This can easily serve as a Democratic anthem against the growing usurping of power by the radical right wing Republicans and corporate affiliated conflict of interest ridden leaders in our nation’s capital.

For this week, GAForHowardDean dedicates this song to Senator Rick Sartorum for whom Howard Dean has asked his resignation. Bigotry can no longer be tolerated in this country. We want our country back……. Rock on Rick!

Continue reading/discuss WHAT I WANT TO KNOW (DANCE MIX) ...

An interesting piece from The New Republic wonders if Dean will have staying power following the war in Iraq. Will the anti-war liberals that flocked to his campaign stay aboard when they hear more about his ideas? TNR thinks the upcoming Democratic debate hosted by ABC News is a big one for Dean to find out if his appeal can extend beyond the anti-war vote. They say that it's likely the campaign will try to reposition Dean as the health care candidate. Health care may indeed be an important issue in the race, but to pin his hopes on the health care issue is what everyone expects him to do... a better strategy to separate himself from the rest of the field (and to effectively attack Bush) is to become the "balanced budget" candidate.

Dean can hammer both Bush and the Dems in congress for pushing for tax cuts while state budgets languish, and social programs go down the tubes. Meanwhile Bush (and the Senators and House members) fiddle with tax cuts we cannot afford while the country burns. Dean is the only one who has consistently balanced budgets in this race and he needs to get that message out now and take the domestic debate to a new, and unexpected place. Health care can come later, after he's established his credentials on this issue. The South Carolina test is indeed a big one, but tactically it won't be health care that decides this presidential election - it will be the economy and foreign policy. Dean needs to establish himself as the candidate to be trusted on the economy.

Continue reading/discuss Dean's Staying Power ...

A piece in Salon details Nader's consideration of running for President again in 2004. Was that the sound of jaws hitting the floor?

Nader, who many Democrats and progressives blame for tipping the last presidential election to Bush in key states like Florida (where Nader won 96,000 votes), has not yet announced his decision about 2004. But according to national Green Party officials, Nader probably will run. "I'm getting that sense," says Ben Manski, one of five national Green Party co-chairs. Juscha Robinson, a member of the party's presidential exploratory committee, agrees: "The co-chairs of the committee met with Ralph a couple weeks ago -- it was a very comfortable discussion. It does look like he's leaning in that direction."

Following Nader's lead, the Green Party is as bent on its scorched earth policy as ever:

Far from being chastened by the way life has turned out under Bush -- the U.S. launched on neo-imperial expansionism and a massive military buildup, civil liberties under wide assault, deficits soaring and government programs being slashed, and the influence of the Christian right being demonstrated in everything from judicial appointments to Pentagon prayer meetings -- many Green Party officials still cling to their line that there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats. "I've never been so disgusted in my life as seeing how the Democrats contributed to going to war in Iraq," says Medea Benjamin. "They simply capitulated, with the leadership telling the party that they should vote for Bush's war resolution to get the whole Iraq thing behind them. It was a repeat of the Florida debacle, where the Gore campaign refused to let their supporters take to the streets. They told Jesse to go home -- I was there, I was flabbergasted! They're not interested in activating people, they're interested in raising money."

Some even advocate running Greens against progressive Democrats, as the California Green Party is considering doing against Barbara Boxer in next year's Senate race.

Dean will be just as, if not more so, vulnerable to a Nader run in 2004 as Gore was. Even Dean's antiwar stance isn't enough - note that Barbara Boxer was the sole Senate vote against the authorization of force in Iraq. Yet she's a Green target anyway.

and yet, the article notes that there is a real opportunity here for the Democrats in drawing Green voters back to the fold to help defeat Bush. If only the Dems can learn to forgive:

Will Greens and progressive Democrats, sharing a mutual alarm about the state of the nation under George W. Bush, begin exploring a marriage of convenience in 2004 -- or as Dugger puts it, "a national emergency coalition"? Medea Benjamin does not expect to hear any such overtures from the Democrats, who continue to treat Greens "as if we didn't have the right to exercise our own minds" -- or in Robinson's words, simply as a "wayward constituency."

