Nation-Building

BURLINGTON--In response to news that the White House has opened an investigation into Paul O’Neill, Governor Dean said:

"It only took one day for the Bush White House to retaliate against Paul O'Neill with a politically-motivated investigation--and all he did was tell the truth about George Bush’s rush to war in Iraq.

"Meanwhile, 184 days since Robert Novak blew the cover of a CIA operative based on a leak by a White House aide, the White House has yet to identify the guilty party.

"Why doesn’t the President call his staff into the Oval Office one-by-one, and ask them if they disclosed Valerie Plame's identity?

"Paul O’Neill is not a threat to our national security.

"But the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative undermines a key tenet of national security and is a violation of law."

Continue reading/discuss Dean statement on Paul O'Neill ...

The DC primary is today. It's non-binding and only 4 candidates are participating. Does it matter? With all of the DC endorsements, isn't Dean a lock? Will the governor make a surprise victory visit today for some nice photos before Iowa? Feel free to discuss...

Continue reading/discuss Open Thread: DC Primary ...

Wolf Blitzer Reports is reporting that Jimmy Carter may be endorsing Gov. Howard Dean. Joe Trippi says he "doesn't believe" that Carter will, but said to tune in this Sunday to find out.

The link above is to another story which says:

Former President Carter will offer words of praise -- but no endorsement -- when he joins Democrat Howard Dean in Georgia on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, campaign aides said Tuesday.

The two men plan to have a private meeting and then make a joint public appearance in Carter's home town of Plains, Ga., on Sunday, according to Dean advisers speaking on a condition of anonymity.

The advisers said they don't expect Carter to make an endorsement as they anticipate that the former president will remain officially neutral. The former Democratic president said he will not express any preference about who should be the nominee.

Update: The campaign has issued the following press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 13, 2004

Governor Dean To Visit President Carter Sunday

BURLINGTON—On January 18, Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., will travel to Plains, Georgia to meet with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and attend Sunday school and services at Maranatha Baptist Church, President Carter’s church. This event is not expected to be an endorsement event.

Continue reading/discuss Carter to Endorse Dean? ...

In an off-hand link on the O-blog today, Matt Gross reminded me again of what brought us together -- the man and the message.

It is useful, in this week before Iowa caucuses, to look again at what politicians were afraid to say, on February 21, 2003.

It's still inspiring:

What I want to know . . . is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq?

What I want to know . . . is why are Democratic leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be -- the question should be: Can we afford a tax cut at all with the largest deficit in the history of the country?

What I want to know . . . is why we're fighting in Congress about the Patient's Bill of Rights when the Democratic Party ought to be standing up for health care for every man, woman and child in this country?

What I want to know . . . is why our folks are voting for the President's No Child Left Behind bill that leaves every child behind, every teacher behind, every school board behind and every property tax payer behind?

I am Howard Dean. And I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

If you want young people to vote in this country, and if you want 50% of the adults that do not vote in today's elections to go to the polls, then we had better stand for something because that is why they're not voting.

Let me tell you what I want to do for America -- and what we've done in Vermont:

I want to balance the budget.

There has not been one Republican president that has balanced the budget in this country in 34 years. And if you want someone who can be responsible with your money, to take care of your tax dollars, then you had better elect a Democrat because Republicans cannot manage money.

In our state, I served long enough so that I had the privilege of serving through two recessions, not one recession. And when all that money was coming in between the recessions -- between the Bush recessions -- when all of that money was coming in during the good times thanks to Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget without a single Republican vote -- we gave some tax cuts, but we also saved money in a Rainy Day Fund and were able to pay back a quarter of our debt.

Today, not only is the budget balanced in these very difficult times, but my successor does not have to cut health care, does not have to cut higher education, and does not have to cut K-12 education.

I'm the only Governor running for President. And I'm the only one that's balanced the budget - including George Bush because in Texas the Lt. Governor balances the budget.

In our state virtually every child under the age of 18 has health insurance. We made Medicaid into a middle class entitlement. If I become President, with your help, the first item of business on the agenda is to do something that Harry Truman put into the Democratic platform in 1948. We're going to bring health care to every man, woman and child in America.

I'm the only Doctor in this race, and I've done it.

I want an environmental policy in this country that respects and preserves public lands against drilling. In our state we've preserved hundreds of thousands of acres, which will always be available for hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking and canoeing, and will never be developed. The Vermont I left as Governor in January will be the same Vermont a hundred years from now because we have been solid stewards of our natural resources. This President would like to drill on our natural resources.

We can do better.

Let me tell you something else I'm going to do. One of the things I thought was terrific about Bill Clinton was that when he became President in 1992, he said that his Cabinet would look like the rest of America -- and he did it. He did it.

I want all of our institutions of higher learning, - our law schools, our medical schools, our best universities - to look like the rest of America. I thought that one of the most despicable moments of this President's Administration was three weeks ago when, on national prime time television, he used the word "quotas" seven times. The University of Michigan does not now have quotas, has never had quotas, and "quota" is a race-loaded word designed to appeal people's fears of losing their jobs.

I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.

We're not done yet.

Most of you know that six months before my last re-election I signed a bill into law that made Vermont the first state in American to guarantee equal rights to every person under the law - EVERY person under the law. That bill was called the Civil Unions bill. And it said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but same-sex couples are entitled to the exact same legal rights as I have - hospital visitation, insurance, and inheritance rights. All Americans are equal under the law in our state.

This bill was at about 40% in the polls when I signed it ? 60% were against it, six months before the election. I never got a chance to ask myself whether signing it was a good idea or not because I knew that if I were willing to sell out the rights of a whole group of human beings because it might be politically inconvenient for a future office I might run for, then I had wasted my time in public service.

I looked in the mirror, and I knew that if my political career were about myself, then I would not have signed that bill. But my political career has never been about getting elected. I didn't even seek the governorship. I became governor because my predecessor died in office twelve years ago.

My political career is about change. And this campaign is about change. What we're going to do here is, we're first going to change this party because this party needs to look in the mirror and ask itself: Is this party about the next election or is it about changing America?

This party needs to be about changing America, because only by changing America will we win back the White House.

I want a party that stands unashamedly for equal rights for all Americans.

I want a party that stands unashamedly for health care for every single American.

I want a party that stands unashamedly for balanced budgets and taking care of poor kids and voting together and healing the divides instead of expressing the divides and exploiting them the way the Republican Party has so shamelessly done since 1968.

I need your help.

We're going to change this party, and then we're going to change this country, and we're going to take back the White House, and we're going to balance the budget, and we're going to have healthcare for everybody, and we're going to have an America with its best institutions - right up to the Capitol - that looks, once again, like America.

We're going to bring hope to America, jobs to America, peace to America.

We're going to bring pride to the Democratic Party.

I need your help. Let's go get it. Let's go do it. Let's win the White House in November 2004.

In all the games of "gotcha," in all the manuevering, in all the TV ads, Howard Dean has not moved one inch from the statements he made when he got into this race.

Presidents draw lines in the sand, they state their principles clearly, they stand behind what they say. Dean remains consistent, true to himself, Presidential in every way.

No one in Washington today, Republican or Democrat, can make that claim. That's why I'm here, and I think it's why you're here.

Howard Dean will fight for us. Let's fight for Howard Dean.

Continue reading/discuss What Brought Us Here ...

DC! Iowa! no ninjas! (though it turns out that the Fear Itself blog had the story even before we did, as they've documented in painful detail...)

Continue reading/discuss open thread ...

I am frankly uncomfortable with the increased media hunger for details about Dr. Judy Steinberg. This NYT article does a good job of explaining how Dean does not intend to use his wife as a prop on the campaign trail, but it also takes absurd detours into discussing the state of their marriage and invokes a ludcrous system of categorization for First Ladies by one Myra Gutin:

Political experts say spouses often help humanize the candidates they are married to. A spouse, the person presumably closest to the candidate, also provides a window into a politician's character, they said, and acts as a kind of validator.

"The whole thing has just struck me as a little odd," said Myra Gutin, who has taught a course on first ladies at Rider University in New Jersey for 20 years. "There may be some voters out there who say, `well, why isn't she here? Why isn't she supporting him?' It's the most outward manifestation of support."

In her book, "The President's Partner: The First Lady in the 20th Century," Ms. Gutin outlined three broad categories: "ceremonial" (Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower), whose White House role was mainly entertaining; "emerging spokeswoman" (Jacqueline Kennedy, Pat Nixon), who seized the podium to promote issues important to them; and "activist" (Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford). Dr. Steinberg, she said, fits nowhere.

Note the desperate attempt to fit square pegs into round holes - and the dark speculation of What it All Means that Dr. Steinberg actually has a life beyond Her Husband's Wife. Coupled with the religious conservative obsession about why a "supposedly devout" Dean would marry a (gasp!) Jewish wife - and (gasp!) raise his kids to be Jewish, there's a pattern emerging here that suggests that maybe the media isn't quite ready to abandon its precious sterotypes.

Continue reading/discuss Focus on Dr. Steinberg ...

Are political blogs relevant? It's a question I intend to explore in a series of posts - and we already have some empirical data. Staff writer Joshua Glenn of the Boston Globe noticed our Heathers fracas a few weeks ago:

WHEN A REGULAR at Dean Nation, the oldest and most popular Howard Dean weblog, complained recently about Dean-bashing by liberal pundits Joshua Micah Marshall, Matthew Yglesias, and George Stephanopoulos, among others, he caused the digital equivalent of a firestorm by concluding, "All you Heathers, get out of town." Yglesias, writing on his own blog, claimed to welcome the moniker. But many Democrats online claim that the "Deaniacs" have gone too far this time.

As Matt points out today, he didn't exactly "welcome" the moniker - and points to his absolutely first-rate work in lambasting the real media Heathers over at Tapped every week.

Still, it's intriguing to think that the affair reached the notice of the Globe. Keep an eye out for Joshua Glenn, he's clearly got an eye on the blogsphere, which can only be a good thing. Any journalist can effortlessly get on my good side by praising Dean Nation, of course, so perhaps I'm a tad biased.

Continue reading/discuss Life imitates blogs ...

I love this article in today's Boston Globe. First of all, it indicates that what Dean is really doing is taking a page out of the GOP's campaign playbook - using 'moral outrage' as a campaign tactic to create stark differences between his positions and those of George W. Bush. What the article also points out, however, is that there is a difference between expressing anger and expressing moral outrage. The first is simply an emotional response. The second is based on moral values, and says not only am I going to express myself on this issue, but I am going to do something about it. An excerpt:

"By campaigning more on values than facts, Dean is running a Republican-style campaign. By some measures, he's skewing the issues. By other measures, he's the most honest candidate.

When, in the '80s, Ronald Reagan spoke of welfare queens driving Cadillacs, voters presumably knew the poor weren't making out that well -- but they understood Reagan's position on welfare perfectly. When George W. Bush spoke of bringing troops home from Haiti, voters were undisturbed to learn that there was not a serious number of troops in Haiti. They knew, or thought they knew, what Bush meant: He wasn't going to waste American lives trying to do good in places where conditions are intractable.

Now, when Dean declares he won't "go to war for Halliburton," voters seem to understand that the Iraq war was about much more than that. But they also know where Dean stands on the war and the awarding of postwar contracts.


The raw meatiness of Dean's rhetoric is, in a large part, the substance of his campaign. It separates him from both the peace-and-love left of the '60s and '70s and the huggy Clinton years. He wants to help, but to do that he needs to take action.

When Dean stares down at a crowd, his chin buried in his neck, his finger punching the air, he's saying to voters: Daddy still wants to take care of you, but first he is going to have to kick some serious butt."

Continue reading/discuss Dean: Kicking Some Serious Butt ...

The winner of the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest by MoveOn.org has been announced. This ad was chosen by hunreds of thousands of voters at MoveOn above all other ads - and in an ironic yet not unexpected twist, the ad has a profoundly conservative message.

Click below to view the ad in its entirety - there is no dialouge, just music and text, so I can't excerpt it, just watch it for yourself.

CHILD'S PAY
by Charlie Fisher of Denver, CO

 High-bandwidth (cable or DSL)
 Low-bandwidth (dialup)

Note that MoveOn is considering running this ad in the Superbowl. I really wish we could have had our Dean Nation "I am Howard Dean" ad play there, but I suppose it was not meant to be.

Continue reading/discuss Bush in 30 Seconds: People's Choice winner ...

I am honestly floored.

Floored.

Salon has two pieces that deal with press coverage of Dean. The smaller one, by Aaron Kinney, overstates his opinion that Newsweek was inappropriate in asking Dean about the depth of his faith, but this bit is right on:

The interview continues with two more questions:

Fineman: "Do you have a favorite Bible passage or book or theologian?"

Dean: "I like the Book of Job."

Fineman: "[Laughs.] Does it strike you more personally after this campaign?"

Dean: "I'm feeling a little more Job-like recently."

So Dean, prompted by Fineman, concedes that the withering attacks upon his candidacy have made him feel more "Job-like." Newsweek's editors, instantly misquoting him, put the following headline on top of the article:

"Dean on the heat of battle, Osama bin Laden -- and Jesus." Then, printed in type that's twice as large as the headline, the subhead: "'I'm feeling like Job.'"

That subhead is a god damn lie. Newsweek owes Dean an apology on the magazine cover.

editors@newsweek.com

In the other article, Eric Boehlert effectively sums up the various ways the American media are abdicating their responsibilities.

I once read an interview with Tom Tommorow where he said that he thinks people who only read Z Magazine and the like are somewhat crazy and I'm still in complete agreement, although I increasingly understand that craziness.

But the only thing crazier than not getting some news from mainstream media is getting all news from it.

Continue reading/discuss Piss Poor Reporting ...

Let me say in advance, this post may get me kicked out of all the clubs -- however, I am as sick and tired of NOW dictating reproductive policy to Dems as I am of the AARP dictating senior policy.

I'm an adoptee, born in 1970, adopted at 3 months old by a loving couple in a small California town by two people who feared they could not have healthy children. This was three years before Roe v. Wade, and had that decision been made sooner, I simply could not be typing this. If I was ever so much, just, slightly, younger. My biological mother was sixteen years old. I am, by all accounts, a person born of an unwanted pregnancy.

Nonetheless, I am pro-choice -- however, I am strongly anti-abortion. Where do I fit? And, can Howard Dean, a doctor, change the way we view things?

Both parties have acquiesced horribly on this score and America loses overall on the issue of abortion. The knee-jerk liberal response -- "Pro-Choice" -- and the knee-jerk conservative response -- "Anti-Abortion, Outlaw it All" -- have failed, miserably.

Listen, abortion simply sucks. Outlawing it entirely is stupid. Preventing it is key. I completely support the morning-after pill (which I hear prevents fertilization) and if Republicans put their money where their mouth is, they will wake up and support any effort to provide both this drug to more women and greater access to birth control.

Perhaps I digress. Let me say it again: I hate abortion. Had it been legal in 1970, I would not be alive today.

In a nation that has embraced open adoption, and with so many infertile parents wishing for children, I must ask: why?

The so-called Republican high-ground is gone, and Democrats need to step up to the plate and tell the truth. Will Dean? He's attacked the regressive payroll tax, will he attack a culture -- on both sides -- that are doing nothing, NOTHING, to prevent abortion in America?

I've been shy to discuss this, because, after all, a gay man who does not face the challenges of heterosexuals should be shy, but I will no longer be silent. I would not be here if I were (poised to be) 29 rather than 33 -- and if you were me, what would you think?

If you wish to send me hate-mail, send it to MissivesWest@yahoo.com. Again, I am STRONGLY pro-choice. However, we need a new, bi-partisan solution to the abortion crisis in America. Dump the rhetoric, I want solutions.

Crossposted at Points West

Continue reading/discuss Abortion, Meet World ...

Headline of Yahoo story: Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture

Excerpt from story:

The average number of daily attacks fell to 18 in the four weeks since Dec. 14, when the coalition announced that Saddam had been captured the day before. In the four weeks before Saddam was found, attacks averaged 23 a day.

During the same periods, U.S. combat injuries dropped only slightly, from 233 in the four weeks before Saddam's capture to 224 in the four weeks after. And the attacks remain deadly: 22 troops killed from Nov. 16 through Dec. 13 and 31 in the comparable period Dec. 14- Jan. 10. But the figures for deaths do not include the 17 U.S. soldiers who died Nov. 15 when two helicopters crashed in the city of Mosul.

So the number of attacks has dropped, but the number of troops killed has increased. Conclusion: attacks, while fewer, are more deadly. Apropos to Glenn's comment, I don't think anyone should try to make a "big deal" about the worsening safety situation for our troops,because it's frankly ghoulish. I want the number of attacks AND the number of casualties to decrease.

Still, LGF's obstinate ignorance of the meaning of the word "facts" notwithstanding, Dean was right. The capture of saddam has not made Americans (at home or serving in Iraq) any safer. Quite the reverse.

Continue reading/discuss casualties increased 29% since Saddam's capture ...

This is a short column in the Washington Monthly that details the saga of the non-binding DC primary (which is tomorrow). Of the major candidates, only Dean shows on the ballot there, due to the collective gutlessness of the establishment candidates. Check it out! Here's hoping Dean's easy win in DC adds to the momentum...

Continue reading/discuss the DC primary ...

Culled from pixie's diary on Kos... The Ohio caucus is tonight. Please spread the word, folks. Tonight all delegates to the state convention will be elected, and we need Dean people to turn out in full force. Here is contact info for the Ohio Democratic Party. Call them if you have questions or need more information about your caucus location.

The Ohio Democratic Party
271 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 221-6563
Fax: (614) 221-0721
http://www.ohiodems.org/

Continue reading/discuss Ohio's caucus is tonight ...

This is an important article that explains the history of the Social Security trust fund and its relationship to the federal debt. In 1983, Congress actually increased payroll taxes, so that surpluses in the fund could be used to pay down the Reagan debt. However, the surpluses collected were not significant until 1999 and 2000, when under Clinton's watch they were actually used for debt payment and not for generic government spending.

Now, in the era of the Bush deficit, the Social Security surplus is being raided again - this time to mask the Bush deficit:

In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!
[...]
The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy. The unprecedented reliance on these funds hides the failure of the administration to ensure that there is some reasonable correlation between the resources it has at its disposal and the spending commitments it makes. Bush & Co. have redesigned the tax system so that collections of the progressive taxes that are supposed to fund government operations—like individual income taxes—have plummeted. Instead, with each passing year we rely for our current needs more on the regressive payroll taxes that are supposed to fund our collective retirement.

This is why we really need a cut in payroll taxes, as Dean has proposed. The system of funding Social Security is broken - and the surpluses are going to justify massive government deficit spending. By cutting the payroll tax, Social Security's surp;lus can be reduced, preventing a dishonest Administration from using it to hide their fiscally irresponsible policies. The amount of funding for Social Security itself remains untouched, but since there is no "lockbox" for the surplus, we have to find some way to prevent the plunder.

Continue reading/discuss the link between budget deficits and payroll taxes ...

The Nashua Telegraph picks up the payroll tax cut story:

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean will propose a cut in the payroll tax to benefit middle-class families, but the plan won’t emerge publicly until after the first-in-the-nation primary here 17 days from today.

During an interview Friday, the former Vermont governor said he hasn’t had enough time off the campaign trail to craft his tax fairness proposal and is not deliberately withholding its release until after early primaries and caucuses.

“I’m going to propose a cut in the payroll tax, but I’m not sure of the level right now,” Dean said. “We are probably going to wait until after the president presents his budget on Feb. 3 to unveil any proposal. We want to see his assumptions and then test them against ours.”

Dean said he has been considering a tax cut since last September and denied raising it as an issue in response to retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who offered his own tax cut for the middle class Monday in Nashua.

“One of the things that has delayed putting this out is I am on the road for 100 straight days and that’s prevented a deliberative analysis,” Dean said. “The payroll tax is the obvious place to go because it is the most regressive tax there is.”

Interesting - he's been considering it since last september? Dean Nation first raised the issue in June - I think we did play a role in bringing the idea to the fore. It's wise to wait until after the President presents his budget, though, because it will make the distinctions between Bush's elite/corporation-centric policy and Dean's middle and lower class support more clear.

Continue reading/discuss Dean to propose payroll tax cut to benefit middle class ...

The debates in Iowa are over. The final stretch run has begun.

All I can say is, work the plan.

The plan from the beginning has been to reach out to Iowans who seldom go to caucuses, to bring new people into the process. We have done it by writing letters, by personally going to Iowa, by sending e-mails.

For the next week, just work the plan.

The polls are all over the map. Most put us ahead by a few points. If we do succeed in bringing new people to the process, those polls will be off by a country mile.

So work the plan.

From the beginning Joe Trippi has had a brilliant plan for getting Dean this nomination. Just execute it. Be his instrument. Let him lead.

Work the plan. For the next week, work the plan, and if we all pull as hard as we can, we'll be where we need to be 8 days from now, and counting.

Continue reading/discuss Work The Plan ...

Emma Goldman isn't buying the Bush immigration reform proposal:

"It's an ingenious proposal, because most of the benefit appears to go to workers. A closer look, though, and it appears mainly designed to protect employers--illegals get almost nothing new. They get to stay in America--but only so long as they stay employed. Working and living here for 6 years doesn't put them any closer to citizenship, nor give them any of the rights of citizens. They become, in effect, workers who the law regards as having no legal rights. It cleans up a messy problem with illegal immigration without actually changing anything.