There is something self-defeating about the Democrats' refusal to open a dialogue with the Green Party. While some lower-level discussions between Greens and lefty Democrats have taken place, reconciliation has never become a priority of party leaders, who seem to have written off their left flank as irrelevant.
...
Without this initiative from progressive Democrats, warns Dugger, "It could all drift back to a bunch of disenchanted Greens and Ralph running again, and the makings of a major human tragedy. But if you could peel off a couple million Green voters and add them to the half-million advantage that Gore had over Bush, then you win the election."

Continue reading/discuss The Nader Factor ...

College students across the nation are jumping aboard former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's Democratic presidential bandwagon, launching Students for Dean chapters on more than 80 campuses from coast to coast -- the largest student network so far in this nascent presidential election cycle.
...
"People are really upset with the political process and they're looking for a reason to get involved, they want a change," said Berkeley Students for Dean founder Adam Borelli, 20, a freshman from Ventura County. "He's the real deal ... and he's giving people confidence in the process."

Continue reading/discuss Students back Dean in race for president ...

Here's a refreshing twist on Dean from a woman who is just back from Quito, Ecuador and recently returned to Vermont to open a new business focused on sustainable development. She lauds Dean's understanding of environment/business/and the need for global collaboration. It's an interesting economic twist on the need for sustainable practices, and, in a sense, foreign policy - though not in the way we wield our military might. There's certainly much more to foreign policy than figuring out which country to invade next. She makes some good points.

Continue reading/discuss Support for Dean on Sustainable Development ...

BLITZER: Last month he called it the wrong war at wrong time. The former Vermont governor, the current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's policies as far as Iraq is concerned.

With the conflict pretty much over does he feel differently now?

Howard Dean is joining us from Burlington, Vermont.

Governor, do you feel differently?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road. The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in. We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society out of a...

BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don't know yet, and until we do... BLITZER: You think it's possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don't believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we've created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that's going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don't regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

BLITZER: Does it bother you, governor, that most of the country approved of the way the president handled the situation? His job approval rating has gone way up into the 70s from the 50s, and including most Democrats approve of the way he's handling the job.

DEAN: If I changed my position every time there is a new poll, I would be like an awful lot of politicians, that's what's wrong with the Democratic party is willing to change positions every time the polls come out. I'm not going to do that. I chose my position on Iraq, because I think in the long-term future of the United States it would have been better had we used other means to get rid of Saddam's and his arms.

Well, that's not where we are now, the president has chosen to go war. But now we have to deal with a chaotic situation on the ground. I hope that we succeed. I'm very proud of our armed forces, I'm delighted Saddam is gone. We have a long way to go, and I think it's going to be a long time before we can prove this is the right thing to do.

BLITZER: Let's move to another subject that you raised earlier today, you called on Republican Senator Santorum, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania to step down because the comments he made about gays.

Tell our viewers precisely what your position is?

DEAN: The Republican party is dividing us by race or income or gender or religion, in this case sexual orientation. Gay people are people first and gay second. And most people's fears about gays is not understanding anything about gays. Gay people are people. There are gay people in Iraq now fighting for the United States of America, they deserve to be treated with the same respect that every other American deserves to be treated with. And I'm tired of having the right wing Republican party make hay by beating up on various minority groups so they can feed their right wing base.

BLITZER: Well, listen to how he responded, he basicly said if you have a problem with him, you have a problem with U.S. Supreme Court, listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: To suggest that my comments which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court decided in 1986 is somehow intolerant, I just would argue that it is not. It is simply a reflection of the law. Obviously, I can't represent everybody's viewpoint. I mean, there are a variety of different viewpoints in the room. My job is to respect everybody's viewpoint, and I do. I respect your point of view.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He was speak directly to a gay person in the audience who complained about his comments. Go ahead, governor.

DEAN: I don't think this has to do with point of view. I think it has to do with basic respect. Until every single American is equal under the law in this country, then I don't think the country is as great as it could be. Just ask people, you know, almost everybody in America knows someone in someone's family who is gay. And all appeal for is a little bit respect and tolerance in understanding. When you come to know people they're people first and whatever category they might fit into later on.

I think Senator Santorum and the administration have done this country a disservice by, again, dividing us, whether it's by race, as the president did by using the word, quota, which wasn't true or whether it's by sexual orientation or gender or whatever it is, they got to stop that. We have got to bring the country together as a community, and you don't get there by making intolerant comments that single out particular minorities.

BLITZER: All right. Governor, unfortunately, we have to leave it right there. We'll have a longer conversation on another occasion. Thank so much for joining us.

DEAN: Thanks, Wolf.

Continue reading/discuss transcript: Wolf Blitzer Reports interview ...

Libertarians and Dean: A discussion going on around the web, with thoughts from Kos (click on the title):

That's why I like Dean and Clark -- both are avowed supporters of the 2nd Amendment, and both can go far in helping capture the significant libertarian bloc from the grasp of the GOP.

Noho-missives:

Notwithstanding this entry's title, this reflects the Libertarian bent of The Conspirators more than anything, but I think it's indicative of the alignment of interests of the Libertarians and Democrats (especially Howard Dean). I know, I know, Libertarians hate the Democratic Party's tax policy, but I hope they don't allow this administration to pay them to shut up about civil liberties.

and Eugene Volokh:

I much appreciate the praise, but I think this misses a very basic point about Libertarians: We think that lower taxes and lighter economic regulation are matters of civil liberties. That -- plus other issues, such as gun rights -- are a big part of why the interests of the Libertarians and the Democrats are pretty far out of alignment, on some utterly fundamental matters.

I've been espousing the libertarians and Dean connection for quite some time, and I felt it was time to clarify a bit what with all this discussion going on post-Santorum about who exactly Dean's campaign would take. Personally, I think Eugene is right. His style of Libertarians won't jump anytime soon, much to Kos's dismay. But there is another hope, and I point it out in my own bloggered post over at EzraK:

The true strength of Dean (even more so than Clark) is his ability to tap into pseudo-libertarian ideas. Perhaps we can call this "Maher-Libertarianism" after Bill Maher, who voted for Ralph Nader, but who describes himself as a libertarian (which left the LP scrambling at one point). This strain of libertarian, conservative progressivism believes fundamentally in government taking its noses out of personal business, doesn't have a problem with fair taxation, wants local and state control rather than federal, believes in gun ownership, and wants the environment protected. And that describes a lot of people in the West, like almost every dedicated progressive I know.

And there's more where that came from.

Continue reading/discuss Friends or Foes? ...

Laura Sahramaa of the Daily Cavalier writes that Dean is everything a Democrat could want... and more! I like this column because it's direct and concise (not unlike the qualities many of us like in Dean). A good, realistic take on why Democrats should get behind Dean's candidacy.

Continue reading/discuss A Democrat for the Future ...

For all of you folks out there who share Atrios' love of Wolf Blitzer, you can see Gov. Dean on his show tonight.

CNN

5 PM EDT

Spread the word.

Continue reading/discuss Dean on Wolf Blitzer Tonight ...

Howard Dean has demanded that Rick Santorum - number three on the GOP senatorial totem poll - step down from his leadership role in light of his recent comments equating homosexuality with incest, polygamy, and adultery.

"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," Dean said in a statement.

Give 'em hell, Howard!

Continue reading/discuss Dean Calls for Santorum to Leave Post ...

Fellow citizens of Deanistan, I'm here to report that we have completed our task. I will submit the text of the questions below to the campaign today. The ball is in Howard Dean's court. I'd like to make a public request to any and all Dean-friendly websites to please link to this post and publicise these questions. We make history today - the relationship of Dean's campaign to the netroot base is as significant to American electoral politics - and as ultimately transformative - as television was to John F. Kennedy. The questions below are just a harbringer of the potential. Everyone who participated in this affair should be proud - of ourselves, of our country, and our candidate.