"Business, on the other hand, gets huge benefits. Now they have a vast, replenishable pool of workers not subject to the usual rules of American law. No more fear of INS raids, no more transient workforce--just a clean system of cheap labor. It accomplishes everything business loves with regard to labor: drives costs down, bypasses ugly human rights, environmental, and health concerns, breaks up organization. Another trifecta!"

Yes, my friends, in the best traditions of "Healthy Forests" and "No Child Left Behind," President Bush has produced a program to benefit prospective immigrants that hurts prospective immigrants. Not only that, but it hurts current American workers, as well. What we have here is not an immigration reform proposal, but a corporate labor recruiting proposal companies can use to hire workers who will - in practical terms - have fewer rights and make less money than would workers who have American citizenship. (The law says they would get equal protection, but given the fact they are completely dependent on their employer for their legal status, that would almost certainly not materialize on the ground.) This bill may seem good, but beneath the surface it threatens to create in this country conditions similar to those faced by many guest workers in Saudi Arabia.

What we need right now is real immigration reform in this country. Some, of course, badmouth immigration in general, forgetting that we are a nation of immigrants, and to criticize them is to criticize the modern day John Winthrops who come to these shores willing to work hard for a better future at jobs most Americans hold in disdain. They claim that such immigrants will take jobs from American workers and invoke prejudice against people whose skin is a different shade from their own. These people are the heirs to those who supported such atrocities as the Chinese Exclusion Act and this odious piece of legislation.

Yet the reality is that people who come to this country looking for work become consumers as well as producers, helping grow the economy and create jobs for everyone. When we keep hearing about how there soon won't be enough taxpayers to keep up Social Security and Medicare, you'd think trying to increase the size of the labor force would be a no-brainer. Immigrants who settle permanently in the United States working low-wage jobs other people won't take will become the parents of tomorrow's middle class just as has happened with every other wave of immigrants in American history. And a stronger middle class makes for a stronger United States, enriched by people who bring new traditions to the mix of our community. What we need in this country is not corporate recruitment of guest workers, but procedures that make it possible for more people to come to the United States legally and join in this great American experiment.

Continue reading/discuss Real Immigration Reform ...

Howsa! Yup, he's a liar, and much much more...

Four generations of the dynasty have chased profits through cozy ties with Mideast leaders, spinning webs of conflicts of interest

WASHINGTON — Dynasties in American politics are dangerous. We saw it with the Kennedys, we may well see it with the Clintons and we're certainly seeing it with the Bushes. Between now and the November election, it's crucial that Americans come to understand how four generations of the current president's family have embroiled the United States in the Middle East through CIA connections, arms shipments, rogue banks, inherited war policies and personal financial links.

Crystal, please baby, smack him!

Crossposted at Kos and Points West.

Continue reading/discuss Oh, Blake! ...

Conan Dean Carey in the comments just reported that Dean just went on the record to George Stephanopoulos about a payroll tax cut! Can anyone find a transcript, verify?

Continue reading/discuss Payroll tax cut! ...

Continue reading/discuss Jeff Danziger on Vermont liberals ...

Via Atrios, I see that the Daily Show has added their most recent Dean piece to their online video archive. Real Player required. Enjoy!

Continue reading/discuss TDS's Stephen Colbert on "Mean Dean" ...

MSNBC to air Iowa debate Sunday

A Breadbasket of Dean Support

NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004

Campaign in Iowa Is Called Pivotal and Still Close

Gore Gladly Stumps Again -- for Someone Else

Dean Gets Heavyweight Help in Iowa 'Dogfight'

Gore Makes Bittersweet Return to the Campaign Trail in Iowa

Harkin, Gore Attend Dean Rally in Iowa

Gore campaigns for Dean in Davenport

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

I think this link effectively kills any scrap of credibility that IMDB ever had. My favorite is the very last listing (#63), where his co-star is Lenin.

weekend open thread!

Continue reading/discuss Joseph Stalin in the movies ...

Governor Dean's comments years ago on Canadian public television:

Dean: On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for 8 hours?

Guest: This is a good thing, though.

Dean: I don't think so. I don't have the time to do it. It doesn't get people involved. It drives people out of the process, and leaves the people who are left in the process -- the professional people who get paid to be there.

Guest: Let the people in the neighborhoods convince you, say...

Dean: They can't convince me. I've got my kid's soccer game. I've got my second job. I've got all these other reasons that I can't do these things.

Guest: If that's the case, the 15 minutes you're going to devote to politics in your year is a pretty perfunctory involvement in politics.

Dean: Not necessarily. I read the papers, maybe I watch television. I form my opinions, I get to go exercise my opinion. But I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.

How these comments were edited on NBC Television:

NBC Voice Over: Dean even suggested the caucuses were a waste of time for ordinary people

Dean: “I can’t stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.”

The media establishment is, as the O-blog puts it, "flailing". This isn't about objective coverage, journalistic integrity, or educating the public. It's about Gotcha!. Nothing else.

The meaning of Dean's comments are crystal clear - that the caucus is too political, that there needs to be more ordinary Americans (the kinds with soccer games and second jobs) involved for it to have meaning. Eight hours of droning politicians is exactly what turns people off of the electoral process.

And Dean's answer today is to bring in those ordinary people - by encouraging people to hand-write thousands of letters to those ordinary folks. By bringing in new faces and young energy and passion about changing the world. By making politics relevant again.

The reaction from Dean's opponents is fear, of the People Power that does sweep over their political calculations like a perfect storm, of the way that ideas can lead to a revolution in ideas. They fear the higher expectations that we will hold them accountable to - and so they are trying to slander us to discredit it.

And the media fears what an educated and passionate People Power will mean to their laziness and over-reliance on entertainment rather than the duty they owe us as the Fifth Estate. They fear the higher expectations that we will hold them accountable to - and so they are trying to slander Dean to discredit him.

It's the alliance between Dean and us that strikes fear into the alliance of the political and media establishments. And that fear is well-deserved. As Senator Harkin said in is endorsement:

Paul Wellstone and I always believed that Democrats can't win competing over a shrinking pool of voters. We must expand our party in every direction and from all walks of life.

Howard Dean is doing just that. He inspires ordinary folks to join in the political process. He understands that when people are energized.... when the electorate expands.... when people turn out on Election Day... Democrats win.

There is a powerful authenticity to Howard Dean. With that authentic demeanor, his toughness, his progressive beliefs, and his plain-speaking, he is the Harry Truman of our time. I believe most Iowans and most Americans would rather have an occasional mistake by someone who speaks openly and forthrightly, than the
practiced, nuanced, measured emptiness of today's political chatter.

But wait, you say. I can't go to Iowa, I can't help Dean from here... yes you can. You can swing the bat! And that's the way we will win, by showing that hundreds of thousands of voices raised as one can defeat even the deepest pockets of a small elite. FEED THE BAT and defend Dean - and defend yourselves!

Continue reading/discuss the Flailing Media Establishment ...

There are days when the Dean Nation blog is your best stop for all things Dean.

For one thing we're always filled with bloggy goodness, from Aziz and Anna, Matt B and Trammell, Christopher and others (including yours truly).

There are also times when we have the news before the O-Blog, as when Bill Bradley and Tom Harkin endorsed Governor Dean. The O-Blog had to wait, because the O stands for Official.

But then there are days, like today, where the O-blog is the only source, because they have the resources to get to the truth of things.

Such as the "gotcha" being played against us by the press hordes, led by CNN and NBC, who want to control the process themselves, and have a horse race they can cover right to the convention.

The link above is to a transcript of Joe Trippi's interview with Paula Zahn yesterday, where she tried to play him on the charge that Dean believes Bush was behind 9/11. (He's not, but says when an Administration isn't forthcoming rumors like this, which he doesn't believe, are the result.) When Zahn refused to listen to Trippi's answer, he jumped to another subject, black box voting, which illustrates the same point -- in the absence of clear information people believe what they want. She didn't get it, but read the transcript and you will.

The O-blog does a similar job today on NBC's "gotcha" story of the Canadian tapes, the nonsense that Dean hates the caucus process. Run that tape five more seconds and the whole thing is put away, in context. But I watched the governor yesterday with Judy Woodruff, and she refused to put it away -- just kept making the same claim over-and-over. The Governor, to his credit, held his temper. (I would have throttled her -- be glad this ain't Dana Nation.)

The point is we can use the resource of the O-Blog to knock down bogus charges through the blogosphere, within hours. And we should.

If you know someone who is believing nonsense, point them to the O-blog. Print out these items. Use them in your leafletting. Use the power of the blog today.

Continue reading/discuss Use The O-Blog ...

Aziz noted this below. Here's the press release. From Dean for America:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 9, 2004

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) at Howard Dean endorsement event earlier today in Des Moines, Iowa:


Every four years, Iowa plays a unique role in selecting America's President. It is true grassroots democracy in action - politics at its best. Iowans get to size up the candidates face-to-face over a period of many months.

In my opinion, this year the process has been better than ever. During the spring and summer, we conducted a series of 10 "Hear it from the Heartland" forums with each of the candidates. These forums were a huge success - both for those who participated and for the millions who watched them on C-SPAN. And in September, we had one of the best Harkin Steak Fry's ever.

This year, the enthusiasm and energy surrounding the caucuses is incredible.

Iowans are fired up to take back the White House. They are tired of Karl Rove and George W. Bush's radical special interest agenda. There is no better example than earlier this week when they got together with their big business pals for cigars and martinis to plot how to cheat even the lowest paid workers out of overtime pay.

I led the fight this summer to protect overtime pay, and we won. The Bush Administration defied the will of Congress and the American people - but rest assured when Congress returns, I will lead that fight again.

Iowans have been sizing up the candidates - and we have been doing so through careful deliberation. Every Iowa Democrat - including me - feels a responsibility to get it right, to make the best choice.

This year, we have an exceptionally strong field of candidates. Each one is a talented, well-qualified Democrat, who would be a vast improvement over the current occupant of the White House. I like and respect each one of them.

But for me, one candidate rose to the top as our best shot to beat George W. Bush and to give Americans the opportunity to take our country back. That person is Governor Howard Dean of Vermont.

I respect that many of my fellow Democrats here in Iowa have made their own choices. I am not here to persuade them to abandon their candidates. As I have said before, in this field there are no wrong choices. But for those who are undecided-- let me tell you why I support Howard Dean for President.

In a very strong field, Howard Dean started at the back of the pack and today leads the pack. This says a lot about his vision, his conviction, and his capacity for leadership. It shows his ability to motivate and organize people.

And he has common-sense plans to create good-paying new jobs and get our economy going again-not just for Neiman Marcus, but on Main Street all over America.

As we Iowans say, Howard Dean has his head screwed on straight - balancing the budget, while providing health care to kids, strengthening education, and protecting the environment. A fiscal conservative with the right priorities.

A plain-spoken, straight-forward Democrat, Howard Dean has the toughness and strength of conviction and character to go toe-to-toe with Karl Rove and George W. Bush. Because these guys and their special interest cronies plan not just to trash the Democratic candidate, but to poison the entire political atmosphere. Their strategy is to suppress the vote, sow cynicism, to make people feel powerless. Because the Bush team knows that when voter turnout is low, Big Money carries the day-and they win.

Paul Wellstone and I always believed that Democrats can't win competing over a shrinking pool of voters. We must expand our party in every direction and from all walks of life.

Howard Dean is doing just that. He inspires ordinary folks to join in the political process. He understands that when people are energized.... when the electorate expands.... when people turn out on Election Day... Democrats win.

There is a powerful authenticity to Howard Dean. With that authentic demeanor, his toughness, his progressive beliefs, and his plain-speaking, he is the Harry Truman of our time. I believe most Iowans and most Americans would rather have an occasional mistake by someone who speaks openly and forthrightly, than the
practiced, nuanced, measured emptiness of today's political chatter.

Iowa Democrats are tired of the negative attacks that have become too common in the last few weeks. I hope in the closing days of the campaign here and in the primaries and caucuses to follow, all of us Democrats will take a lesson from Senator John Edwards and keep a positive message.

The campaign to take back America and send George W. Bush back to Crawford begins right here in Iowa - and the day of decision is January 19. Iowa Democrats are going to turn out for the caucuses in record numbers. And it will be clear that we are united and energized to take our country back... and Howard Dean will lead the way."

# # #

Continue reading/discuss Press Release on Sen. Harkin's Endorsement ...

Color me blown the eff away!!! Veteran NASCAR driver and Dean supporter Brian Weber will be driving a Howard Dean decked out race car in the NASCAR Busch series, with matching racing suit and hauling truck to boot!!!

You can click the image to see the website and a much larger image of the awesome car! Only two comments: the car number should be 44 not 84, and Brian, Dean Nation is watching, holding our breath, and we are looking for a first place win!!!! Race on, brother!

UPDATE: I can't even express how cool this is, and how it will reach an audience we would have great difficulty reaching in any other fashion. If there is not a Dubya car already, look for one coming around the corner before long. It's also a bit perilous from a PR standpoint: here comes the NASCAR primary, uh, I mean, general election! Speaking of perilous, Dean better win the nomination or Brian is in deep shit, so let's work our butts off!!!

UPDATE DEUX: The Dean Team could use your support in various ways! Read the full press release, buy Team Dean related merchandise, or you can contribute. Further, check out the 2004 schedule and send them an e-mail if you'd like to volunteer and hel[ organize a Dean presence at the races when NASCAR comes to your city!!!

Continue reading/discuss TEAM DEAN NASCAR RACING!!! ...

Blogger Morat over at A Skeptical Notion explains the motive behind the dirty-tricks allegations being shoveled at Dean by an increasingly desperate Gephardt:

Howard Dean's greatest strength, his biggest asset, is his grassroots. They're his ace in the hole. They're they keystone to his popularity, his teflon, and his fundraising. If Dean wins, it's because of his grassroots.

If you want to cut Dean down, you have to kill his grassroots support first. And nothing turns off supporters like the belief that their beloved candidate is playing dirty politics.

Pure and simple, we're looking at an attack on Dean's grassroots. Every major candidate knows the score. As long as Dean's army is there, Dean wins the primary. Karl Rove and George Bush certainly know. There's no need for coordination. No conspiracy. Just one well-known target with one well-known weakness. At least four candidates (Kerry, Clark, Gephardt and Bush) have reason to slam Dean hard, right now...and god knows how many 527s would consider it.

This blizzard of accusation has one goal: To slime Dean in the eyes of his grassroots. To make him out to be another petty politician. To keep the Deanies, the newbies, and the starry-eyed out of Iowa, out of New Hampshire. To keep them home. To keep their wallets in their pockets.

Dean's slogan turned out to be true: They're not trying to stop Dean. They're trying to stop you.

Fortunately, there's a simple way we can fight back. Let's fill our Dean Nation bat today and celebrate Harkin's endorsement while we scoff at the dirty tricks of Dick!

Continue reading/discuss they are trying to stop us, not Dean ...

Iowa Sen. Harkin to endorse Dean

MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer Friday, January 9, 2004

(01-09) 10:45 PST DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) --

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin endorsed Howard Dean for president on Friday, calling him the "kind of plain-spoken Democrat we need," and giving a key boost to the embattled front-runner 10 days before the state's kick-off caucuses.

A formal afternoon announcement was scheduled at Dean's Iowa headquarters.

"He's the Harry Truman of our generation," Harkin said in interview with The Associated Press. "Howard Dean is really the kind of plain-spoken Democrat we need."

Harkin's support will give Dean the backing of the state's most durable Democratic politician, and a man whose organization can prove a vital asset on caucus night Jan 19.

Dean and his rivals for the nomination had all appealed to Harkin for backing, and the senator had said publicly in recent days he was weighing whether to choose sides, or perhaps remain neutral.

As Kos notes, the timing is good, it helps to deflect the silly flap over Dean's supposed hatred of the caucus system. Just as Gore's endorsement defused the confederate flag thing.. hmmm.

UPDATE: Dana provides the link to the MSNBC story on this...

Continue reading/discuss Iowa Sen. Harkin endorses Dean ...

Howard Dean today won the endorsement of Dr. Julie Thomas, the 1st Vice-Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party and a superdelegate who will attend this summer's Democratic convention.

"I have chosen to endorse Governor Howard Dean, MD, for president today for three reasons," Dr. Thomas said.

"First, because he has a record of results as a doctor and a governor on the issue most important to me, health care. As a doctor he understands the need to provide a safety net by implementing a viable plan that ensures health care access for all Americans. As a governor he has a record of expanding access to quality health care to nearly every child in his state as well as expanding access to assistance with prescription drug costs for more than one third of residents.

"Second, Governor Dean has put together a campaign that gives this Democrat hope we can beat George W. Bush and take our country back from the large, corporate special interests. For the first time in years we have a Democrat who can excite our base, expand our base, and unite our base.

"I am proud to join more than 550,000 Americans who make up the greatest grassroots organization in modern history.

"Finally, I have decided to endorse Governor Dean today because although I respect all of the candidates, I am disappointed in their concerted last-minute attacks on Governor Dean. This election is about beating George W. Bush, not dividing our party with negative campaign tactics designed to suppress caucus turnout."

Continue reading/discuss Vice Chair of Iowa Democrats Endorses Dean ...

Politics is conducted in the active voice. We say things and do things.

But the biggest problem in America today is most citizens only use the passive voice.

I got a taste of both today when I went to my local YMCA. One friend, a Kucinich supporter, said his new fall-back position was Clark. I said Clark has no strategy, that he can't stand against the $200 million Bush onslaught coming this spring. "That's up to the people," he said. "If Clark is the nominee are you going to support him?" he added.

Sure, I said, but he stands no chance. Only Howard Dean has a strategy, of matching Bush dollar-for-dollar with small contributions, of standing up to Bush every day, of running to Bush's right on key issues, like the deficit and homeland security.

A woman came by, about to start her own workout, and said, "I hope he can do it."

My response. He can't. You must. We can. Only We, The People have the power to throw these bums out. Howard Dean is just the candidate. The Dean campaign can only give us the tools. It's we who have to do the work.

That's the point that is hardest to get through. Politics has been conducted by others all our lives. We have passively watched their tactics, their gotcha games, their bogus charges. We have shaken our heads, said that is too bad, but we haven't done anything about it. Except, maybe, complain about "those other" people, the ones who are fooled, the ones who buy what they're being sold on TV.

Well, that won't work this time. The passive voice, this year, is liable to get you, or a loved one, killed in an unnecessary, distracting occupation. It's liable to get you killed from foul air and water. It's liable to cause you to die, because you lack a job and/or health insurance.

It's going to, unless right now, you here highly resolve to use your birthright of freedom, and act, to make sure that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth. It's going to, unless you find your active voice.

That is the message we need to take out, right now, to Democrats in response to these press games, these bogus charges, these manipulative ads. They make us angry. They make us active. And we need to get others activated in turn.

Howard Dean can't win this nomination by himself. He's only one man. Only We Have The Power. The time has come to go beyond our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, our church, and activate total strangers. Get others to feel the power within you, help them make it their power too. Because it is. That's the only way this thing is going to work.

So my advice is to ignore the trolls, to ignore Gephardt, to ignore the media, to ignore the Club for Growth for a while. Those are distractions.

The nomination, and the fate of the Democratic Party, is in our hands.

Seize the day.

Continue reading/discuss Active Voice, Passive Voice ...

[Cross-posted at NotGeniuses.]

Has anyone seen this NBC segment about Dean's old appearances on a Canadian talk show? Tonight, during Scarborough Country on MSNBC, they ran them with the heading "Howard's Hypocrisy" or something similar. (Something is amiss when you're making Fox News look Fair and Balanced.)

The old shows are actually fairly positive for Dean, as the NBC Reporter notes (credit given where credit due):

As reported by Lisa Myers on NBC's “Nightly News,” Dean comes across in these tapes as having a wide-ranging intellect, a sharp tongue, and shifting views on some key issues.

Yet he also shows that he’s much more consistent on issues — like affirmative action and trade — than some of his opponents give him credit for. And despite the constant complaints that Dean has no foreign policy experience, he demonstrates a good grasp of international affairs.

According to Ann McFeatters, the Washington bureau chief for both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade who has also been a regular guest on the show, the Dean you see on “The Editors” is the same Dean you see on the campaign trail. “He is very smart, likes an argument, likes to claw around and through a problem, and does speak his mind,” she said.

But this cannot, of course, be the story. No, they dredge up some old remarks to make him look bad.

For instance, in a show that aired almost exactly four years ago, Dean made some less-than-flattering comments about caucuses in the presidential nominating process [...]

“If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties,” he said. “[And] the special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes. And then you get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other, and where the average person is in the middle.”

He added, “Here's what happens: Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids and so forth. On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours? … I can’t stand there and listen to everyone else’s opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.”

Of course, there is no discussion of whether this is a fair criticism or anyone who even attempts to make a cogent argument that Dean, based on this criticism of the caucuses, has a duty to opt out of Iowa and other caucus states. No, he's a hypocrite because he prefers primaries to caucuses, but he is leading in caucus polls.

That bastard.

Let's look at what else they can dredge up:

Regarding Al Gore, the very man who endorsed him in December, Dean said back in a January 1998 show: “He has a lot of attributes, but … there are some things that I am concerned about. One of them is being quick on your feet. He is not.”

and

In another January 1998 episode, he also speculated that there “will probably be good and bad” if Hamas takes control over the Palestinian leadership. Yasser Arafat, he said, “is going to leave the scene. ... When that happens, I think Hamas will probably take over. There will probably be good and bad out of that. The bad, of course, is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, if they have to run a quasi-state they may actually have to be more responsible and start negotiations. So who knows what will happen.”

But then he said this in February 1999 appearance: “The next great tragedy is going to be Arafat’s passing, believe it or not. I’m not a fan of terrorism or Arafat. But the truth is that what’s happening here is [former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has thrown away the chance of a lifetime to negotiate with people he could negotiate with. Next comes Hamas, comes far more radical government in Jordan ... which may ally itself with Iraq. I think it’s a frightening proposition.”

Dean is correct about Gore. Gore's endorsing him has nothing to do with that statement. After that comes a change in thinking based on a year's reflection. Maybe he saw something that changes his line of thinking. Unless anyone really believes that Dean moved from "Hamas is bad, but may lose its radical nature" to "Hamas is just bad" because of Presidential ambitions (and no one should believe that -- it would be a ludicrous, inane position to take), then this is all ridiculous mock outrage.

And then, of course, we get to the "flip-flops." This is reporting at its finest.

Look at this gem:

In addition, Dean said some things on “The Editors” that might be considered flip-flops from his current statements on the campaign trail. In an appearance after the 2000 presidential election, Dean made this comment about his former fellow governor, George W. Bush. “George Bush, I believe, is in his soul a moderate.” That’s certainly a contrast from this remark, which he said this November: “I believe that George Bush's philosophy in life is, if you're rich you deserve it and if you're poor you deserve it.”

Someone's opinion of Bush changed in three years!?!?!?!?!?

Sweet Jesus, No!

And Dean seemed to display a sharp tongue a few times on the show. In an April 1998 discussion on welfare policy, one panelist remarked that 80 percent of children who are born to single mothers end up on welfare. Dean lashed out at that statement. “That is absolute crap. This is absolute unmitigated garbage.” (Welfare experts at the Brookings Institution and at the Center for Economic and Policy Research say Dean is most likely correct, certainly according to welfare rolls in the 1990s.)

He accurately defended single mothers and their children against slander?!?!?!?!?!

Sweet Jesus, No!

Still, despite the editorializing tone ("Still, despite the controversial statements, the flip-flops, and occasional heated comments"), the facts in the piece do little but exonerate Dean from virtually every attack against him.

Is he an angry man?

William Powers, a media critic at National Journal magazine, notes Dean always relished a good debate on the show. “He was combative and seemed to enjoy the combat.” But Powers, who wrote a 2002 article in National Journal about Dean’s appearances on the program, stresses he was never the angry person that his critics accuse him of being. “You never got a sense of real hostility.”

“I never saw him to have a temper. I saw him shoot from the hip,” added R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the conservative editor in chief of the American Spectator who often sparred with Dean on the show. “That’s a difference.”

Dean flip-flopped on affirmative action?

Although in 1995 he once said that affirmative action should be based on class rather than race — a statement that rivals like Al Sharpton and Dick Gephardt have pounced on — Dean was extolling the virtues of affirmative action back in a 1997 appearance. “I think that this country needs affirmative action in order to succeed as a diverse society,” he said.

Flip-flopping on trade?

In addition, while Dean has been critical about free trade on the campaign trail, some of his opponents have blasted his earlier support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yet in a February 1998 episode of “The Editors,” Dean said he was already having second doubts about that support. “I’m a little nervous about NAFTA. I was a big supporter four years ago. I’m worried about the condition of Mexican workers around the maquiladoras. And I had hoped that NAFTA would boost the Mexican standard of living.” Such a statement seems to contradict Gephardt’s current argument that Dean’s doubts about NAFTA and free trade are an “11th-hour conversion.”

Flip-flopping on tax cuts?

Dean has also been consistent about his opposition to tax cuts, including his desire to roll back the tax rates to their levels during the Clinton Administration. “There is such a thing as a bad tax cut,” he said in an October 1996 appearance. “It took Reagan’s tax cuts, which were irresponsible, to create an enormous deficit, which has finally 12 years later come home to roost and force us to reduce spending.”

“I’m very satisfied with the income tax levels in the United States right now,” he added in a later appearance that year. “I think they are about right.”

Inexperienced in foreign affairs?

And finally, even though his experience in government hasn’t extended beyond Vermont’s borders, his statements on “The Editors” demonstrated a fairly good understanding of international affairs.

[...]

Impressed by Dean’s performance during this episode, host Keith Morrison said, “I think the governor should be the secretary of state.”

Honestly, if I was still doing work with DeanDefense.org, NBC would be getting a lot of phone calls right now and I would be clipping all of these juicy little tidbits for the DeanDefense FAQ.

Scroot!

Continue reading/discuss Lamest Game of 'Gotcha' Ever ...

[Cross-posted at NotGeniuses.]

TaxPayers League October 14, 2002:

A visit to the website of the Democratic Socialists of America (www.dsausa.org) will treat you to one of the most transparent attempts to steal an election since the Daley machine ran Chicago politics.
A popup ad on the site invites visitors to contribute to the “send a student to Minnesota” program—the DSA’s “national electoral project” for the year. The program is intended to “bring young people to Minnesota” because “Minnesota is one of the few states that allow same day voter registration.” Wellstone, the Democratic Socialists explain, “will need a high percentage of young people to register and vote for him if he is to stave off the campaign that Bush, the Republicans and the Greens are waging against him.”

“I have heard of dead people voting in elections,” quipped David Strom, “but at least they were residents of the state in which they voted!” Strom is the Legislative Director of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

The “Send a Student to Minnesota” plan is being funded by the DSA Fund, a tax-deductible organization supposedly prohibited from politicking.

“This is a transparent attempt to steal this election by using Minnesota’s liberal election laws to register out-of-state students to vote for Wellstone.

“What a novel strategy—if you can’t win with eligible voters, import some from states where their votes aren’t needed. Plans like this remind us that ‘democratic’ and ‘socialist’ should never be used in the same sentence,” Strom added.

The Gephardt Campaign January 2004:

In the past several weeks, it has come to our attention that your campaign in Iowa is engaged in an effort to violate caucus rules and send out-of-state supporters to pose as Iowa residents and caucus in cities and towns across the state.

First reported in Newsweek (November 22, 2003; enclosed), one of your staff members has contacted us to confess that efforts to send non-Iowans to caucus is indeed a critical piece of your "perfect storm" strategy. Despite your campaign's claim in the Newsweek story that action taken to organize out of state voters were those of a single "kid from Burlington," we have learned that the problem is much deeper than that.

New sound just like the old sound, except this time it is a page out of the Republican playbook. When the other side is more organized, yell voter fraud. Scare people away from the polls and claim to be defending democracy.

Regardless, it looks like Gephardt is also trying to bring in some non-Iowans. What assurances do we have that they won't be trying to caucus?

Continue reading/discuss The Latest Accusations Have a Familiar Ring ...

I was reading Dana's post below and had to follow up. It reminded me that Howard Dean has been the ONLY outside-the-beltway candidate from the start who has had the guts to tell us what he really thinks--Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. He didn't wait to see where the wind was blowing. He has also campaigned longer, and harder for us than all of the others, whatever their individual agendas. Indeed, most of the others would have stayed silent about the important issue differences with Bush in this election if Howard Dean didn't have the instinct to lead and supply a clear choice.

This video clip is a tad longer than usual, and I apologize for those who don't have the time or technology to download it. However, at a time when the really ugly stuff is coming out, Dean's core message should be heard again: COMMUNITY. We are ALL in this together. DeanTV is tired of seeing Dean's words picked apart for a neatly wrapped negative package by entities that do not have our best interest at heart. It's up to us to keep spreading the positive word that we will not be pitted against one another for someone else's gain.

QuickTime
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Windows
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

DeanTV heads to Minnesota and Iowa tomorrow. I'll be disguised as the guy with mid-western roots talking to people in Iowa about community and whether or not it's an old-fashioned notion to know your neighbor. Don't blow my cover--I'll sneak into a church basement caucus with my TV camera lights and convince the 500 people there that I've always lived amongst them.

Crossposted at DeanTV.org (Manchester, NH 1/6/04): "The Fairly Balanced Network."

Continue reading/discuss Howard Dean: Our Sense Of Community ...

This was going to be a shout-out to the Wes Clark trolls on this blog (hi gang) but the Gephardt campaign, and the reactions to Dean's "defensiveness" here, make this post more urgent.

It is time to talk about the difference between strategy and tactics.

General Clark understands this. Strategy is how you map out the campaign. Tactics is what you do in the middle of the battle.

What we're seeing right now are tactics. Gephardt's desperate charge is a tactic, aimed at dissuading Dean people from outside Iowa from coming in, and at causing fence-sitters to recoil from Governor Dean. Clark's claim that Dean's flyers at his event are a "dirty trick" are a tactic.

Neither has anything to do with the elephant in the room, George W. Bush.

Tactics won't beat George W. Bush. You need a strategy, a coherent strategy that lays out an alternate vision, that appeals to swing voters, and that can compete with Bush's "Guns, Gays, and Gazillionaires."

Howard Dean has a strategy. He's going to run to the right of Bush, on issues like Homeland Security and the deficit. He's going to challenge Bush, and not let him get away with anything. He's going to appeal to the better angels of our nature, using the nation's founding documents.

Does Dick Gephardt even have a strategy? General Clark's strategy seems to be to point to imaginary fruit salad (medals) on his chest, then run to Bush's left on every issue.

People now beginning to choose a Democratic nominee need to know this. Beating Bush will require a strategy. Governor Dean is going to match Bush's spending with the energy of millions of people. He's going to stay on the offensive from now until November 2. He has laid out a clear, coherent vision for the country, based on its founding values.

Get this campaign out of the gutter now. Tell us, Mr. Gephardt, what is your strategy for beating George W. Bush? Tell us, General Clark, what is your strategy, besides pointing to your military record? How are you going to implement that strategy when you're out of money for months, after securing this nomination, while Bush has $200 million to fire against you?

We're waiting. Iowa is waiting. New Hampshire is waiting. The nation's Democrats are waiting.

If you want Bush out, do not consider supporting one of these other candidates until you get a clear, coherent answer to that question.

What is your strategy for fighting the Bush advertising barrage, after you run out of money in April?

Continue reading/discuss Strategy Vs. Tactics ...

From Dean for America:

January 8, 2004

Dear Steve Murphy,

I am saddened by your letter today because sleazy tactics like yours are exactly the reason that people have stopped participating in the political process.

Let me be clear, your allegation is ridiculous. The 3,500 volunteers who have pledged to come to Iowa by caucus time are people who believe in a better America and a stronger democracy. Many are first time voters who have chosen to reengage in the political process because they understand that government has stopped working for the people. They know that Howard Dean is a different type of politician, and if we asked them to participate in the activities you allege, they would get in their cars and drive home.

We understand that the grassroots enthusiasm this campaign has generated and the over 3,500 volunteers who are canvassing in Iowa this month is threatening to Dick Gephardt. But that is no excuse for you to try to make Iowans question the motives of these idealistic Americans who are paying their own way to Iowa to canvass. In doing so, you are practicing precisely the type of politics that these volunteers are dedicating their time and effort to stopping.

People are tired of this type of campaigning, which is why we've been energizing voters across the country with our message of hope and of a better democracy. As Governor Dean often says, it's not enough for us to change presidents we need to change the way politics work.

Frankly, Steve, baseless political allegations like the one in your letter lead me to believe more and more that your campaign is not the one to make this change.

These allegations are not just an insult to Howard Dean and me, but they are an insult to all of the new people we're bringing into the process. Instead of these despicable and desperate attacks, you should start running the kind of campaign that inspires and energizes thousands of new voters so much that they want to come to Iowa and campaign for your candidate!

I assure you these allegations are false, and if my word is not good enough for you and Dick Gephardt, for whom I served in 1988 as deputy campaign manager, then it is with a particularly heavy heart that I send this letter.

Sincerely,

Joe Trippi
Campaign Manager

Continue reading/discuss Trippi Letter ...

what's on your mind?

Continue reading/discuss open thread ...

A new report just out shows that despite the Bush Administration's statements to the contrary, Iraq had neither the capacity to generate new stores of WMD's, nor were there old stockpiles in reserve from the mid-1990's. The report suggests that Administration officials wanted "worst case" scenarios, and then turned them into "most likely" scenarios. From CNN:

"More than 1,000 U.S. inspectors have worked daily since before the war began in March, searching the country and interviewing scientists and other Iraqi officials, according to Cirincione [one of the authors of the report].

"We found nothing," Cirincione said. "There are no large stockpiles of weapons. There hasn't actually been a find of a single weapon, a single weapons agent, nothing like the programs that the administration believe existed."

Continue reading/discuss Report: Iraq had no WMD's ...

Note that while the editorial board at TNR did as expected and endorsed Joe Lieberman, the magazine does still retain a diverse set of viewpoints. Kos's and Atrios's accusations of irrelevance aside, Jonathan Cohn has his own dissenting view, in support of Dean:

Eventually I wrote a piece touting his strong record and provocative critique of President Bush. Then I predicted his lack of money and notoriety would doom him to obscurity.

OK, so I got that last part wrong. Did I also exaggerate his virtues? Every week seems to expose new political liabilities and gaps in Dean's resumé. At times, he has been more angry than funny, more messianic than inspiring--basically, as unrecognizable to me as he was to those Bostonians we passed on the streets. But Dean has also proved more resourceful than I ever imagined. And the fundamental rationales for his candidacy--his accomplishments in Vermont and proposals for the United States--are as compelling today as they were two years ago. They're just a lot harder to see. [...]
These successes are why no less an authority than Bill Clinton has said, "Nobody did a better job on health care than [Dean] did as governor of Vermont." Implicit in that quote is what really set Dean apart as a governor: Not only does he have the right priorities; he has the right character.

The rest of Cohn's piece is just as solid - highly recommended.

Continue reading/discuss TNR's case for Howard Dean ...

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

Dean's comments come as gay marriage is emerging as a defining social issue of the 2004 elections, and one that is dividing the Episcopal Church in the United States and many other Christians and non-Christians. Driving the debate is a theological dispute over the Bible's view on homosexuality and a political one over the secular and spiritual wisdom of allowing gays to marry.

Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

Earlier Tuesday, when he and the other candidates were asked at a debate whether religion has influenced any of their policy decisions, Dean was the only one not to respond.

In the interview Wednesday, Dean said, "I don't go through an inventory like that when making public policy decisions."

Dean has been expanding on his religious views in a series of conversations with reporters, but his remarks Tuesday and Wednesday were the first time he has talked about how faith has influenced his policymaking.

Dean said he does not consider homosexuality a sin but nonetheless opposes gay marriage.

There's an overt effort here to find a Gotcha! moment on Dean, but it's clear from Dean's statement that he did not evaluate the civil unions bill using a religious litmus test - he is simply stating that religion influences the position of his moral center from which he then applies his reason. Religion is a powerful force and can lead to different views of what is right or wrong - and it's good to admit that religion is an input to that function. Better, Dean makes a religious case for tolerance towards homosexuality, which is quite a neat bit of Dean fu.

UPDATE: AP writer Ross Sneyd (who has a long history of covering Dean in Vermont as Gov) discovers that Dean didn't mention religion when he signed the civil unions bill.

Continue reading/discuss Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions ...

WBUR Boston's public radio show The Connection has a segment on Dean:

The Buzz for Dr. Dean

Sell the sizzle, not the steak. It's an old advertising maxim that applies whether you're selling T-bones or political candidates. In a field of nine Democrats, that most Americans still can't name, people in Iowa have a definite advantage. With the Iowa caucuses, the first official contest for the Democratic presidential contenders, just six months away, voters get the chance to have coffee and more coffee with the candidates.

Right now, the word from the cornfields is that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is the man to beat. He's against the war with Iraq. For gay civil unions. He's raising money and expectations and restarting an old debate over whether Democrats with progressive views can win elections.

I haven't listened to it yet - what did you think of it?

Continue reading/discuss audio: The Buzz for Dr. Dean ...

I don't approve of this:

The Clark campaign was ebullient Wednesday as the retired general drew crowds in the hundreds at two town hall meetings in New Hampshire, where some polls now indicate he is battling for second place.

Outside a Clark campaign event in Peterborough, N.H., a Dean aide handed out leaflets attacking the general. The fliers highlighted General Clark's praise for the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism in 2001 and 2002, his votes for Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and his sometimes conflicting statements about Iraq.

"I just think it's important to point out to the voters of New Hampshire that General Clark supported the war and General Clark spent most of his life as a Republican," said Jay Carson, Dr. Dean's national spokesman, "and he's now running as an antiwar candidate in the Democratic primary."

Asked about his voting history by a voter at the forum, General Clark said, "I never was a Republican."

He added that many in the military did not belong to a political party but chose candidates who were "strong on national defense."

"After the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and some of the presidential candidates seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America," General Clark said. "So I voted for people who would take care of the country."

I don't understand the point of trying to agitate at another candidates' public appearances. It's better to illustrate your differences at media forums and via press release and statements. Trying to poach another candidates' supporters looks weak in comparison to building your own base from scratch. We know Dean's message stands on its own merits.

Continue reading/discuss going negative on Clark? ...

via Atrios:

QUESTION: Mr. President, you said earlier this morning that in a trial that all of Saddam's atrocities need to be brought out. He was in power more than 30 years. It probably would make for a long rap sheet.

Bush: You're not supposed to pre-judge.

QUESTION: Yes. I'm just counting the years.

Bush: OK, good.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 should be included, as well as his assassination attempt against former President Bush?

Bush: That'll all be decided by the lawyers. And I will instruct this government to make sure the system includes the Iraqi citizens and make sure the process withstands international scrutiny.

But we'll let the lawyers handle all that. And, as you know, I'm not a lawyer. And I delegate. And I'm going to delegate this to the legal community which will be reviewing all of this matter.

kudos to the President for following where Dean has tread (someone please explain it to Jonah Goldberg, who thinks it's "nonsense"). Jeers to Kerry and Lieberman who seem to think that the rule of law takes a back seat to vigilante "justice".

Continue reading/discuss Bush: Dean was right ...

the silly little flap over Hillary Clinton's lame attempt at humor while paying tribute to Gandhi, the father of Indian independence, reminded me of a famous quote that is very relevant to us today:

Clinton quoted the Indian independence leader as saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Gandhi took his country back, too. And did so with honor - which is how we plan to win. In doing so, we will distinguish ourselves from those we oppose.

Continue reading/discuss the wisdom of Gandhi ...

I've got a friend who is something like John Kerry.

He's obsessed about his competitor. He wants to know exactly what they're up to. I think he wants to copy them.

But you don't win that way, I told him. You win by expressing your own vision, consistently. As my friend Rob Frankel says, "a big time brand defines himself as the only logical choice."

The final push toward the first primary is like the PC market at the height of Comdex. Everyone is screaming so loud you can't hear anyone. So it's the guy who is most outrageous, who is most memorable, who stands out, that gets talked about.

In the business where I work, gerbils are fired out of cannon. In the politics business, we have "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show."

The difference between the ads is that Outpost.com didn't really hurt any gerbils. My point is, anyone remember Outpost.Com?

What's being lost in the charge-and-countercharge, the constant "gotcha," is what Bush Sr. called "the vision thing."

The great news about Howard Dean is, we have it. Here it is. And here. And here. And here.

"We shall be as one. We must delight in each other, make other’s conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always living before our eyes our Commission and Community in our work.”

This is what a Big Time Brand does. A Big Time Brand defines itself as the only logical choice. It doesn't react. It acts.

The solution to the drip-drip-drip in the polls is in our hands. It's before our eyes. It's in our history. And it's in the words, not just of Howard Dean, but of John Winthrop, born on a January 12, 416 years ago.

Dean quoted Winthrop in his announcement speech. I teared up when I read it again just now. So did you, maybe. And you probably cried because you realized how far George Bush and his cronies have wandered from this conservative churchman's dream.

And that's the vision. We're going to outflank Bush on the right. We're going to eat his cheese. We're going to blow him away, by identifying with our founders, going back to the very beginning, before this Republic was even founded.

Can Dick Gephardt do that? Will John Kerry? General Clark? No, they're all fine gentlemen, but they're programmatic, micro-managers. They're not Big Time Brands, the kinds of Inspiring Leaders who can grab history by the throat and shove it in a new direction with the strength of their vision.

Howard Dean is such a leader. That's why we're following him.

All we need to do now is tell the people.

Continue reading/discuss Define The Game ...

Salon goes ahead and rains on our collective parade by providing an excerpt to the clip of Ninja III: The Domination where Policeman, played by one Howard Dean, exclaims "Proceed with caution!" (see screenshot at right).

Spoilsports:

Dean, unfortunately, says it's not him. Jay Carson, a Dean spokesman, told Salon he asked Dean "point-blank" -- and the Democratic front-runner said he was in no way associated with "The Domination," the story (from producers Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan) of a beautiful '80s aerobics practitioner possessed by the spirit of a ninja slain on a golf course.
[...]
But as with WMDs, belief dies hard, especially when a wily ninja is such a promising metaphor for, say, Karl Rove. The mind invents explanations: Is it so hard to imagine that Dr. Howard Dean, admittedly stuck in Vermont most of 1983, might have spent a weekend in Arizona with a buddy from med school ... and then, finding the local links closed down for a movie shoot, stumbled upon some B-movie filmmakers who were short one helicopter cop...?