1. Israeli settlements

You have openly stated that your views on Israel are "in line with AIPAC's". How do you reconcile your support for multilateralism (as pertained to Iraq) with AIPAC's support of the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, which are illegal under UN Resolutions 242, 338, and violate the Oslo Accords and the Mitchell Plan?

2. Media regulation

On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission plans to further relax or eliminate the remaining significant media ownership laws. Do you support regulations that limit how much of the media that corporations can own (and therefore influence?

3. Human rights foreign policy

How would you tie human rights advocacy into your foreign policy (particularly as relates to national security)?

4. 9-11 investigation

Will you pledge to call for a full and truly independant investigation into events leading to the 9/11 attacks?

5. NRA relationship

What is your stated position about the NRA organization and its tactics at the national level? How might you proactively support state deliberation around gun control issues?

6. War on Drugs

Do you believe the War on Drugs is worth the current costs, both financially and socially?

7. Campaign finance

What sort of ideas do you have with regard to big business money in politics? Do you believe that you would be able to attract this money without giving business interests more of a say than the interests of your grassroots volunteers?

8. Cutting Gov't spending

On Meet the Press Governor Dean was asked "But if you had a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, where would you cut? Where would you find $400 billion?" Repealing President Bush's tax cut has been your most mentioned way of balancing the budget, but how would you also cut federal spending to help reduce the deficit?

9. Farm policy

What are your views towards farm policies, especially those that reward overproduction? Specifically, do you support either the Dairy Compact, or the Iowa ethanol subsidy?

10. Digital Millenium Copyright Act

What are your feelings on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), especially as it pertains to fair use?

Continue reading/discuss DeanBlog Interview: Howard Dean ...

Atrios lauds Dean's condemnation of Santorum. More surprisingly, in the comments thread, there are dozens of regular Atrios readers who seem to be discovering Dean only today! We do have a name-recognition hurdle to cross indeed if he is still unknown to the vast leftwing blogsphere readership.Let's leverage *our* numbers, and make sure the comment threads of all Dean-related posts in the blogsphere have someone linking to the campaign and to the DeanBlog! flood the message boards! go forth, and prosletyze!

Continue reading/discuss raising Dean awareness ...

The voting has concluded! These are the final questions, ranked in order from most popular to least. I combined the two Israel questions into one, and rewrote the "legalize hemp" question into a more general one about the War on Drugs. I also edited the questions to make them more succinct, and focus on the main issue (many were actually multiple and distinct questions lumped together). Please leave your comments/suggestions for further editing of the text of these questions in the comments thread, and then tomorrow we will mail them to the campaign.

1. Israeli settlements

You have openly stated that your views on Israel are "in line with AIPAC's". How do you reconcile your support for multilateralism (as pertained to Iraq) with AIPAC's support of the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, which are illegal under UN Resolutions 242, 338, and violate the Oslo Accords and the Mitchell Plan?

2. Media regulation

How would you address growing conservative control over the media, and the demise of regulations that limit how much of the media that corporations can own (and therefore influence)?

3. Human rights foreign policy

How would you tie human rights advocacy into your foreign policy (particularly as relates to national security)?

4. 9-11 investigation

Will you pledge to call for a full and truly independant investigation into events leading to the 9/11 attacks?

5. NRA relationship

For many of us, it is impossible to view the NRA organization as a pro-social organization in any overall sense. What is your stated position about the NRA organization and its tactics at the national level? How might you proactively support state deliberation around gun control issues?

6. War on Drugs

The War on Drugs drains billions from the economy, obstructs the use of medical marijuana, and leads to imbalances in our judicial system by mandating minimum sentences for minor crimes. Do you believe the War on Drugs is worth the cost, both financially and societally?

7. Campaign finance

What sort of ideas do you have with regard to big business money in politics? Do you believe that you would be able to attract this money without giving business interests more of a say than the interests of your grassroots volunteers?

8. Cutting Gov't spending

On Meet the Press Governor Dean was asked "But if you had a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, where would you cut? Where would you find $400 billion?" Repealing President Bush's tax cut has been your most mentioned way of balancing the budget, but how would you also cut federal spending to help reduce the deficit?

9. Farm policy

What are your views towards farm policies, especially those that reward overproduction? Specifically, do you support either the Dairy Compact, or the Iowa ethanol subsidy?

10. Digital Millenium Copyright Act

What are your feelings on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), especially as it pertains to fair use?

Continue reading/discuss DeanBlog Interview: Ask Howard Dean ...

At the end of today's editorial on Dick Gephardt's plan for universal health coverage, Thomas Oliphant gives Howard Dean his due.

Dean is there on health care coverage off his experience in a state that now has insurance for nearly all kids and 92 percent of adults. Dean also emphasizes a refundable tax credit for business and investment in the other private and public programs. He also advocates a federal-state deal on health care responsibility -- young people to the age of 23 are for states to cover; drug costs and acute care for the elderly are for the national government.

As the fog of war lifts, Gephardt and possibly Dean appear to be candidates who have serious business to transact at those all-important kitchen tables in America. It sure beats horse race baloney.

UPDATE (Chris): Dean was the first candidate with a health care message - and a way to pay for it - both conceptually, and in detail. Notice Gephardt stealing elements of it per Oliphant's column. We cannot cede this issue to Gephardt or the other Dem. candidates. This is Dean's signature issue. Get those letters churning to the Globe!

Continue reading/discuss Thomas Oliphant on Gephardt (and Dean) ...

Howard Dean released the following statement today:

In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum’s remarks.

That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments—comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families—is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.

The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum’s remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott’s offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.

For the complete statement, visit the Dean Call to Action Blog.

Continue reading/discuss Governor Dean Statement on Senator Santorum's Offensive Remarks ...

Trouble on the Home Front?

I don't put much weight on online polling, even though I have one on my own website for people to pick Gov. Dean's running mate; however, I did think this was interesting. The Hartford Courant ran a story on Gov. Dean and has a poll along with it measuring support for some of the 2004 Democratic candidates. You would think that Hometown Proud Joe Lieberman would be winning in a landslide, right? Not so:

1.1% Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (5 responses)

5.5% Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (25 responses)

68.3% Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (313 responses)

2.8% North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (13 responses)

16.6% Connecticut's Sen. Joseph Lieberman (76 responses)

5.7% Other (26 responses)

458 total responses

Continue reading/discuss Dean Seeks Broader Support ...

This is a critical piece in the NYT that shows just how off-base the President's policies and priorities are. Billions for Baghdad, Nothing for New York. No to theocracy in Iraq, yes to theocracy in the US. Liberty for the Shi'a, the PATRIOT act for Americans. And rewards to the rich corporations and the wealthy in both. The general election will hinge on whether the Democratic nominee can successfully argue these points.

The president makes a good political general. One of his canniest strategies has been to raise the bar so high that even the smallest of compromises seems like moderation. ANWR has become the red herring of the environmental wars; any energy bill that protects the caribou from the oil drillers will be seen as a victory even if it contains ridiculous tax breaks for the coal, oil and gas industries and does nothing to deal with the problem of gas-guzzling automobiles. Somehow, a budget with $350 billion in tax cuts — at a time of war and enormous government deficits — has come to be seen as a great victory for the president's opponents. With defeats like this, Mr. Bush never needs to win.

Mr. Bush's willingness to take big gambles, to push for what he wants no matter the consequences, are likely to leave an imprint on America far beyond his tenure in office. We hope that he's successful in the fight against terrorism, and that he brings about a more stable Mideast and a democratic Iraq. But on the domestic front, almost every success cripples the nation's ability to move toward a happy, prosperous future. This is one war we hope he loses.

This is perhaps the most comprehensive anti-Bush editorial I have seen in a while, and it comes at precisely the right time - when conventional wisdom dictates that Bush is a juggernaut. We need a political general of our own, a General Grant to Bush's General Lee. We all kow which flag our side prefers. This is war.

UPDATE: Alterman says Bush is AWOL (again). TAP calls Bush the "Most Dangerous President Ever." And The Dixie Chicks are at #1!

Continue reading/discuss The War at Home ...