Alas, the Salon article doesn't mention that Dean Nation scooped Kos, Atrios, and Pandagon on the story. None of the others mention the true legacy of the whole affair: the birth of the concept of Dean fu :)

Continue reading/discuss Dean fu ...

The Kool Aid tastes better and better. I have come around to thinking that Dean's position on the Bush tax cut (repeal all of it) is actually defensible, and I don't want him to back down. Let me explain my thinking.

The basic argument that Dean makes is that there was no middle-class tax cut. The best analogy I've heard is that Bush put $200 in your front pocket and took $500 out your back pocket. The entire point of the BushTax.com site is to document how the fiscal policies of the Administration have exacerbated the budget crises of the states, leading to more expenses - which the supposed Bush refund was intended to distact from.

Note also that the main champions of leaving the Bush tax plan in place for the middle class (Kerry and Lieberman) are falling into a rhetorical trap of ceding the debate (which Clark is guilty of doing on foreign policy). But Dean inverts the "it's your money" argument - staying true to the liberal notion that givernment services can act as a great engine of opportunity for the lower classes. Note that it is Republican fiscal ideology that supports the demise of upward mobility. The ideological assault upon the New Deal has begun - starting with symbolic measures, but the real agenda is to "starve the beast." Note that while social programs get starved out of existence, largesse is showered upon the corporate interests - further underlining their deliberate fiscal agenda of corporate welfare. Horatio Alger is not just dying, he is being systematically murdered.

When Democrats become Bush Lite, they are abdicating their responsibility to defend the policies and ideologies that define liberalism itself - the idea that success should accrue from hard work and equal opportunity, to any American regardless of lineage or caste. Is it any wonder that Al Gore signed onto the Dean campaign? This really is about the People vs the Powerful.

Is Dean going to step up to the plate? Arguing that there was no tax cut is only the first step. He has to follow through on the swing - and the recent hints about a payroll tax cut are exactly what the Doctor should order.

The Clark tax plan is good, but it isn't a visionary one. Dean has been talking about repealing the entire tax cut for months now, and we have not been very happy about it, but if you take Dean's position on the Bush tax cuts along with a proposed payroll tax cut, and sell them together in the context of defending against the corporate-welfare-driven ideology of the Administration, suddenly you have a much more potent argument. Clark's approach doesn't defend our values in the same manner as would such a combination. Let's see what the Doctor proposes...

UPDATE: East Bay Rockstar comments:

I have repeatedly been exasperated by Dean failing to clearly explain, in two sentences, that under his vision for the country, people will receive more in health care, cheaper education, safety, and higher job prospects by having the Bush Tax repealed than the way they have it now.

This should be his statement coming directly after his assertion (which is accurate) that the middle class didn't really get a tax cut.

EBR isn't the only one.

Continue reading/discuss thoughts on Dean and tax plans ...

Just got this press release. Seems Burlington has been listening to everyone's feedback on the tax reform issue.

BURLINGTON--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today:

"I have repeatedly called for the complete repeal of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to pay for health care and make significant progress toward balancing the budget. As I have consistently said since November 2002, I will propose additional tax reforms that will make the tax code fairer for working families--and that will ensure that corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share."

Dean's economic policy team has been consistently advising him that we need to reform our tax code and make it simpler and fairer, and he has stated repeatedly in the past that he would at some point release a plan. I expect it to be released possibly before the Iowa caucus, and certainly before the New Hampshire primary. If not, then the window of opportunity may close.
Burlington, are you listening? If so, please consider doing something to make the tax code fairer to couples who choose not to have children. And while you're at it, take a look at that nasty payroll tax will you? The strawman of "reducing income taxes" does not address the needs of the lower and middle classes who are unfairly targetted by the payroll rax. So let's hear what you are going to do to make the tax code simpler and more fair, and let's hear it soon. But please let's not pretend that every American family has 2.5 kids and a dog (like John Kerry does when he uses his voodoo math to attack you in the debates). Some of us aren't going to have children and we are discriminated against via the current tax code, and many of us pay a disproportionate amount of payroll taxes. Come on Burlington, we know you can do it.

Continue reading/discuss The time is now: tax reform platform coming soon ...

Dean 36%, Clark 16%, Kerry 13%. I've argued earlier that Clark supporters will find their candidate increasingly under fire as the others realize that Clark already has the anti-Dean position wrapped up. Watch for Kerry to go negative on Clark soon to try and maintain at loeast a second-place showing (Dean's lead in NH is too great to realistically expect to topple him, but for Kerry, taking 3rd instead of 2nd would be a death blow rather than a major setback.)

Continue reading/discuss ARG poll: Clark beats Kerry for 2nd place in NH ...

but relax, she's on our side! via SFGate:

Arianna Huffington says the idea that Howard Dean is not electable is "nothing short of idiotic."

Huffington -- the one-time Republican activist-turned left-wing commentator and California gubernatorial candidate -- has now turned into a Dean devotee.

"Dean is electable precisely because he's making a decisive break with the spinelessness and pussyfooting that have become the hallmark of the Democratic Party," Huffington wrote this week in the regular column she posts on her Web site and that's published in some newspapers.

"Far from Dean not being able to 'compete' with Bush on foreign policy, he's the one viable Democrat who isn't trying to compete on the playing field that Bush and Karl Rove have laid out."

Continue reading/discuss Arianna breathes fire ...

Family is one of those words politicians talk about all the time, but no one does much about.

I'm not just talking about policy here.

In an AP story today, Dr. Howard Dean talked about his family, how his wife "won't be a prop" in his campaign, how his children are "out of bounds."

This is something that separates him, not just from his rivals for the nomination, not just from President Bush, but from every candidate we've seen on this level (save one Bill Bradley) for generations now.

I know what makes Howard Dean strong. It's the same thing that makes me strong. I hope it's what makes you strong, too.

It's family. Dr. Dean's family is a refuge from the hurly-burly of the world. He was fortunate to have that kind of refuge growing up, on Long Island. It's something we all deserve.

But it's something we're not accustomed to giving our leaders. Our leaders must use their wives and kids as props, they must talk about how they "give them strength," even if they then spend their nights (or days) catting around or (worse) lonely.

Part of our national prejudice against women politicians, I think, stems from the fact that men need the strength of strong family ties, and male voters who recognize this recoil instinctively from women, thinking they either don't have it or (worse) should be at home providing it.

But the word for that kind of family tie is dependence. When two people lean on one another, instead of standing straight hand-in-hand, it's called co-dependence.

So instead of talking about family, Howard Dean lives it. He goes home, he shuts the door, and the world of politics stays outside. But that home is not devoted solely toward giving him a refuge. There are three other people in it, strong people, good people, each of whom needs that home to be their refuge, too. Every member of the Dean family has a life and career of their own, outside the home, and each uses the strength of their family to give them courage when they go into the world.

Values, like religion, are spoken of too much in America, and lived too little. Whatever and whoever you consider your family, go to them tonight after Meetup, hug them, and count your blessings.

Continue reading/discuss What Makes Howard Dean Strong? ...

Bill Bradley touched on it in his “Why I Joined” e-mail.

It is the belief that good can triumph over bad, that principle can defeat expediency, that there's honor in working for a better world, that it's not naive to appeal to the better sides of our nature, and that it's all right to believe in the people, in your neighbor, in humankind.

The real enemy is cynicism.

When journalists have told Gov. Dean recently, “you’re running against Nixon,” and he talked about race, they were both cutting a glancing blow against this real enemy.

The Governor’s life story should be familiar to anyone of “a certain age.” He gave up on politics after Nixon, deciding he could only change lives one at a time. He found the way in medicine, and in taking that path, he healed himself.

Governor Dean came back to public life very slowly. A simple project, the bike path. A little volunteer work, stuffing envelopes. A part-time legislative position, a part-time post as Lieutenant Governor. And a full-time life, with a wife, a family, and career that were fulfilling to him.

Millions more have done the same thing to beat the cynicism tearing at our souls. Joe Trippi went to Silicon Valley. I went into technology journalism. Millions more found faith in God.

Faith is a positive good, but history shows it can be used to evil ends. Osama Bin Laden, the Spanish Inquisition, they both demanded blind faith in leaders who insisted they were inspired by God.

Skepticism is the only proper American stance. They’re not all crooks. Howard Dean is no crook. Bill Bradley is no crook. But we all have a right, a duty, to watch them closely. Some of them may be crooks, some may turn into crooks. When they do we turn them out. The great leaders welcome that heat. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

It is when we fall into cynicism that we can be manipulated. We have had a generation of cynicism, and this Administration is the height of cynicism. Not just in what they’re doing, but in how they intend to manipulate us so they can keep doing it.

That’s what all this “gotcha” stuff about Howard Dean is really all about. He’s no better than they are. There’s no difference. Stay cynical, so we can keep manipulating you.

But we have a duty, as Americans, not to fall for that. We have a duty, as Americans, to believe in ourselves. Only then do we really have the power the Constitution gave us, those three words, larger than all the rest, prouder. We The People.

It is cynicism that lets us be led blindly. It is cynicism we are fighting against. We need to heal ourselves of a generation of cynicism, right here, right now. That’s the message we need to take to our neighbors, a healthy skepticism instead of cynicism or blind faith. An American attitude. Because when we exhibit that attitude, in both our private and public lives, we truly are the hope of the world. When we fail to we become its terror.

Continue reading/discuss The Real Enemy ...

Gore plans Iowa swing for Dean

Mich. Dems start voting


Dr. Dean thinking ‘coattails’

Dean and his amazing cyber Teflon coat

Kerry: I'll back Dean if he gets Dem nod

Poll shows Democratic race tightening

Democrats Battle Over Taxes in Debate

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

Warning: this post is only somewhat Dean-related. Indulge me...

As a liberal I can say this: there are some liberal/left big wigs who are a pain in the you-know-what. However, there are others who really do get it. Thankfully some of them are eloquent wordsmiths and hence not boring. Case in point: Tony Kushner.

No doubt many people -- heck, even I might have assumed this -- would assume that Kushner (author of many plays, most notabley the critically acclaimed Angels in America, which recently aired on HBO as a miniseries) is one of those purist liberals.

Not so. In a recent interview with Mother Jones magazine, Kushner argues for an irreverant form of pragmatic liberal politics and he does it with style, of course.

I have great admiration for the essayists and writers on the left, but the left decided at some point that government couldn't get it what it wanted. As a result, it's a movement of endless complaint and of a one-sided reading of American history, which misses the important point: Constitutional democracy has created astonishing and apparently irreversible social progress. All we're interested in is talking about when government doesn't work.

(snip)

I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies. Money should be thrown at that candidate. And if Ralph Nader runs -- if the Green Party makes the terrible mistake of running a presidential candidate -- don't give him your vote. Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.

(snip)

In a certain sense, Bush was right when he called the anti-war demonstrations a "focus group." We went out on the street and told him that we didn't like the war. But that was all we did: We expressed an opinion. There was no one in Congress to listen to us because we were clear about why they couldn't listen. Hillary Clinton was too compromised, or Chuck Schumer -- and God knows they are. But if people don't pressure them to do better, we're lost.

(snip)

I think what one has to do is to ask oneself, "Do you want to have agency in your own time?" If you really believe that it's your place to leave the world a better place than it was when you arrived, then how do you get the power? In this country, the most powerful country on earth, you get it by voting the right people into power.

So, Tony. How about joining Margaret Cho and getting on board the Dean Train? ;-)

Continue reading/discuss "Do you want to have agency in your own time?" ...

Continue reading/discuss Transcript: Democratic Presidential Radio Debate ...

well, it's not exactly an endorsement, but hey it is a start!

A CASE FOR DEAN: On the issues - going soft on terror, raising taxes, neo-protectionism, paleo-liberalism on race - I have a hard time even considering Howard Dean as a potential president. On character, I think it's pretty clear he's an unpleasant person - prickly, angry, self-important, know-it-all. So why do I find myself rooting for Dean to win the nomination? In part, of course, it's the lack of a credible alternative. I like Lieberman on substance but he's unelectable and his religious grandstanding gives me the heeby-jeebies; Edwards has run the classiest campaign, but these are not the '90s; Gephardt is too left on economics and healthcare; Kerry is about the worst candidate I've observed since Al Gore. Clark - well, I have a visceral aversion to his megalomania and to the cynicism with which the Clintonites have rallied around him. A campaign based entirely on regaining power, by using a candidate as a cipher, is a dangerous thing. Besides, I think Clark is a crackpot. My hankering for Dean is therefore a little like Bill Kristol's. I think it would be refreshing for this country to have a real choice and debate this year, not an echo or yet another focus group.

Still the litany of evils that he invokes betray a massive ignorance of the issues. Portraying Dean as soft on terror and wanting to raise taxes is essentially asinine. It's obvious he hasn't bothered to actually listen to Dean at all. Sullivan has much more on the topic of Dean on that post, where he argues that maybe a super-lefty version of Bush deserves an equal shot at the ideological wheel of the ship. Separating out Sullivan's ignorance from the rest, you can see that his basic point about offerring the people of America a choice is actually not that different from what Dean himself has said.

Except that we know whose vision wins on the merits. It ain't Tom Delay's.

Continue reading/discuss Sullivan pseudo-endorses Dean ...

Yesterday morning I didn't think I'd be getting up at 3:45AM to battle the latest blizzard to get to Dean. I'd already set my mind on Iowa as the next place to get some work done after we bury my grandfather in neighboring Minnesota this weekend. Then--SURPRISE!--Dr. Dean delivers another whopper of an endorsement for us to help bring our hopes and dreams ever closer as the primary season begins. Bill Bradley D-NJ, extraordinary for so many reasons (I'll trust you don't need a list), hops down to Manchester, NH to provide a little Pick and Roll move for Dean before heading off to Iowa to make the Debate and media tour.

Sometimes, one picture can make it all worthwhile. For me, it's the one above. Here's looking at all of you kids!


I remember meeting Bill Bradley in front of the Moscone Center in San Francisco at the convention in 1984. My friend was much more in the know and older than I at the time. She whispered to me that the person I'd just met would be running for President someday. Frankly, at the time, I was more interested in seeing the Dead Kennedy's playing outside the center while Ted Kennedy was speaking.

To me, Bradley's endorsement says a lot about us and what we are all about. Thanks Senator Bradley!

No questions were allowed at the event. But DeanTV did get a little video something here for Dean Nation:

QuickTime
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Windows
56KDownload file
100KDownload file


After the event, it seemed like a good time to check in with Dorie Clark, Communications Extraordinaire for Dean For New Hampshire. Senator Bradley is one of Dorie's favorites. SORRY, the following video had to be work-oriented as we have so little time to get so much done:

QuickTime
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Windows
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

As usual, this post originates from DeanTV.org--the home of your People-Powered Howard Documentary and a small part of the DeanTV Network.

Continue reading/discuss Dean Nation Exclusive: Bill Bradley Joins The Dean Team ...

The link above goes to the signup page for the upcoming Iowa caucus. If you can take next weekend off, please get there. Now is the time. Three of our contributors will be in Iowa beginning next week: Heath of DeanTV, Amanda of MassForDean, and myself (I'll also be blogging at my site, annatopia.com). For months we've corresponded, volunteered, and blogged together, and I feel a comraderie with them even though we've never met face to face. We are lucky enough to be able to get time off and travel to Iowa, and I know that thousands more Dean volunteers and bloggers will be joining us to canvass door to door, phone bank, poll-watch, transport volunteers and sign up caucus goers. I am grateful and blessed to be in a position to do this.
I also realise there are some who aren't so lucky. Some of you might not be able to get the time off or you might not have the means to travel to Iowa or New Hampshire (link goes to informational and sign up page). That's fine, because there are many other things you can do to help out right now. Obviously, you can swing our bat. We'd love to hit $35K before the three of us arrive in Iowa. *smile* But if you're maxed out or short on funds right now, here are some other suggestions on how you can help right now.
If you haven't done so already, join Meetup. Tomorrow's meetup is the last one before the first votes are cast, and it's an important opportunity to recruit more volunteers for your local efforts. And considering we are going to have a snowball effect after the first round of primaries, local volunteers will be needed to coordinate all the new supporters and help win your local caucuses.
If you've got decent penmanship and some stamps and envelopes lying around, write some letters. There are two letter writing efforts currently in progress that need your time and energy. The first is, of course, rural Iowa. The cities have been pretty well covered, and the letter focus right now is on rural Iowans. Remember that the Iowa caucus is in 13 days, and the weather in the midwest is spotty. If you decide to do this, please mail your letters by next Wednesday, January 14, so that they will arrive before the caucus.
Looking ahead to February 3, there is another letter writing effort underway in South Carolina. Dean National JenInSC has sprearheaded the effort along with a trusty team of dedicated volunteers. They've created SC Volunteers for Dean, an all-purpose site where you can sign up to receive addresses of South Carolina voters to write or call. You can also volunteer to canvass door to door in South Carolina or sign up to work and intern for the campaign. If you write letters to South Carolina, please mail them by Saturday January 31 so that they arrive by the February 3 vote. That means we have about three weeks to flood South Carolina with letters.
If you'd rather be a media watchdog and help defend Gov Dean against the disgusting tactics employed by the punditry against President Gore, then pop over to the DDF - Dean Defense Forces and the Dean Rapid Response Network. Media watchdogs are needed now as the primary season heats up. We've already witnessed some gross transgressions on the part of the AP and some anonymous PACs which are getting some coverage. Now more than ever the DDF and DRR are needed, and now more than ever you are needed to help with this effort.
So... you can travel, write letters, phone bank, pundit watch, attend meetup and recruit volunteers, or swing the bat. But above all, don't wait to take action. The time to win the nomination is now. The time to focus and redouble our efforts is now. Not tomorrow, not next week. NOW. I believe in us. We have the power. It's time to wield it.

Continue reading/discuss Dean Nation joins the Iowa Perfect Storm ...

link goes to the live stream. how's it goin' ?

Continue reading/discuss NPR debate open thread ...

We've been hammering on this theme for months here at Dean Nation - a payroll tax cut would be a major political and economic coup. Now, comes the first tantalizing hint that the campaign has indeed been listening. The link above goes to a length WaPo article which closes with this stunner drop mention:

A top aide said Dean is considering a tax reform plan for the general election that includes a reduction in payroll taxes. If Dean rolls out such a plan, it could offset what many strategists see as a big liability: his support of what amounts to a nearly $2 trillion tax increase by calling for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts.

Keep your eyes on this one carefully, everyone. If this gets absorbed into the campaign policy proposals, it will shift the entire debate profoundly to the left to the advantage of Dean and the Democrats in general.

Of course, a payroll tax cut is only one third of what is needed. Dean has already proposed a plan for health care, which is another third. But the fial and missing plank is an ambitious anti-poverty agenda, which neither of the other two issues really go any distance towards addressing. Something like wage subsidies...

Continue reading/discuss payroll tax cut! payroll tax cut! ...

This should be incredible, but it's not...

"The 1.3 million low-wage workers the Labor Department (news - web sites) says will be guaranteed overtime pay as part of new rule changes may not necessarily see any extra cash.

"While touting the $895 million in increased wages it says those workers would be guaranteed from the changes, the Labor Department is suggesting ways employers can keep their labor costs from going up.

"Among the options: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible."

When the race started, I was leaning strongly Gephardt, because labor issues are important to me and I tend not to trust all the labor promises made by candidates during the primaries. Gephardt had a track record. But as I've learned, so does Dean:

"As Governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002, I stood with nurses and other employees seeking to form unions. I supported binding arbitration for municipal workers. And I signed into law agency fee protection for the state employees union, thereby providing union security for state employees. Prior to my service as Governor, I had a 100% pro-labor voting record as a state legislator. I was proud when I was recently awarded the first Paul Wellstone Award by the AFL-CIO for my commitment to the rights of workers."

Dean is also firmly committed to enhancing workers' rights to organize. This means more to me than the traditional proposals for another minimum wage increase, which affects mainly the lowest workers on the salary scale. Organizing puts power back in the hands of workers, so that regardless of which party controls government, they will have the power to fight for their own rights.

With regards to this overtime stuff, though, I'm guessing any Democrat would do better than that. Which is why I can't wait for the primaries to end so we can concentrate on taking back the White House from its current occupant.

Continue reading/discuss Bush's Anti-Labor Department ...

behold the power of Dean fu !

Correction: Democrats-Debate Story

ASSOCIATED PRESS

JOHNSTON, Iowa (AP) - In a Jan. 4 story about the Democratic presidential debate, The Associated Press erroneously quoted Howard Dean saying, "I opposed the Iraq war when everyone else up here was for it."

Official transcripts of the debate show that he said, "I opposed the Iraq war; with the exception of Dennis and Carol, everybody else supported it." Dean was referring to Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun.

armed with this victory, our vigilance must increase

Continue reading/discuss AP issues correction ...

Today, NPR will host an radio-only debate between the candidates, which you can hear live on your local public radio station. No word on whether Pacifica affiliates will also carry the feed, but you can also stream the audio from NPR.org. The page at the link above will be updated with more info shortly.

The debate will be moderated by Neal Conan, host of Talk of the Nation (the broadcast replaces the regularly scheduled TotN program on most NPR affiliates). The debate will also include selected questions emailed to election@npr.org, so if you have a good one, send it in!

Continue reading/discuss NPR Debate today 2PM-4PM EST ...

via the O-blog, is this excerpt from the transcript of Bradley's endorsement of Dean:

In 2000, many Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire and across the country gave me their support, and I continue to consider their confidence a sacred trust.

This year many of them have asked me who among this very capable group of candidates I would recommend. My answer is Howard Dean.

His campaign offers America new hope. His supporters are breathing fresh air into the lungs of our democracy. They're revitalizing politics, showing a way to escape the grip of big money and to confront the shame of forgetting those in need.

When Governor Dean says that his campaign is more about his supporters than about him, he shows admirable modesty, but he sheds light also on why his campaign offers the best chance to beat George Bush. That is, he is tapped into the same wonderful idealism that I saw in the eyes of Americans in 2000 and he has nourished it into a powerful force.

What is that idealism? It is the belief that good can triumph over bad, that principle can defeat expediency, that there's honor in working for a better world, that it's not naive to appeal to the better sides of our nature and it's all right to believe in the people, in your neighbor, in humankind.

head over to the O-blog to read the whole thing! (note, DfA seems to be having some server trouble this morning).

Continue reading/discuss Bradley endorsement speech ...

The infamous "Club for Growth" is back - and look at what tripe they are peddling this time:

The Club for Growth Political Action Committee said the 30-second spot against the former Vermont governor will begin running in Des Moines today -- two weeks before the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

It gets better - a press release from Stephen Moore (the PAC's president and chief corporate toady) states, "Howard Dean's liberalism may play well with latte-drinking, body-piercing, public radio listening crowd, but it won't play with hard-working Americans...."

it won't? we shall see. 500,000 hard-working Americans have already argued otherwise.

They are trying to make us angry. But they don't seem to remember that their attacks only make us stronger. It's time for some more Dean Fu! Feed the bat!

Continue reading/discuss smearing Dean redux ...

Two Dean ads highlight records, proposals

Why go to Fargo? Dems know

Bill Bradley Joining Gore in Dean Camp

Dean Gains Bradley Support As Rivals Intensify Criticism

Dean to make surprise visit to N.H.

Dean criticizes "No Child Left Behind" law

Dean Works To Smooth The Edges

Sen. Harkin considers endorsing Democrat

Poll: Dean starts 2004 leading Dems

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

We're all doing what we can in our own ways to make the big push in Iowa and New Hampshire. Tomorrow we get a major endorsement from former Senator Bill Bradley D-NJ in Manchester, NH. Another huge coup for Dean, given the horse race going on in Iowa, would be an endorsement from Tom Harkin in Iowa.

Perhaps a decision has already been made. I'm not sure if Harkin will even take sides but what do you think he will do? Will he endorse Dean as a nod to his old pal Wellstone who would have questioned his Iraq War vote? Will he give the nod to his old chum Gephardt from a neighboring state? Are there other unknown allegiences with others?

Either way--PLEASE LOBBY FOR DEAN while we still have time!!! Make a quick call or send an email please.

HARKIN WASHINGTON OFFICE
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3254 Phone
(202) 224-9369 Fax
(202) 224-4633 TDD

EMAIL HERE

Continue reading/discuss What's Tom Harkin Going To Do? ...

I couldn't resist posting this press release as soon as it hit my inbox:

BAKERSFIELD, CA--Dolores C. Huerta, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, M.D. today, citing his commitment to a grassroots campaign to change American politics. She was joined in her endorsement by her long-time companion, Richard Chavez.
"I have watched Governor Dean's campaign with great interest, and I am proud today to join the other 552,000 Americans who are uniting to take the country back from powerful special interests. I have worked my entire life to empower people and give them a sense of ownership, and so it is natural that I am joining Governor Dean's campaign because it is based around the ideal that the power to govern comes from the people. Everyday, his campaign is demonstrating how individuals can unite to effect change at the highest levels of government," Dolores Huerta said. "Howard Dean is the man to bring democracy and the people back into the White House and American politics."
"For over forty years, I have fought alongside American workers to improve their lives and support their families. I know that Howard Dean recognizes the importance of our fight and will stand alongside us-as he has throughout his political career," said Richard Chavez, brother of famed workers' rights leader Cesar Chavez.
Governor Dean responded, "I am deeply honored to be endorsed today by Dolores Huerta and Richard Chavez. They are preeminent leaders in America's civil rights and labor movements. Throughout Dolores's and Richard's lives, they have fought selflessly for America's workers and immigrants, and their efforts have resulted in some of the 20th century's most important advancements in farm workers' rights."
Huerta is now First Vice President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO. She co-founded the UFW with Cesar Chavez in 1962, and together they organized the successful five-year boycott of California table grapes that resulted in the entire California industry signing a landmark three-year collective bargaining agreement with the UFW. Dolores is also remembered for coining the famous slogan, "Si se puede!" (Yes we can/It can be done!).
Dolores Huerta was also instrumental in lobbying for the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, the first law of its kind in the U.S. that grants farm workers the right to collectively organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions.
At age 73, Ms. Huerta continues to be very active in social justice issues and politics, serving on the University of California Board of Regents and the boards of the Feminist Majority and People for the American Way. She also runs her own foundation.

I'll bet Dean's support of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride had something to do with this endorsement. There's a pattern here that has emerged and is probably scaring the bejeebus out of the other contenders: Dean will work his butt off to accomplish his goals. I don't know about you, but I want someone in the White House working his butt off for American workers, and I do trust that Gov Dean, MD is that man.

Continue reading/discuss Delores Huerta and Richard Chavez endorse Gov Howard Dean, MD ...

This is a smart opinion piece that defends Dean on the religion issue and makes a rather cogent point:

What's especially puzzling about this emphasis on religious zeal is the way it plays out in actual campaign issues, flowing so adroitly toward the question of same-sex marriage that you can practically see White House political adviser Karl Rove busily working the locks and floodgates. As with abortion and other questions of human sexuality so central and dear to puritanical thought, it's dicey to decide in this particular instance what Jesus would do, since instead of telling us whether to marry or to burn, the Savior chose to spend His brief time on Earth making Himself extremely crystal-clear on the topic of what the wealthy and strong should be doing about the poor and helpless.

I wouldn't mind seeing this become the new wedge issue in presidential politics, since it applies quite pressingly to everything of importance going on in our time: Iraq, China, Israelis and Palestinians, AIDS and other epidemics, the economy, government entitlements, you name it. A substantive debate about God's will in such matters might be not only refreshing but profoundly revelatory.

Unfortunately, though -- since we're a nation of people giddy about God but funny about money -- the candidate who gave the most Christlike answer to this question would probably lose out big-time on Election Day.

Sadly, the last politician to try and apply Christian concepts of morality to social politics was Alabama Gov Riley, whose poverty and tax initiative was roundly defeated. But I think it would indeed be a refreshing turn of the debate to discuss how liberalism and religion are allies when it comes to helping the poor.

Continue reading/discuss a revelatory debate ...

A call to arms is in order. This Associated Press story leads off with an egregious, bald lie:

For a brief time in their debate Sunday, Democrats seemed to be hewing to a New Year's resolution to stick more carefully to the facts on taxes, the budget and more. But old habits die hard.

(emphasis mine) Old habits die hard? This is a news wire story - not an opinion rag. Putting this in the lead of the story essentiually insinuates that all Democrats are habitual liars.

Speaking of habitual liars, the author of the hit piece is Calvin Woodward, who has a well-documented history of biased reporting - such as in 2000, when he penned similar hatchet jobs against Al Gore.

Not to beoutdone is famed AP hack Nedra Pickler, whose own take on the debate included this monstrosity in the second graf:

JOHNSTON, Iowa (AP) -- In a feisty, first debate of the election year, Howard Dean drew fire from fellow Democrats on Sunday over trade, terror, taxes and more, then calmly dismissed his rivals as "co-opted by the agenda of George Bush."

"I opposed the Iraq war when everyone else up here was for it," said the former Vermont governor, invoking the issue that helped fuel his 2003 transformation from asterisk in the polls to front-runner.

Nedra Pickler is setting up the meme that Dean is a liar - from reading the above, you'd conclude that Dean lied because he didn't mention Kucinich and Mosely-Braun, who were on the stage. But look at the actual debate transcript:

DEAN: ... I opposed the Iraq war; with the exception of Dennis and Carol, everybody else supported it.

Mizz Pickler seems to be writing these stories out her arse rather than doing any actual, you know, journalism. With sources and all.

Time for action. The phone number for the AP National desk at 212-621-1600 - and the email address of the authora are cwoodward@ap.org and npickler@ap.org. Nedra's phone number at the AP is 202-776-9421.

Finally - make a symbolic donation to Dean for $11.05 or more to show the media establishment that the more they try to smear Dean, the stronger we become.

Dana, please repost this to the DDF site?

Continue reading/discuss DDF: Associated Press' old habits die hard ...

If nothing else, think of the symbolism - Dean will have secured the endorsement of BOTH the contenders for the 2000 nomination. And that was hardly a acrimony-free race. Here's the story:

NEW HAMPTON, Iowa -- Howard Dean, whose presidential campaign has already won the backing of former vice president Al Gore, is planning a surprise visit to New Hampshire Tuesday in expectation of receiving the endorsement of the other leading Democratic contender from the 2000 race, former US senator Bill Bradley.
[...]
In winning Bradley's support, Dean would not only garner the backing of a candidate who nearly won the New Hampshire primary in the last campaign, but also a candidate like himself who made expanding health insurance for Americans a central theme of his campaign.
[...]
In a recent interview with sfpolitics.com, a California website devoted to politics, Bradley said of Dean: "I think Howard Dean has the strongest free media presence (of the Democratic contenders) and he has managed to broaden that to a broader protest and critique of the Bush administration, and the last things he got to do, he has to be able to broaden that to a broader agenda, more than simply anti-war. And he has to have an aspirational component to what he is saying so that people will feel that they are empowered by him to be as good as they can possibly be.''

We should have more info later today through the wires...

Continue reading/discuss Bradley to endorse Dean?! ...

Dean Untarnished By Rivals' Critiques

Dean Absorbs Most Attacks From Rivals

Dean Takes The Heat

Top candidates strategize to pin down nomination

Analysis: Non-combustible Dean foils rivals

Feb. primary will test Dean's strength in Va.

February to be decisive for Dean's drive to nomination

Bush Bracing for Matchup Against Dean

Clark says he 'absolutely' won't run for vice president

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

Well, it's wrapping up, and all things considered, we didn't get bashed on as badly as I expected.

Your thoughts Dean Nation?

Continue reading/discuss Debate Open Thread ...

Dean's Odds? Surely, 50-50

Dean Now Willing to Discuss His Faith

Harkin endorsement looms as valuable asset

N.M. Vote Attracts Candidate Attention

Fox:Joe Trippi, campaign manager of Dean for America

Democrats jockey for Iowa

Letter to Al From

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

The New York Times Magazine has an important story today on the Democratic Party's foreign policy, focusing on Governor Dean.

Here is what I would call the "money quote." It's from Governor Dean:

''The line of attack is not Iraq, though there'll be some of that. The line of attack will be more, 'What have you done to make us feel safer?' I'm going to outflank him to the right on homeland security, on weapons of mass destruction and on the Saudis,'' whom Dean promises to publicly flay as a major source of terrorism. ''Our model is to get around the president's right, as John Kennedy did to Nixon.''

This is important stuff. Bush has not made us safer. By ignoring treaties, foreign aid, and our allies, we have split the alliances necessary to beat Al Qaeda and prevent its re-emergence.

Read the whole piece. It's important to note that, despite Dean's anti-war stance on Iraq, a consensus has emerged in the party. On crucial isues of "what do we do next," the article indicates Dean is slightly to Clark's right.

While the article takes a negative slant at the end, claiming "strong and wrong beats weak and right," the real question is whether the following -- a clear, coherent criticism combined with a healthy, viable alternative -- is salable:

The underlying critique offered by Democratic policy experts is that the Bush administration, for all its bluster about how 9/11 ''changed everything,'' has in fact not adapted to the transformed world into which it has been catapulted and is still chasing after the bad guys of an earlier era. The administration understands war, but not the new kind of multifaceted, globalized war that must be fought against a stateless entity. As Ashton B. Carter, a Defense Department official in the Clinton administration, puts it, ''We've done one thing in one place'' -- or two, counting Afghanistan. What about the other things in the other places? What about diplomacy, for example? Do we have some means beyond threats of military action to induce Iran and Syria to stop sponsoring terrorists? Do we have some means of persuading the European allies to toughen judicial processes so that terrorism suspects can't walk away -- a United Nations treaty, for example?

It may very well be true, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is fond of saying, that ''weakness is provocative,'' but so is belligerence. The administration's Hobbesian worldview is well suited to the task of fighting enemies, but not to the task of winning over the far greater number of skeptics and fence-sitters. The State Department asked a nonpartisan group to study American public diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world; the report, issued in October, concluded that ''a process of unilateral disarmament in the weapons of advocacy over the last decade has contributed to widespread hostility toward Americans and left us vulnerable to lethal threats to our interests and our safety.'' These were weapons we wielded boldly during the cold war; we allowed them to lapse in the 90's, when the only instrument that seemed to matter was the marketplace. The study found that the State Department has all of 54 genuine Arabic speakers, that outreach efforts rarely reach beyond capitals, that the American-studies centers that were once ubiquitous around the globe scarcely exist in the Arab and Muslim world.

The exact same case may be made in the matter of foreign aid, which has also dwindled away since the 60's. Not only does the United States spend far too little; the funds are not directed to the areas Americans are most worried about. The administration's Millennium Challenge Account program, which offers additional aid to democratizing countries, has been widely praised, but Robert Orr, another Clinton administration official, who now makes his home at the Kennedy School, says, ''The Millennium Challenge grant is only for high-end countries, none of which are involved with terrorism.'' What are we offering to countries like Pakistan or even Somalia? It turns out that we have allowed our aid capacity to shrink as drastically as our public diplomacy mechanisms have. ''We only have 2,000 people left with A.I.D.,'' Orr says, referring to the Agency for International Development. ''That's why we have to subcontract everything to the World Bank and the I.M.F. But they don't share our priorities about terrorism; we can't get them to invest in Afghanistan or Pakistan.''

I think it is. Here is my formulation: We can't beat the world, but we can lead it. We can't beat both the world and Al Qaeda. We can lead the world toward beating Al Qaeda.

The question is, what's your formulation?

Continue reading/discuss Winning the Foreign Policy Debate ...

The link goes to a Google News search for the keywords "Dean jewish wife". There are legitimate critiques of Dean's stated assertion to invoke Jesus more publicly on the campaign trail - especially since Dean's assertion came so soon after Franklin Foer's article in TNR that asked if Dean had a "religion problem." But as Atrios notes, those critiques are not the ones that the conservative mullahs are making.

Rather than pointing to Dean's blatant pandering about invoking Jesus to question his understanding of the religion issue in the context of politics (and the baggage that Democrats in general carry about religion in politics, which the "under God" and the Alabama Granite Calf issues only underscored), the religious right is invoking the religion of his wife to question his commitment to Jesus Christ. Michael Totten decimates such arguments with ease, but that's tangential to my point: that Dean's response (increased public Christian religiosity) is not only unneccessary, but even potentially damaging.

There's no way Dean is going to make inroads with those voters for whom Pat Robertson's message about God's favoritism of Bush already resonates, and to whom his life-long political and social affinity for Judaism (and raising his children in that faith) are seen with suspicion rather than the frank admiration that they deserve. In the end, the people from whom Dean's religion problem is a problem (as Foer argues) are the ones for whom Dean's Jesus campaigning won't influence a whit. But there are other, more rational voters out there who may be receptive to a candidate on the issues of war and economy, but for whom Dean's religious posturing becomes a significant impediment.

Their critique of Dean on religion will be that he can't have it both ways. As an editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat argues:

What exactly does Dean believe about Jesus, and how is it relevant to his presidential candidacy? "Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised," he told the Globe, "people who were left behind." Dean makes it sound as if He might have been a Democrat. "He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2,000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."

Not really. If that is all Jesus was (or is), then he is just another entry in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, to be read or not, according to one's inspirational need.

C.S. Lewis brilliantly dealt with this watered-down view of Jesus and what He did in the book "Mere Christianity." Said Lewis, who thought about such things at a far deeper level than Howard Dean, "I'm trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I can't accept His claim to be God.'

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God - or else a madman or something worse."

The secular approach to Jesus is in many ways more offensive to religious Americans (of liberal and independent stripes as well as conservatives) than simple non-belief. As more than one irritated blogger has noted, Dean's Christmas message mentioned Jesus exactly zero times - reserving his praise for FDR. Perhaps the best approach is to simply let Dean be Dean - and be true to his Congregationalist instincts of keeping faith private. After all, the way to win the South is on the economic message, remember?

Continue reading/discuss "Dean, whose wife is Jewish, ..." ...

Sidney Blumenthal has an interesting take on Gov Howard Dean, MD and the campaign that got him to this point. Click on the article and grab a day pass (you can get your day pass directly from there), and read the whole thing.

The proximate cause for the intensity among Democrats may seem to be the debate over the Iraq war, but its roots go back to impeachment and Florida. Then, after 9/11, Bush betrayed the bipartisan consensus that had supported the Afghanistan war by smearing the congressional Democrats as unpatriotic. With that, in the 2002 midterm elections, he took back the Senate, rendering them impotent. The Democrats' illusion of good faith had disarmed them. They had behaved as though they were dealing with the elder Bush. Iraq, even for most rank-and-file Democrats who favored the war to depose Saddam, is understood as an extension of the anti-Constitution strategy of the Republicans' ruthless exercise of power.

Continue reading/discuss Blumenthal on Dean ...

Some weekend levity via skippy the bush kangaroo. It's an AJC peice which casts the Democratic primaries as a March Madness style playoff. Here's a snippet, although it's worth a read in it's entirety:

The New England Division: Made up of two teams -- the Vermont Deaniacs led by Howard Dean, and the Boston Brahmins, starring Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts -- this division has produced the biggest surprise.

When the season began, the experts made the Brahmins the favorites, not just for the division but for the whole conference, and dismissed the Deaniacs as a bunch of bush leaguers who couldn't make the playoffs. But the Brahmins have fumbled and stumbled while the hard-charging, trash-talking, fast-breaking, in-your-face Deaniacs have the best record and head into the playoffs as the favorites.

The Centrist Division: Another two-team division comprising the Midwest Oldtimers, starring Rep. Richard Gephardt, and the Connecticut Moderates, led by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. The Oldtimers don't get their name from Gephardt's age, though, approaching 63, he is the oldest of the bunch. The name reflects the team's devotion to old-fashioned Democrats -- union members, family farmers, retirees, residents of fading industrial cities, such as Gephardt's St. Louis.

There was, of course, some consideration to putting the Moderates in the New England Division. But Lieberman stresses his centrism, not his region. Furthermore, other New Englanders are not sure Connecticut really belongs; half the folks there disdain the Red Sox and root for the Yankees.

The Southern Division: One team, Sen. Bob Graham's Florida Crackers, has already been eliminated, leaving the Carolina Kids of Sen. John Edwards and the Arkansas Generals led by Wesley Clark. Edwards, who is actually 50, has had to deal all season with opponents laughing at him because he appears to be 12. Clark is the latecomer into the race; after losing his first few matches because he didn't know what game he was playing, he found his stride and now leads the division.

The Lefty Division: This is the only three-team division, but it doesn't matter because none of the three can win. Dennis Kucinich's Cleveland Radicals have scored a few points, and the New York Preachers of the Rev. Al Sharpton execute the smoothest moves on the floor, even if they never score. Like the Chicago Bears and the Chicago Bulls, the Chicago Brauns, engaging though they may be, aren't going anywhere.

Continue reading/discuss Absolutely Hilarious ...

It seems that Clark's campaign pepole are not communicating with their candidate - we are seeing some contraductory statements:

n an e-mail to reporters, Clark's communications director, Matt Bennett, said the Dean campaign should get its facts straight. Bennett declared, nonetheless, that Clark "is not interested in being a candidate for vice president -- on anyone's ticket."

Yet on a New Year's Eve cruise around Portsmouth Harbor, Clark was overheard telling Garrett Scholes, a commercial photographer from Kittery, Maine, not only that Dean had indeed asked him to be vice president but also that he hadn't "ruled it out."

Scholes said Clark made clear, though, that he was still fully focused on winning the Democratic presidential nomination. Clark said he had been surprised that his initial conversation with Dean had been leaked to the media because it was supposed to be "private."

Bill Buck, Clark's national press secretary, insisted yesterday that Clark has clearly stated that he is not interested in being part of the Dean team.

What we do know is that when Clark and Dean met in September, Dean encouraged him to run for President. And Clark is committed to that - his campaign is not a vanity Veep-promotional tour like Graham's was (my early support for Graham as Veep has faded given what I now know about his role in authoring the PATRIOT Act). I think that the response from the campaign has been driven by the consultants and the handlers more than the candidates - Clark's actual feelings on the matter are probably best represented in his comments to Scholes.

Continue reading/discuss mixed signals from Clark regarding Veep ...

Every time support for this Administration flags, they terrorize us again.

Is the economy faltering? Is their extremism showing? Are people starting to ask questions about their lost civil rights? About who leaked the name of Victoria Plame? About how many soldiers have fallen in Iraq, how many are still falling, even after Saddam?

The answer is always the same. Raise the terror alert level. Scare the hell out of us. That will put us in line again. We’ll sacrifice more rights again. Turn the Times Square ball drop from a public to a private celebration, complete with identical orange hats for those who go through the metal detectors. (Maybe that’s why the alert went up, to match the hats.)

Don’t you see the game they are playing? It’s the same game played by oligarchs throughout history. This was the game America was founded to end. “Those who would exchange security for liberty deserve neither.” This is the conservative gospel. Where has it gone?

Personally I’m sick of being terrorized. I’m sick of being scared. I’m sick of being manipulated.

I want to hope again. I want to dream again. I want to take the best of America to the Middle East, and choke off Osama’s air supply, the new recruits who come to Al Qaeda appalled by our troops’ adoption of Israeli tactics, ready to die because they feel liberation has become occupation. I want to send however many people we need into Afghanistan, into every spider hole and mountainside, until we pull Bin Laden out, with or without his donkey and dialysis machine, and rip up the infrastructure that supports him, root-and-branch.

Are we safer now than we were two years ago? I don’t feel any safer. Do you feel safer? Then why, America, are you letting this Administration continue to scare you, and frighten you away from any creative alternative? Was Saddam Hussein worth the 476 lives, the 11,000 wounded? Has the fighting stopped since he was pulled out?

In the end you fight the War on Terror like the War on Drugs. Getting Manuel Noriega didn’t win the War on Drugs. You fight the War on Drugs by convincing people that even free cocaine is a bad deal. Getting Saddam Hussein didn’t win the War on Terror. You fight that war by convincing poor Muslims that there’s a better way to heaven other than blowing themselves up.

Howard Dean is fighting that war. He’s fighting it by standing up for American principles, by speaking out for American idealism, American hope and American opportunity.

Howard Dean is out there, right now, fighting the fear for us, every day. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and it’s time we threw it over, orange alerts and all.

You stop terror by ceasing to be terrorized. You fight fear with hope, not more fear. That’s why we need President Dean. He knows how to win this war. The other side has only shown us how to lose it.

Continue reading/discuss The Issue: Ending Terrorism ...

At least 20 cars had skidded off the icy roads as the DeanTV action news vehicle maneuvered it's way to Nashua, New Hampshire today to cover Dean. The weather was perfect for black-ice conditions on I-89 and 93. I missed the Peterborough Town Hall event, but made it just in time for the VFW speech. Justin Burkhardt of Dean For New Hampshire helped me get by the fire marshal who was turning people away because, typically, the event was packed by the time I got there.

A fun part of these trips has been listening to the AM Radio Talk Show hosts on the way. Yes, more often than not, it's the right wing drool that's perpetuated on the airwaves throughout the pines and rocks of the rural areas. But the People of New Hampshire are a real feisty, independent bunch that actually get out to learn for themselves about who will give GW the best fight. It seems pretty clear who they think that is at this point. Those from the loyal competition who are so panic-stricken should chat with some of these independent folks in NH to educate themselves about why people are so fired up for Dean.

Well, it doesn't look like the crowds are getting any smaller for Governor Dean despite articles like "Not Just Whistling Dixie" by Washington Post Staff Writer Mark Leibovich (Friday, January 2, 2004). It's not a total hack job, but par for the course lately from the Post. We miss you Ben Bradley.

One interesting personal observation about Dean at a recent South Carolina event by this WAPO writer peaked my interest as it was read--word for word mind you--on the AM Radio Station of the moment:

But the speech strains with a going-through-the-motions quality. Dean's voice, hoarse from overuse and soft from fatigue, betrays the hesitation of a man who is learning to choose his words more carefully.

I took this quote to heart as I entered yet another VFW hall to see about this writer's observations about Dean. Yes, Dean is tired. He has been from the start because he works harder than the others. It takes a lot out of you to inspire someone instead of just talking to them. Dean probably just wants it more. And, yes, today he did choose his words a little more carefully but essentially gave the same speech and had people on their feet. Remember, he's not even supposed to be speaking anymore and getting people across the country all riled up. He better be careful, because the "pros" are listening (you know--the guys that have been fighting Bush and the NEO-CONS so successfully for us).



I tried to get some words of inspiration from Dean for you, but was politely turned aside by a handler. You can understand why they are getting more guarded. Those poor people are swamped. Maybe next time?

So here's a video clip from Political Giant David Gergen who thinks we have some work to do before history is made for Dean. Gergen has been an active participant in American national life. He served as director of communications for President Reagan and held positions in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Clinton.

QuickTime
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Windows
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Gergen was willing to serve in the Clinton Administration as a sense of duty to his country. Now that's the Democratic spirit!

This post originates from DeanTV.org: Governor Dean's UNOFFICIAL "Fairly Balanced" Web-TV Network

Continue reading/discuss Dean Keeps Fighting For You In New Hampshire!!! David Gergen's Listening... ...

Dean Calls for Measure To Restore Trust in Mutual Funds

'Man, That Dude Can Dance'

Michigan Democrats Cleared to Vote Early

Dean holds big lead in Arizona

Crowd presses Dean on foreign policy

Democrats Seek New York's Media, Money

Dean supporters turn in applications for presidential ballots

Democrats Would Choose Dean Over Kerry If
the Election Were Held Today

Dean's agenda isn't radical; it's plain sensible


On filing deadline, Dean is state favorite

Dean supporters flock to Iowa finale

Emerson students talk private contributions

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

Hysterical email posted by Chris Andersen on his blog, Interesting Times:

~ NEWS FLASH ~

The press announced today that Howard Dean said something again!

Republicans as well as some presidential Democratic hopefuls are equally outraged and appalled that Dean would actually say something again. This after he just said something again yesterday!

"Doesn't he know that he's only hurting himself every time he says something again?" Said one Republican Congressman. "By saying something again, Howard Dean has shown that he is unelectable", said several political pundits on cable news.

Clark, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman all agreed that Howard Dean should stop attacking the other Democratic candidates by saying something again.

When asked to elaborate, Clark referred all inquiries to his aid Mary. Kerry however responded immediately and said that now that Howard Dean has said something again, he was going to say something too. Lieberman was quoted as saying "Dean is in a spiderhole of denial if he thinks that he can get away with saying something again." When Gephardt was questioned directly, he said "I have boots on the ground in Iowa just in case Dean decides to say something again tomorrow."

Trolls on Howard Dean's web site are calling Howard Dean a liar and lacking in leadership for saying something again.

However, Howard Dean's popularity continues to rise at a quickening pace and so does the contributions to his campaign. Once again, Howard Dean is not hurt by saying something again!

Continue reading/discuss Dean said something again ...

This WaPo story details the various stop-Dean strategies being used by the other candidates, spending a lot of time on Clark especially. However, to my mind the most interesting part was about Edwards:

Edwards, with his good looks and centrist views, was once the darling of many Democrats and big donors. Despite outspending his rivals early on, he remains far behind the competition in Iowa and New Hampshire and is financially constrained as 2004 begins. He is hoping to defy history and conventional wisdom by making his break in South Carolina, the top prize for many of the candidates in the Feb. 3 vote. To make that happen, a top adviser said, Edwards must crack the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Edwards plans to stick to the optimistic, policy-oriented tone that he says is the best way to defeat President Bush but which has failed to excite many grass-roots activists. "There is not a big market for his ideas right now," said Donna L. Brazile, Gore's 2000 campaign manager. The North Carolina senator will fly back and forth between Iowa and New Hampshire throughout the month, and Edwards's aides believe that he, like Clark, could benefit from the attacks others are making against Dean. Edwards is the "optimistic alternative to Dean," said Jennifer Palmeiri, his spokeswoman.

Edwards is doomed - even if he places in the top three in Iowa, he won't crack that threshold in New Hampshire, where it's almost assuredly going to be a Dean win and a race between Kerry and Clark for slot 2 and 3. In Iowa, the best he can hope for is #3, behind Dean and Gephardt, but he has to worry about Clark in South Carolina, which stretches his resources thin (and Clark has money to spare, given that he isn't even trying for Iowa).

But that said, his issues-oriented approach is exactly the kind of thing we should be celebrating. Edwards has consistently been a serious thinker, and the other campaigns would be well-advised to borrow liberally (pun intended) from his position papers. And while Edwards has taken his shots at Dean, I don't think anyone would argue he's been as damaging to the eventual Democratic nominee in the way that Lieberman or Kerry have. Running an issues-based campaign is smart and represents a great example of a high standard.

Unfortunately, the time for issues is gone, until after New Hampshire.

Continue reading/discuss I confess a fondness for Edwards ...

It would be great to talk about issues, but the simple fact is that it is crunch time. There are elections, actual votes, being cast this month. There's not much point in discussing issues when every single day until Iowa and New Hampshire will be spent under withering fire. The neccessity of the moment is to establish certain ground rules of conduct with which the nominee candidates can make their cases, but without doing irreparable damage to the final nominee. As Paul Krugman points out, these ground rules are very simple:

Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.

More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.

I consider any statement by a Clark supporter (or a Lieberman, Kerry, or Gephardt supporter) that Dean is guilty of violating the rules to be remarkably blind. Or perhaps, just a simple (and innocent, even) manifestation of bias. Clark especially is overdue for major smearing by the Three Desperados as they realize Clark IS the Anti-Dean - and it will be interesting to see if his supporters, currently excoriating Dean for his alleged self-interest, will maintain their detachment when it's their guy who is held to the double standard.

I personally am rooting for Clark to be the anti-Dean. I think that the struggle between them to define the platform will be extremely beneficial to both and the end result will be a nominee - Dean or Clark - who is stronger.

In the meantime, we have to be realistic. This is going to be a dirty month. We have to play hard defense, with elbows. I sympathize with Ezra's call to "broaden" the appeal, but I think he's simply wrong about the timing. There will be plenty of time for "broadening" the appeal AFTER the Three Desperados are culled from the debates.

The bottom line: it's easy for Clark supporters such as Ezra and Josh Marshall to call for unity. Their candidate hasn't been forced to run the gauntlet yet. He will be, soon. And the time for unity will be after the Desperados are finished in Iowa and New Hampshire, not before. Ezra might disagree with me right now, but he won't in two weeks.

Continue reading/discuss ground rules ...

Dean's sprint could end '04 race early

Who's Nader Now?

Dean stays in the lead despite comments

Decision 2004: ABD vs. ABBA

Dean excites New Hampshire

Stark tosses his weight behind Dean

Dean well ahead of Democrat hopefuls


Dean Focuses on Jobs, Health Care in S.C.

Democratic Old-Time Grass Roots Vets, Meet The Future

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

Don't stop working. Don't underestimate the competition. But do take a moment and savor all of the hardwork from the grassroots! This quote is from the story linked above. The story also reflects how Dr. Dean will be targeted by the Washington Democrats. Don't stop working. Don't underestimate the competiton.

"'It's getting to be pretty hard to see how you stop Howard Dean,' said pollster John Zogby."

Continue reading/discuss Zogby on Dean ...

The other day, I took Dana to task for his Heathers post. Aziz invited me to come and give my thoughts on the subject here, and I'm glad to do so.

We're looking at a Dean/Bush match in 2004, the dynamics of which warrant some examination. Bush is one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had, however, and this is critical, when he ran, he ran as a uniting force. He promised to bring forth a new bipartisan spirit, he was endorsed by The Economist with the rationale that he could help end the partisan gridlock in Washington. His convention was solely dedicated to proving what a big tent he had, how inclusive he was going to make the Republican party -- all ethnicities, all ideologies, both sexes, hundreds of nationalities, in essence, he promised to work for anyone who had ever wanted to potentially call themselves a Republican. That was how he won -- he got the Republican base to make nice with the general electorate, and thus took them away from the image of Newt Gingrich and the puritanical warriors of the late 1990's. It worked. He got far too close in an election that never should have been close, and due to the electoral makeup of the country, getting that close gave him the win. You can argue about Florida all you want, but Gore's win was certainly not decisive -- it was neck and neck and Bush ended up playing better hardball than Gore did. However, had Gore been able to bring Nader into his tent, or had Bush been unable to bring moderates into his, the election wouldn't even have been close.

Posts like Dana's make me fear that our anger is clouding our judgment, we can't possibly forget lessons that recent and expect to win. There is no way, and I mean no way, Dean can win in a 50-50 nation where the electoral college favors Republicans if he and his supporters begin throwing roundhouses at other Democrats. The DLC is run by a couple of wannabe power brokers who have been on Clinton's coattails for far too long, but they represent a part of our base and we need them on our side. To win this election, you have to be bigger than them, you have to overlook their transgressions because their votes are more important than your satisfaction. And I can't even imagine statements as counterproductive as Dana's assertion that:

Turnover is what we should stand for, turnover is what we should demand. Turnover now. Marshall, Yglesias, Stephanopoulos, Matthews, all you Heathers, get out of town. If you can make a living in the Real America, maybe someone will invite you back.

Josh Marshall was the driving force behind Trent Lott's fall. He is, for those who watch C-Span, that guy on the other side of Perle arguing against the NeoCons. He is one of the most effective and important democratic journalists out there right now, you better pray that he's not turned out of Washington. Yglesias was at Dean HQ deciding if he wanted to support Dean far before most were on the bandwagon (were talking two Summers ago), he decided against it. Last I checked, you're allowed not to support Dean and be a Democrat. Yglesias also, I should add, has been one of the people constantly combating the Dean is unelectable meme on his blog. I worked for Dean, I spent a Summer in Vermont sleeping on the floor to help him. I currently support Clark. Nonetheless, if Dean wins the nomination, his election will be my sole focus for the next 9 months. You going to turn me out as well?

Evan Bayh put the DLC into place a couple months ago by stepping up at their conference and asking if they wanted to govern or complain. I ask you the same question. If you want to govern, you need to be healing divides, closing rifts, bringing new and old supporters into the fold. If you want to complain, you can attack me on my website (Niner) or attack the Democratic Party's most eloquent voices here, but you won't be seeing the White House anytime soon. United we will stand, but divided we will certainly fall.

Continue reading/discuss United We Stand ...

At least, not with some people... Tom Tomorrow explains.

Continue reading/discuss Dean can't win ...

The Heathers post continues to draw attention from the blogsphere. Regular readers know that the bloggers at Dean Nation are not a monolithic bloc. That is by design. Dana has been a strong and clear voice for what I like to call the conscience of the grassroots - an unflinchingly liberal voice who sees great hope for the first time in 3 years. I respect his opinion even when I disagree and I'd rather shut this blog down than censor the viewpoints of my fellow bloggers here.

Being a cheerleader is necessary. We need more of them. It's not through aloof debate that this election will be won - it's through passion and commitment. What will undermine that effort is the tendency to treat the raw enthusiasm that drives many Dean supporters as some kind of crude and unsophisticated impulse, as if admitting and glorifying your bias somehow leaves you tainted. This is a form of condescension that is on display in the response to Dana's post that I find chilling. A perfect example:

It's a decentralized campaign. That means that Dean supporters have a responsiblility to write persuasive, intelligent things promoting a candidate.
[...]
This (as well as some commenters on Kos, as well as some other Dean-blogs) make me ashamed of being a Dean supporter.

He's ashamed of being a Dean supporter? Actually ashamed, as in "refuse to display my bumper sticker for fear of being jeered at in the streets" ashamed? And it's not enough now that we support Dean. Now we have to express that support solely in the form of "persuasive, intelligent" commentary. Presumably "Go Dean!" fails the erudition test. The High Council is now accepting applications for Dean-advocacy permits.

Do Dean supporters cross the line sometimes? Yes, passion isn't as tidy as lofty intellectual detachment. Do Dean supporters have a victim complex? Well, yes, but maybe if Gore supporters had more of a victim complex in 2000 he wouldn't have been gored.

Continue reading/discuss ashamed? ...

I'm not right all the time. (I'm not left all the time, either.)

There are a lot of disagreements on this blog. And a lot on the O-blog as well. Differences of tone, of opinion, of attitude, and more.

But I want to point out, before the actual Election Year gets going, how important these differences are, and how they make this campaign different from anything that has come before.

For generations we've had campaigns run by insiders. Only a few hands got near the wheel. The rest of us were extras. We went from the smoke-filled rooms of the early century, through the "Making of a President" strategems of the mid-century, to the "War Rooms" of the late century.

And always it was the same. Here is the message. Stay on it.

We're not that way, here, on the O-blog, or in the streets and living rooms where minds are changed.

Anyone can contribute ideas. They all can make a difference.

Let me give one concrete example. When Mathew Gross put up one of the first bats a few months ago, I sent a note showing the code he could use to let hundreds of other blogs put that same graphic on their pages, linked to the same place. He checked my code, posted the correct code within hours, and the bat started swinging everywhere.

This does not make me a campaign insider. (It certainly doesn't make me a genius.) But the point is that any of us -- any of us -- can contribute ideas and see them implemented. These can be strategic, tactical, thematic, literally anything.

The other campaigns for the Democratic nomination have, at most, a few dozen minds each. The Dean campaign has, literally, hundreds of thousands of active minds, and it has a way to use all of them.

This means a lot more than the $15 million we've raised this quarter. I suspect it means more than the $120 million Bush has raised this year.

All of us, no matter our opinions, or how we came here, are redefining our politics, making them closer to the Founders' vision of how they should be.

Sure, the press doesn't "get it" yet. Sure, the other campaigns still don't have a Clue about it.

But what others think doesn't matter. Reality matters. Even if you came to this blog as a troll, you matter. Here, you're being heard. Here, you're no longer a face in the crowd. Here, you're a player. Here, you're a full citizen at last.

This is what I celebrate this New Year. The task before us in 2004 is simple, to scale this, to spread this around, until every American has the opportunity the Constitution promised, to be heard, so that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

That's what this is about. Look at our Constitution. See those words at the top, bigger, bolder, louder than the rest, proclaiming a great new idea of self-governance.

We The People.

Not just the wealthy. Not just the insiders. Not just the few. All the people.

So no matter how you have felt about what I may have written here, thanks for being here. God bless you in this New Year. Next year, in Washington.

Continue reading/discuss What Makes This Campaign Different ...

Frankly, I'm leery of the electoral-predictions game. On one hand, Steven Den Beste argues that Bush's win is inevitable because "white males are Jacksonian" and "prefer cowboys to metrosexuals." On the other, E.J. Dionne rebuts by pointing out how Dean has energized the base (echoed by TNR in more detail). And Kos illustrates the point that Dean can win without the South with some numbers:

Sure, many Red States (mainly in the South) are getting redder, but many Blue States are as well. With Nader mostly out of the picture, we're talking a lot bluer.

That means the battle for the presidency will not be fought in Alabama or California, Georgia or New Jersey, or Kentucky or New York. It will be fought in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and a couple more states. We may very well see $500 million or more spent by both sides on just a dozen states.

Let's look at it another way: I count 72 electoral votes in what I would consider the "solid Red" south -- KY, TN, NC, SC, MS, AL, and GA. For argument's sake, I'll throw in AR, LA and VA (all three winnable for the Dems), for a total of 100 electoral votes.

Now take the equally solid blue states CA, NY, and NJ, and we get 101 electoral votes. Gore didn't spend much on those three very expensive states, and neither will Dean (or Clark).

So while it's true that Bush may be freed from competing in those Southern states, the Dems are just as freed from spending money on their base states.

I can't help but notice two things: that the active predictions of 2004's outcome are always made by Bush supporters, whereas the Anybody But Bush analysts are always careful to stress the race will be a tough hard-fought slog. And, that such excercises in electoral calculus are still based on the Red vs Blue paradigm, despite the fact that the 10-Region Theory received such wide play a few weeks ago.

I frankly don't understand the value in any kind of regional analysis. It seems that the election will be based on larger themes - and just like the Red-Blue map is really an excercise in shades of purple, the 10 Regions too will have their own gradients.

We need to stop thinking about 2004 in these terms, and focus on message - not a politically tuned one but rather a principled one. Dean has partly been sidetracked by the perceived need to assuage the concerns of religious people, people in pickup trucks, etc. We need to get back to talking about the issues in substantive terms and letting the electoral chips fall where they may.

Continue reading/discuss electoral calculus ...

I think Dana has taken more than enough heat in the comment threads for his post below - I'd like to try and swing the topic 180 degrees. Who in the media has been the most fair (note: not obseqious) to Dean? Virtually the entire staff at The American Prospect - including Dean Nation blogger alumnus Matthew Yglesias - are contenders, but if I had to pick two names specifically it would be Garance Franke-Ruta or Nick Confessore. And of course we have Eric Alterman of So-Called Liberal Media fame. Who else?

Continue reading/discuss open thread: Friends of Dean ...

The term “Heathers” has come into vogue describing “liberal” columnists such as Matthew Yglesias and Joshua Micah Marshall.

Its origin is as the title of a 1988 movie starring Winona Ryder as a high schooler desperate to join a sorority where all the girls are named Heather. It’s a touchstone among “Generation X,” (the baby bust, born between 1964 and the Reagan era.)

I first saw the term used to describe the media in a story by David Podvin. He credited the term to Peter Hart of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, who said “reporters tend to be clique-ish sorority-like ‘Heathers’ who are put off by the personalities of (all) liberal candidates.”

Podvin’s view is darker. He sees them as the GOP’s Stepford Wives (the remake comes out in June (goody))

In fact, the serial sliming of Democrats has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton or Gore or Dean or Kerry – it is all about the profit motive. The anti-Democratic bias in the media is directly proportional to the level of consolidation of the industry. While it is true that mainstream reporters are excruciatingly shallow, that is because journalists of substance who will not conform to the corporate agenda are unwelcome at the major media outlets.

What remains at America’s metropolitan newspapers and national broadcasting networks are the reporters who are willing to trade their integrity for high-paying jobs. In 2000, these mercenaries savaged the Democratic nominee because their employers viewed anything else as being unacceptable. In 2004, they will do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.

In other words, it’s all part of the Conservative Media Conspiracy, the Silencing of Dissent in the name of Corporate Greed.

However you view it, whether as mere “me-tooism” or outright bias, it’s part of the environment we must deal with. The Doctor himself is playing a wary game of seduction, soliciting Washington endorsements and highlighting his moderate credentials.

We don’t have to play it that way. But shouting “Conservative Media Conspiracy,” even if true, is not going to get the j-o-b done.

As so often the case in questions involving Governor Howard Dean M.D., the answer lies in history. In this case, the history of Washington, D.C.

Washington was designed as a renter’s town. Abigail Adams called Georgetown “the very dirtiest hole I ever saw.” My favorite Washington movie is the war-time comedy “Government Girl,” portraying Washington, in its most heroic period, as a fetid pool of power-grabbers who care little for the common good.

Those who stay in Washington, in other words, shouldn’t. What the town needs most of all is turnover, a spring cleaning, not just in the government but everywhere.

I think the Heathers know this. I think that’s why they are so anxious to do the bidding of Washington Democrats and take Dean down. They know that Dean brings, not just a Democrat to power, but true democracy, in all its revolutionary hurly-burly fervor. A Dean Administration would not just discomfit them, it would turn their safe little lives upside-down.

To which I say, again, goody. Turnover is what we should stand for, turnover is what we should demand. Turnover now. Marshall, Yglesias, Stephanopoulos, Matthews, all you Heathers, get out of town. If you can make a living in the Real America, maybe someone will invite you back.

But for now you’re tainted. You have, as the cops say, “gone native.” You’re suffering Stockholm Syndrome.

The good news is that, once again, this casts us in the mood of the revolutionaries, at a time when a “throw the bums out” mood has taken over. There are no jobs, our best young people are dying, we’re scared to death, the environment is a disaster, but we don’t have to take it.

We don’t have to take it from Bush, and we don’t have to take it from the Heathers, either. We’re marching, we’re spreading the word, and we’re going to win.

UPDATE (Aziz): The comment thread has been abuzz with disagreement (including my own) about calling Matt (and to a lesser extent JMM) a Heather. ccobb summarizes best:

I'm a liberal Democrat. I like Dean a lot. ... I am not a Dean supporter, although like most Dems I will certainly support him if he gets the nom. Sorry Deaniacs, but the good doctor is not the 2nd coming of Christ, Moses and Mohammed roled into one. He's just a politician, and a relatively moderate one at that. He is not perfect.

And like Matt Y and JMM, I have my concerns about Dean, just as I do about most of the candidates. But I don't think it is selling out to the "mainstream" or being a "heather" to be critical of Dean. Hell, if more of that would have happened with Bush, we might not have him as our fearless leader.

Continue reading/discuss Heathers ...

In introducing the pictures, under the headline "Faces of the Fallen," the Army Times said: "More than 500 service members died in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom in 2003, a group that represents the full, rich face of American diversity.
[...]
The pictures are small and run in neat columns. The names, ranks and date and place of death are in small type underneath the small pictures. The understatement is devastating.

The paper's senior managing editor, Robert Hodierne, was saying yesterday, "When I looked at the pages, I felt the same as I did when I walked along the Wall."
[...]
And the dead are brought back here almost furtively. There are no ceremonies or pictures of caskets at Dover, Del., air base, where the dead are brought. "You don't want to upset the families," George Bush said. That the people might be slightly disturbed already by the death doesn't seem to register.

The wounded are flown into Washington at night. There are 5,000 of them and for a long time you never heard of soldiers who have no arms and legs. Then the singer Cher went into Walter Reed Hospital and came out and gave a report that was so compelling she should walk away with a Pulitzer Prize.

Finally, a couple of television stations and a newspaper here and there began to cover these things. There are miles to go.

For now, Cher, on one day, and the Army Times for the whole year, have served the nation as it should be served.

(aded a link to the transcript of the Cher phone call, via Atrios). Also don't miss the NYT article on the same topic.

Continue reading/discuss The Army Times is running photos of the fallen ...

Josh Marshall takes issue with Dean's factual statement that we supporters are not robots whose loytalties will be transferable upon command:

The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.

In response, I emailed Josh Marshall the following:

Josh,

I'm sure you recall that during the 2000 election, Gore was consistently held to a higher standard than Bush by the media and the punditocracy.

I think you're somewhat guilty of the same thing here - note that Dean is the ONLY candidate who has said he would explicitly endorse the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be.

Contrast that explicit statement with the fact that none of the other candidates have agreed that they will endorse Dean if he wins. Worse, when asked if they thought Dean was "electable", none raised their hands at the last debate.

Kerry's entire campaign platform is "Dean is bad for the country." Don't you find such Anybody-But-Dean rhetoric disquieting, and egregiously hypocritical when the basic complaint against Dean's remarks is that it isn't sufficiently dedicated to Anybody-But-Bush? Will you or other political analysts hold Kerry accountable for his statements, which are pound for pound far worse and far more damaging to the prospects of electing a Democrat in 2004?

Dean's statement was factual. He will endorse the nominee, but don't expect Dean's supporters to follow. The whole point of supporting Dean is that we choose to do so - we are not automatons like Bush's support base who can be instructed from central command.

Understand that we support Dean because he offers - in our view - the best chance for victory in line with liberal principles. What use is a Democrat who kowtows to Republicans in the general election? Will Kerry or Gephardt stand up for us against Bush the way Dean has, or will they seek to out-Bush Bush? The vote to support the war on Iraq is a true bellweather of their commitment to doing what is right versus what is politically expedient, and there is real doubt that any of the others have the will to fight the election battle on terms that we believe are essential to victory.

(Note that I won't post his reply unless he gives me permission). Also see Atrios's thoughts on this.

Continue reading/discuss A letter to Joshua Marshall ...

Dean, Gore team up for call, house parties

Dean Raises $14 Million and Sets Record, Aides Say

Dean visit puts focus on jobs

Dean Wants $100B for New Jobs in Cities

Dean Labels Bush 'Reckless'

It's party time for Howard Dean

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

When Gore got Gored by the media, he lost. When Dean gets Gored by the media, WE lose. It's OUR campaign!

As has been said in the comment threads: "Don't worry about what they're going to do to you. Make them worry about what you're going to do to them." And what are we gonna do? FEED THE BAT. We are at 92% of our goal of $35,000 and every penny is gonna go to fighting back.

We're not gonna take it. NO! We ain't gonna take it! We're not gonna take it - anymore.

UPDATE: Steve Gilliard issues a call to arms.

Continue reading/discuss WE are getting Gored ...

This post by Matthew Yglesias reminds me of something I hate about political commentary: Using the past to predict the future. In this case, we read that unemployment trends for the first six months of an election year are a sure-fire indicator of which party will win the White House.

The problem is that every election is different. I understand that political scientists need models to work from in describing voting behavior, but especially as applied through the media, the predictive value of these models seems limited at best. Remember 1998? All the talk was about how the President's party always loses Congressional seats in an off-year election. Except it didn't happen then, and it didn't happen again in 2002. So much for that rule of thumb.

Presidential elections within my memory follow a similar pattern. In 1988, we heard how sitting Vice Presidents can't win. After all, it hadn't happened since Martin van Buren. Enter Bush '41, and in 2000 Al Gore gets a free pass on the issue. In 1992, we heard how no candidate has won the Presidency after losing the New Hampshire primary. Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire, Clinton became President. And in 2000, John McCain won New Hampshire while Bush '43 became President. The status of the economy is always supposed to invariably predict election results. Well, Clinton did win in 1996, but didn't break the 50% mark in the popular vote, while Al Gore couldn't win in 2000.

With Howard Dean, we're hearing a lot of can't-win rhetoric of the type described above. They say, for example, that a candidate can't win if they oppose a war. This appears to be based on exactly one election year - 1972. They say New Englanders can't win nationally. This seems to derive solely from 1988, the only time since Kennedy one has been nominated.

We have a tough campaign ahead. But when you hear the pundits on TV explaining why he can't win, remember: History's main lesson in politics is that history doesn't predict a thing. The only election year we need to worry about is this one.

Continue reading/discuss The Lessons of History ...

I have to confess some delight at the way this story uses the inherent wrongness of Cheney's secret energy task group meetings as the foundation stone. The basic story is that Dean, as VT Gov, also had a closed-door energy task force meeting, and now the media is using this to try and paint Dean as a hypocrite for demanding that Cheney release records of his own. The two are not the same however - and the story gives Dean a chance to play up the problem with Cheney's approach:

In 1999, Dean offered the same argument the Bush administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret.

"The governor needs to receive advice from time to time in closed session. As every person in government knows, sometimes you get more open discussion when it's not public," Dean was quoted as saying.
[...]
In an interview with The Associated Press, Dean defended his recent criticism of Cheney's task force and his demand that the administration release its private energy deliberations even though he refused to do that in Vermont.

Dean said his group developed better policy, was bipartisan and sought advice not just from energy executives but environmentalists and low-income advocates. He said his task force was more open because it held one public hearing and divulged afterward the names of people it consulted even though the content of discussions with them was kept secret.

The Vermont task force "is not exactly the Cheney thing," Dean said. "We had a much more open process than Cheney's process. We named the people we sought advice from in our final report."

Dean said he still believes it was necessary to keep task force deliberations secret, especially because the group was reviewing proprietary financial data from Vermont utilities. "Some advice does have to be given in private, but I don't mind letting people know who gave that advice," he said.

The article takes a more critical view, arguing that the parallels are "many" and trotting out some Democratic critics of Dean from Vermont on the issue. What's notable is that the story also mentions the sealed-records issue.

There's a similar line of attack in a Boston Globe story that Dean looked the other way with regards to corporation tax incentives:

As governor of Vermont, Howard Dean presided over the creation of a program that authorized $80.1 million in corporate tax credits without verifying that many of the companies had made good on promises to bring new jobs and investments to Vermont, according to a report by the state auditor's office.

The report found that the Vermont Economic Progress Council, the Dean-appointed nine-member body charged with administering the tax-credit program, relied heavily on companies' claims that they were considering bypassing Vermont for their business and needed the credits as incentives. The report also found that the Department of Taxes never checked to make sure that companies followed through on their promises until the Legislature stepped in and required it to do so.
[...]
Dean declined to comment through his spokesman, Jay Carson. "The auditor's report aside, the governor's record speaks for itself," Carson said. "There was record economic growth. He balanced 11 budgets, provided prescription drugs for seniors, and provided health insurance for children."

Dean, who regularly criticizes President Bush for doling out corporate tax benefits and has made criticism of questionable business gains a cornerstone of his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination, took an active role in shaping Vermont's tax-credit program, according to an audit report released in 2000. He sought out companies and encouraged them to apply for the credits and shared his views with council members about how companies' qualifications should be evaluated.

The story is complex, but the main point again is that Dean is critiquing Bush for something he also did. The fact that there were no Vermont Enrons and no "Kenny Boy" close personal ties between Dean and the heads of these companies is not mentioned in teh story.

The common thread here is an attempt to mine Dean's Vermont record to try and undermine his critiques of Bush. In all three cases - energy task force, sealed records, and corporation incentives - Dean's record of success in Vermont is being used against him. One need only comare Vermont to Texas under Bush or the general state of the country as a whole today to realize the difference.

But these attacks do help - because for them to work, they must cut both ways. I think that the campaigns response to these has been sound.

UPDATE: John from the Zonkboard characterizes this attack strategy as "Dean ran stop sign once, yet criticizes Bush's drunk driving". Heh.

Continue reading/discuss tarring Dean with Bush and Cheney's brush ...

This Washington Post article bends over backwards to recycle the "doubts" about Dean even as it acknowledges his domination of the race for the nomination. But buried in the tripe is an important nugget about Gephardt's Iowa strategy:

In Iowa, the race is more competitive, with Dean battling Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) for first place. Dean holds a narrow lead, according to private polling done for several campaigns.

Bill Carrick, one of Gephardt's advisers, said all the other candidates should be rooting for Gephardt to stop Dean in Iowa. "Every one of them needs us to win," he said. "We have to win Iowa. For better or worse this is Dean-Gephardt right now for the other candidates."

What Carrick is referring to - in code - is the fact that the Iowa caucuses are not just a simple vote, but rather a series of them - and delegates are free to change their vote. As Kos explains:

The Iowa Caucuses are a peculiar beast. People cast an initial ballot for their guy. But, if their guy doesn't break the 15 percent barrier, they can change their vote to a more viable candidate. In essence, supporters will work hard to garner the votes of the other caucus goers to get their guy as many votes as possible.

In the past, each caucus was a self-contained election. There was little the candidates could do to sway the votes of their supporters. But we now have a dandy new tool called the cell phone, and the caucuses may never be the same.

In short, campaign organizers can now call each individual caucus and attempt to move their supporters en masse to whatever candidate they choose.

So, if early in the night, it appears that Dean is headed for a narrow victory, Kerry could move five percent of his supporters, via a few cell phone calls, onto the Gephardt column. A Gephardt win would obviously serve Kerry's interests heading into the NH primary.

This is a real threat - the only way Dean could still win such a move is if he had more supporters than both Gephardt and Kerry combined. But he doesn't. It remains to be seen whether Kerry's political calculus swings this way or the other - it's risky for him too because any showing in Iowa would help him counter the "polling below Sharpton" critique. And the impact of a Gephardt win in Iowa on Kerry's chances in New Hampshire is debatable. Unless Kerry figures he is going down anyway and wants to hurt Dean out of spite?

Continue reading/discuss Gephardt campaign is still a threat in Iowa ...

This editorial in the LA Times is a rare breed of political analysis - the kind that uses history to lend perspective, rather than whitewash fodder. It discusses the legacy of Nixon and the beginning of the Republican Southern Strategy of using coded racism as an appeal to white men.

In discussing the campaign ahead, Howard Dean has said on several occasions now that the Republicans will "do what they've been doing since 1968." But what exactly is that? As far as I can tell, what they've been doing is winning presidential elections. They have won six of the last nine if you count the last one that they did not exactly win.

Of course, that's not exactly what Dean meant. He meant that for him to win in 2004 he has to defeat a system established in 1968 by Richard M. Nixon. Never one to mince words, Dean has described that system as one of "coded racism." And its key code phrase was "states' rights," an old Southern favorite going back to the right to own slaves.

Nixon, always known more as an opportunist than an ideologue, assessed the political landscape when he ran for president in 1968, a time when Republicans had lost every presidential election since the Depression, except for two by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Like Dean today, he asked why are we losing and how can that be changed?

Nixon saw his opportunity in the decline of the great civil rights movement and the killing of Martin Luther King Jr. He judged that the South, a solid Democratic bloc that had never forgiven Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans for the Emancipation Proclamation, was furious about 10 years of civil rights progress and was ready to turn on the Democrats, who had received faithful Southern support since before the Civil War. In the end, Nixon defeated the Democrats not because of their worst disaster, Vietnam, but because of their greatest accomplishment, civil rights.

The article goes on to explain how Nixon snubbed Rockefeller for Vice President, choosing Agnew in order to seal a bargain with segregationist Strom Thurmond, who has switched to the GOP under the understanding that Nixon would pick a "states rights" veep. It also details Nixon's success at packing the Supreme Court with anti-civil rights justices, including the first use of a filibuster to block a Supreme Court nominee in American history.

This article is essential reading! Dean's now famous remarks about the confederate flag were aimed squarely at Nixon's legacy - we need to re-unite the nation from the divisive racial politics that are still being used to sway voters into voting against their economic self-interest.

Continue reading/discuss Dean vs Nixon ...

A few weeks ago, Matthew Yglesias had a devastatingly accurate critical observation about the economic platforms of all the presidential candidates, including Dean:

All campaigns, whether funded on the Bush model or the Dean model or something in between, must place more value on supporters who give money and votes than to supporters who have merely votes to offer. Hence, the interests of people with money to spare -- not "the rich" necessarily, but the upper middle class, at least -- will be represented out of proportion to their numbers. One will note that none of the Democrats has what one would call an ambitious anti-poverty agenda at the heart of his domestic policy proposals. This is not a coincidence.

and looking at Dean's economic proposals, one is indeed struck by the lack of policy devoted to issues of addressing outright poverty - the emphasis is entirely upon the middle class.

This is not a new critique. Jerome Armstrong posted on Dean Nation back in June about how a cut in the payroll tax would be a major political and economic coup:

This economic agenda doesn't have to be that complicated:

Candidate A, a Democrat, pledges to cut the payroll taxes of all individuals earning under $110k, and all married couples both working and earning under $220k.

Candidate B, a Republican, claims that 90% of the people don't deserve a tax-cut, defends the elite, the rich, and... loses.

I confess, I've taken Reich's idea and dumbed it down (heaven forbid), but that doesn't matter, you get the point.

Dean alluded to the idea in his famous MTP brusing with Tim Russert, but stopped halfway. Dean has emphasised the need to increase the amount of wages that can be taxed - in essence, a rising tide that floats all boats. But he stopped short of arguing for the immediate benefits that a cut in the payroll tax would provide in terms of a massive economic boost to the people who really do need it most. Compard to the Republicans, who think that tax havens for the super wealthy cloaked as giveaways to the middle class are what are needed, this is a political winner. But the campaign remains deaf to these issues.

And you can't stop there. What about people with poverty-level incomes? Selling a solution to poverty puts Democrats (like Kucinich) in direct conflict with moderates, as they are stuck in the same welfare-spending-hole paradigm. But Bob McGrew explains a fascinating solution to poverty that appeals to both my social liberalism and my fiscal conservatism - wage subsidies:

Suppose you want every worker to be paid at least $10/hour. A minimum wage would just destroy jobs for people with productivity less than $10/hour. Wage subsidies won't, because the government pays the difference between the market wage and $10/hour.

The idea of a wage subsidy is that if an employer pays a worker a $5/hour salary, the government will give that employer a $5/hour subsidy which it would then pass on to the worker. The worker ends up making $10/hour, but the employer pays only $5/hour, so that it's still worth it to the employer to hire the worker and the job is not destroyed. The wage subsidies are phased out on a sliding scale, so that there's no cut-off effects.

In other words, this seems like a way to implement the goal of living-wage campaigns, without destroying jobs or economic efficiency. And, in a way, it's fair: if there are social benefits from higher wages, it makes sense that society as a whole should have to pay them (through taxes), rather than private companies. This is the best way to help the poor that I have heard of yet. It provides a basic minimum while encouraging work (which is the only way to end poverty) and making crime not pay.

The counterargument to the idea is that employers could simply drop the wages they pay to their workers by the amount of the subsidy, essentially turning it into an employer subsidy. Bob addresses this:

Basically, the market will bid up the worker's wage to whatever an employer can gain by employing him. If a worker's productivity is $10/hour and his wage subsidy at $10/hour is $3, an employer can get $13/hour from employing him. So the market will bid his wages up to $13/hour and the employers won't benefit from the subsidies - it will all be passed through to the worker.

As Bob notes, the plan will have significant cost. But the point here is that wage subsidies rae designed to supplant standard welfare payments and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Much of the cost could theoretically be covered by reducing (but not eliminating!) these as well as housing assistance, food stamps, etc.

The main reason this idea has merit is because it encourages both a work-based solution to poverty as well as a decent living wage. The idea isn't to argue about what the living wage should be, but rather to raise the overall standard of living in a more effecient and long-term beneficial way than simply spending money on welfare payments. Again, if this idea could be adopted by the Dean campaign, it would have appeal across the aisle. Maybe not at the federal level, but the federal government could sponsor this at the state level to see how it works out.

Continue reading/discuss what about the poor and working class? ...

Well, that didn't take long - Dean is already being forced into defense mode on the Osama issue. Typical example of the way the issue is being framed: the Newsmax story headlined "Dean defends bin Landen".

Dean's response to this was quick - a telephone interview with the AP:

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Dean also said he wants Osama bin Laden to get the death penalty, seeking to minimize fallout from a New Hampshire newspaper story Friday in which he was quoted as saying the terror leader's guilt should not be prejudged.

"As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law. But as an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves," Dean told the AP in a phone interview.

The former Vermont governor, who solidly leads the field of Democratic presidential candidates in both polls and money, said he was simply trying to state in The Concord Monitor interview that the process of trying bin Laden needs to be fair and credible.

In that interview, Dean was quoted as saying, "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Dean told the AP that sentiment doesn't mean he sympathizes in any way with the al-Qaida leader. "I'm just like every other American, I think the guy is outrageous," he said.

AAAARGH!

The problem here is that Dean still hasn't realized the depth to which his opponents will sink. The "no safer after Saddam" comment should have opened his eyes, but in my opinion he remains remarkably deaf to the way his own words can be twisted about. Since he did say in the Monitor interview it wasn't appropriate to "pre-judge" Osama (in terms of deciding a punishment), and now in the AP interview admits he wants to see a death penalty (in consistent line with his earlier views, I might add), he can easily be caricatured as flip-flopping on the issue.

If the original remark was poorly thouhgt-out, that's understandable, because it was defensible from a righeousness point of view. But with the additional interview he has weakened his position, opening himself up to a new charge of inconsistency, which actually obstructs his own record of consistency about the death penalty and undermines his original point about the neccessity for a fair trial.

Dean needs to stop trying to "fix" things. The people like Drudge and Newsmax who jumped at his original statement did so knowing <>full well what he really meant. Dean needs to stop being reactive and simply change the debate instead of taking the bait and being pulled deeper into the tar pit.

He'd better learn quickly.

UPDATE: Chris in comments on the post below notes:

Dean has to be careful not to fall into the Dukakis trap of trying to be so fair that he comes off sounding like he doesn't care if people were hurt by bin Laden. The best response to questions like this is to first go with the visceral response ("I'd like to string him up by his nuts") followed by the statesmen response ("but doing so without due process of law would make us no better than him.")

People need to feel that you will leap to their defense without a moments hesitation.

exactly right. Someone needs to clue-by-four Dean with this basic knowledge and do it fast.

Continue reading/discuss death for Osama, gag for Dean ...

Professor Juan Cole, an expert on the mideast and Iraq, was recently interviewed about the issue of where to try Saddam, and had this to say about the value of a fair trial:

Q: Is it possible for him to get a fair trial?

A: That's another issue. One of the persons who is calling for a war crimes tribunal in Iraq is Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, current president of the interim Governing Council. Sixty-three members of his family were killed by Saddam Hussein. I'm willing to concede that the man is an upright man, but I don't know if saints exist to that extent in the world where he has no sense of vindictiveness about this. That's a problem that a lot of the people involved in this have talked about, and for those reasons I really think it is important that any trial occurs in The Hague.

Q: Are there other reasons why any trial should be conducted by the existing format of international war crimes tribunals?

A: There has never been such a tribunal in Iraq before. It's being created from scratch, most of the judges with long experience in Iraq are Baathists and there's no constitution in Iraq. Under what statutes can he be tried?

Q: Does it matter if he gets a fair trial?

A: I think it does matter. First, Saddam still has supporters, and to satisfy those supporters, it's important that any trial is conducted through a fair process. Otherwise, it could be construed that he was treated unfairly.

I also think it's important for Iraq. If there is going to be a new Iraq, it must be founded on the principles of law and fairness. It would not [. . .] bode well that the country's first act would be to railroad someone even as despised as Saddam Hussein.

The point is important because it is fundamental to the integrity of our justice system (and what separates us from brute force governments like that of the Taliban, where the "moral" verdict is often twisted to suit political and religo-fanatic ends).

The case for Saddam should be required to be rigorous enough that it can withstand any scrutiny - and prove conclusively the fact of Saddam's guilt beyond any possible objection by partisan Baathists or other sympathizers/apologists for his evil regime.

The same is true of Osama bin Laden - for whom a fair trial is equally if not even more important. A fair trial for Osama - made rigorous and airtight - will help make our case to the Arab world that OBL is not their advocate, but rather a liar and a heretic, who has abused Islam. Only a fair trial can make such conclusions rigorous - and this is essential if we are to succeed in remaking the Middle East.

Howard Dean gets it:

The Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.

But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."

This a noble statement. It is, in a nutshell, why we are better than thugs like Saddam or Osama bin Laden and why any nation built upon their principles inevitably fails or is defeated.

It is also fodder for moral cowards such as Matt Drudge, who has linked to the Concord Monitor story with the astonishingly disingenous and almost-defamatory headline "Dean not ready to pronounce Osama bin Laden guilty..." - in red text to make it stand out all the more.

Arthur Silber acidly comments on the sick mindset of such creatures to which Drudge panders:

Wow. Dean resists "pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found." He doesn't think that executive power should be used to "prejudge" individuals -- and perhaps incarcerate them on an open-ended basis, without recourse to counsel or to any court at all, or even to execute them.

Why, it's positively unAmerican! Dean is a traitor! Hang him! First execution, then verdict, then trial. That's the American way, at least it appears it would be if this administration, led by a would-be King George, had its way. And I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that the majority of people seeing Drudge's vicious little headline will view it the way Drudge apparently does -- and probably they will cling to that view even after reading the entire story. It's much more comforting than the actual facts, don't you know. It goes so nicely with their comic book view of the world.

And Atrios already has a great rejoinder that I hope Dean uses if challenged on this:

And, if asked about this Dean should say something along the lines of "How dare you question my desire to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to trial. I've been saying for months we need to devote our efforts to getting Bin Laden. It's absolutely un-American to suggest that anyone, no matter how heinous the crime or obvious the guilt, doesn't and shouldn't deserve a fair trial under our Judicial system, as our Founders, in their wisdom, desired.

That's the right attitude - to refuse to be bound by the moral cowards' attempts at defining the debate. The response from the Bush Apologist camp has been previewed - it remains to be seen if the Democratic challengers to Dean take up the bait as well.

Continue reading/discuss against great evil, a fair trial's value is highest ...

This NYT piece details the emerging Bush reelection strategy which is centered on Dean as the nominee. I agree with Kos that trying to de-personalize the race makes little sense:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Some advisers to Mr. Bush, increasingly convinced that Dr. Dean will become their opponent next fall, are pushing to begin a drive to undercut him even before a Democratic nominee becomes clear. But others said the more likely plan would be to hold back until after the Democratic contest had effectively ended, probably no later than March.

well, okay, we Dean supporters certainly would welcome an issues-driven campaign! But what is notable is the attempt to link Dean to pessimism - in fact the word is repeated three times on the first page of the story. Atrios comments on how the media will enable the meme:

Look for it to be coming out of every Republican's mouth soon, and then it will increasingly creep into "objective" reporting. The process will go something like this. First, they'll quote Bush campaign sources describing Dean as "pessimistic." Next, they'll move onto Democratic campaign sources, often anonymous, describing Dean as "pessimistic." Next, they'll stop bothering getting the quote and just write things like, "Some have criticized Dean for his unappealing pessimism..." And, then, finally, process complete, campaign analysis pieces in print and the "objective journalists" on the roundtable shows, will just write/say things like "Dean's pessimistic rhetoric..." By the end no discussion or news story about Dean will see the light of day without the word "pessimism."

The Bush campaign strategy then is to try and make the campaign an issue of Bush's policies vs Dean's character - and offer a sunny and optimistic vision of the future. This includes the standard trick of couching pro-elite fiscal policies in obfuscating language designed to make the middle class think it's to their benefit:

The president's political team, led by Karl Rove, his senior adviser, is working on policy initiatives that would help build support among specific blocs of voters. For the so-called investor class, the team is planning a push for private investment accounts in Social Security and expanded tax-free savings accounts.

This is part of the "ownership society" meme that the GOP is pushing for to help sell the idea - but as the Boston Globe points out, the idea is a massive scam:

IN PRESIDENT Bush's upcoming State of the Union address, we will hear a lot about something called an "ownership society." The idea is that American workers aspire to be owners -- of stock for their retirement, homes, businesses, good health insurance, and skills they need to navigate multiple changes of jobs and careers. It sounds just great.
[...]
How does Bush propose to create this "ownership society?" Mainly through more tax credits. If people lack reliable health care, there are tax-favored savings accounts to buy health insurance. If corporations are abandoning good pensions, there are new tax incentives to set aside retirement savings. If jobs are precarious, there are tax credits to purchase retraining when your job moves to China.

What's wrong with the entire approach? For starters, the very people who lack the decent health insurance, the money for retraining, and the secure nest eggs are short of adequate earnings from which to take out savings. So most of the tax breaks, like the rest of the Bush tax program, will go to people who don't really need them, while those who rely on genuine help will come up short.
[...]
Decent wages and benefits and real government help are what Bush's ownership society leaves out. To Bush, ownership means that the lone individual is made the sole owner of the problem. Lost your job? Better get yourself some new skills. Corporation cancelled your pension? Better sock away more savings. Company health insurance plan raising premiums and copays? Congratulations! You're an owner! This ownership society walks away from the social investments of the past six decades that actually made the United States a society in which most people could reasonably aspire to be owners. It leaves people on their own with a fistful of tax credits that most people can't afford to use.

The bottom line is that the "ownership society" talk is a fig leaf for a scheme that, much like Bush's landamrk dividend tax cut, will serve as a massive boon to the wealthy while actually hurting the middle class. And as Paul Krugman pointed out, upward mobility is already severely threatened. The basic goal is to create a society that rewards wealth, not work - the negation of the American Dream.

If the case can be made in these terms, then it's not Dean who looks pessimistic - and I think the word optimistic needs to be inserted into our liberal dialouge.

Continue reading/discuss optimistic about the pessimistic ploy ...

interesting but unverified letter to the NYT editor from Howard Dean in 1988, on the topic of tort reform:

To the Editor:

Randall Bezanson and Gilbert Cranberg detailed a situation that I hope will get far worse. As a physician, I have been frustrated for years by the reluctance of state legislatures and the United States Congress to deal with liability problems of all kinds.

I have long maintained that until the legal profession and the news media are also afflicted with the increasingly severe consequences of a tort system that benefits few people outside the legal profession, there will be no return to a fair and reasonable system of justice.

The trends toward lawyers suing one another for malpractice and toward outrageous-size punitive damages in libel cases give me hope that the crisis in our tort system may finally come to the attention of those who can make this a public issue and improve the situation for all of us who require liability insurance to do business.

HOWARD DEAN, M.D.
Montpelier, Vt., June 17, 1988

Despite conservative claims to the contrary, I don't think tort reform is as neccessary an issue today as it was in the 1980's - in fact, given the increased rise of severe corporate scandal, I would say that we need less tort reform as a bulwark. There isn't much specific info on the issue at the campaign issues page.

It's a topic worthy of discussion, especially in the context of corporate abuse. Dwight Meredith had a number of excellent posts on the issue of tort reform at his now-defunct blog, PLA. What do you think?

Continue reading/discuss Dean on tort reform ...

Regular Dean Nation denizen Tony Farber's epic three-part screed of a ghostly visit to the newest graveyard of the Internet simply must be shared with all.

Continue reading/discuss A Winter's Tale, by Tony Farber ...

Merry Christmas, Dean Nation. From Dean for America...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 25, 2003

On Peace on Earth

BURLINGTON--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., today offered the following message:

"Today, for just a single day out of the year, much of the world recognizes a day of peace. It is a day when we set aside our differences and come together to celebrate an ideal of a world free from hate, free from want and free from war.

"Over the 3,500 years of recorded human history, we have seen thirteen years of war for every year of peace. Today, as we gather with families and friends, we must remember the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers separated from their families, serving overseas. We must remember the people of Africa who have seen too much war, destruction and want this year, and we must remember all of the other humanitarian crises that escape our notice on other days of the year.

"On this day more than most, we must resolve to continue our work and to redouble our efforts to ensure that someday soon world peace can be something we celebrate more than just once a year.

"The United States was founded on an ideal that we would serve as a peaceful and moral beacon for the rest of the world. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, 'Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object.' The biggest roadblock to achieving that is our own doubt that it can be accomplished. Franklin D. Roosevelt told us that 'The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.' May today bring peace on Earth and goodwill toward everyone."


-- 30 --

Continue reading/discuss Peace on Earth ...

Eric Alterman has a landmark essay in The Nation that addresses the Anybody But Dean mentality pervading the media establishment. Alterman starts out with a review of the recent political hit-jobs that various pundits have trotted out just in the past week, noting that it's hard-line neocons and liberal institutions alike that have jumped on the anti-Dean bandwagon, including The New Republic, The New York Times, even the new Center for American Progress.

Intriguingly, much of the liberal criticism is schizophrenic. For example:

My colleague at the Center for American Progress, Matthew Miller, attended the speech and found it lacking, not in substance, which he thought properly Clintonian, but in presentation. "When Dean barked it out, it felt smaller and shabbier, as if he were lecturing us on simple facts we ought to have known." Miller worries at length about what it means that Dean accidentally thanked US soldiers for their "services" rather than "service." Jonathan Chait, so obsessed he now operates an anti-Dean blog at The New Republic, also admits that the position that so exercised the Post pooh-bahs is "narrowly true." Chait's problem with Dean, and I quote, is that the Vermont governor "gives off the vibe that he likes to equivocate about the bad guys rather than recognize them for what they are" (what a bummer that Dean dude is...).

ABC's Sam Donaldson made the same silly point, admitting that "in context, you know what he's saying," but when normally perspicacious pundits like Miller and Chait talk in terms of "feelings" and "vibes," something more than policy disputes are at work.

Alterman is correct that part of the antipathy to Dean is because he doesn't kowtow to the pundits' sense of self-importance. Given the astonishing failure of the media to properly inform the public about the disastrous nature of Bush's policies - and the wholesale character assassination that Gore endured during the 2000 election while the liberal pundits looked the other way, and Bush got a free pass.

The other point is that the political calculus of supporting the war on Iraq is being exposed by Dean's relentless consitency. The major establishment candidates are all on the losing side of the factual evidence:

This utter disconnect was supremely exacerbated by Dean's statement that "capturing Saddam didn't make America any safer" - a statement that both the American public and the Dept of Homeland Security recognize as factual. The truth is that the war on Iraq distracted us from Al Qaeda - leaving them free to innovate new tactics such as infiltrating pilots into foreign airlines. This has even led to flights being cancelled and small towns in New Jersey being mentioned by name as targets.

All of which underscores Dean's basic point that the Bush Administration's ideological blinders have made us less safe. Alterman's most damning critique of the media pundits is that their focus on Dean blinds them to the utter ineptitude of Bush's policies - and the way in which the President can't even articulate a defense:

Dean has some problems, no doubt, but the pundits hardly seem to notice that George W. ("You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror") Bush cannot pretend to defend deceiving the nation into war anymore. When ABC's Diane Sawyer pressed him in an interview about whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or merely would have liked to have them, Bush replied contemptuously, "What's the difference?" (Try this, Mr. President: "I shot that man, Your Honor, because he pointed a gun at me and was about to pull the trigger," or "I shot that man, Your Honor, because he looked like he was thinking about getting a gun.")

Of course, the response from the establishment candidates that the pundits favor is to simply cede the debate on national security. It's only Dean who has seized onto the basic truth. And the punditocracy hates him for it:

Today, the nation remains no less divided than four years ago, with about 20 percent of the vote up for grabs. The punditocracy has chosen its side. Perhaps it's time the rest of us choose ours.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman has some relevant advice for journalists covering the 2004 election. And Nick Confessore noticed the media hostility some time ago.

Continue reading/discuss Washington at War: against Dean ...

I'm beginning to suspect that far from being a political genius, Karl Rove is actually a complete fraud. How else to explain this?

In an effort to draw support for waging war with Iraq, Bush told the nation in his January speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The source said the report concludes there was no intention to deceive; instead it was "a goof" as the administration searched for examples to share with the public of why the United States believed Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear program.
[...]
"They truly believed when it landed on their desk it was right, but they should have checked the information, asked more questions," the source said of senior White House officials. "They truly believed what landed on their desk; they trusted what came out of the CIA."

To summarize, the White House line is now "we didn't mean to LIE, we were just incompetent. And really, it's the CIA's fault anyway." This raises two important questions for the voting public: 1. Where exactly does the buck stop in the Bush Administration? 2. Why should someone who "goofs" around with a matter of national security be considered qualified for this office?

Continue reading/discuss Bush's uranium "goof" ...

Don't forget to feed the bat! Have a great holiday everyone ...

Continue reading/discuss Holiday open thread ...

As the year winds to a close, Liberal Oasis takes stock of how far liberals have come this year -- and the implications for next year. And LO's feeling generous -- even quotes (favorably) (gasp!) Dick Morris.

The gist of LO's argument: Liberals have exerted significant and growing influence within the party since the debacle of Election 2002. The strength of the Dean campaign is but the most obvious evidence of this shift. So a hearty congrats to us all but a word of caution: the ball's in our court now. We need to be ready for our closeup, as it were.

Frankly, all of us who are part of this amazing grassroots campaign need to take this responsibility very seriously...and maybe take some time over the holidays to not only rest but get ready for what promises to be a very challenging year.

Here's an excerpt but be sure to read the whole thing (there's some excellent stuff about Dean in this post, too:

LiberalOasis believes. But you can’t expect those who don’t describe themselves as liberals to automatically trust liberals with the keys.

No one buys the Florida Marlins can beat the New York Yankees, until they actually do it.

So, since we are very likely to be in charge, at least figuratively speaking, it’s time to start acting like it.

The CW assumes (as Dick Morris does) that we are a loony fringe.

We are not, but others will pounce on anything that hints otherwise, as they already do.

That means in our words and our actions, we must always be cognizant that we are always speaking to more than just our fellow liberals.

(snip)

This is...serious business. We should act like it, and look like it.

We are about to be collectively put in the hot seat. Get ready.

Happy Holidays to All! Here's to some well-deserved R&R. See you in January! :-)

Continue reading/discuss We're ready for our closeup, Mr. DeMille ...

Howard Dean rejects Washington Post charge

In the Van With Howard Dean

Dumping On Dean

Hey, Dems! Put lid on the fratricide

Editorial: Dean's truth/Saddam didn't threaten U.S

Editorial: Lautenschlager and Dean

Continue reading/discuss Daily Review ...

Political apologists for Bush seem to turn a blind eye to their candidate's shady record of military service - and positively exult when Bush wraps himself in a flight suit to try and borrow our servicemen's honor for his political advantage. It makes their sudden righteous outrage about Howard Dean's brother all the more transparent. That doesn't mean they won't try and repeat these attacks. Here's the latest iteration:

It goes like this: in August the Quad City Times submitted a list of 20 questions to all the Democrat presidential candidates, one of which asked them to complete the following sentence: "My closest living relative in the armed services is...?"

Dean responded by saying "my brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead."

This is technically true (the DoD did end up classifying Charlie Dean as MIA) but grossly misleading and deceptive. For those who don't know, Charlie Dean was a civilian and an antiwar activist who worked for George McGovern in 1972.

The essay then quotes an editorial in the Quad-City Times that also tries to inflate the significance:

The U.S. Department of Defense classified Charlie Dean as Missing in Action, meaning that he was among those officially sought by our government. He wasn't the only civilian with such a classification.

But he was a civilian, not a member of the armed services.

And the New York Times has picked it up from there with a story titled "Dean Rebuked for Statement Implying Brother Served in Military"

There isn't really much to say about this. Either you believe that Dean consciously tried to "imply" that Charlie served in the military or you don't. Dean Nation reported on Drudge's earlier attempt at this smear where he argued that Charlie received undeserved military honors - and I'm sure that this line of attack will be served repeatedly in the general election as well.

Pointing out that the military considers *all* Americans missing in Vietnam as prisoners of war is pointless (the QCT editorial even acknowledges this, but deems it irrelevant). The better line of defense is a good offense - pointing out that this is a cheap ploy to try and invoke outrage from members of our military, and play into the weak on defense argument. As we have pointed out time and time again, it's Bush who has made us weaker - and it's Bush who shows true disrespect to our armed forces by sponsoring cuts in their benefits, forcing them to pay their own way home on leave for Iraq, wrapping himself in their glory, and of course the ultimate insult - his own AWOL from the National Guard dfuring Vietnam.

Charlie was a civilian - and died in Vietnam. Bush was in the National Guard - and went AWOL. And between Bush and Dean, its clear which one sees the military as disposable pawns and which one doesn't.

Continue reading/discuss using Charlie to smear Howard ...

Via Kos comes the welcome news that Ralph Nader won't be running for the Green Party nomination. He might run as an independent, but without a national infrastructure I don't think he could get on the ballot in most states. What pleases me most is the impression that the Green Party may have learned some valuable lessons after the 2000 election:

The Green Party is debating whether to take a nominee on a full state-by-state campaign or to adopt a "safe state" strategy. Under that method, the party would mostly avoid states up for grabs, in order not to jeopardize the Democratic candidate's chances against President Bush.

Sounds good to me. If they adopt the "safe state" strategy, both Greens and Democrats will benefit. I am very hopeful that both parties will be able to work towards the most important goal: defeating Bush and replacing him with a Democrat.

Continue reading/discuss Nader won't run as a Green ...

Statement from Dean for America Communications Director Tricia Enright:

"While it's flattering that the Clark campaign has spent the past two days doing nothing but trying to prove that Governor Dean offered General Clark a Vice-Presidential slot, saying something 100 times doesn't make it true and this isn't."

What's going on here with this Clark strategy? Too me, it smacks of a reality check for them resulting in a little re-positioning. What do YOU think?

Crossposted at DeanTV.

Happy Holidays and Safe Travels to All! --Heath

UPDATE (Aziz) : Just wanted to point out Trippi's perspective, via the CNN story on this issue:

Trippi, who said Dean and Clark had "a great relationship," said he thought the issue had been discussed in a separate meeting.

"In the meeting I was in, the governor told him that if he wanted to be president of the United States, the general should run for president of the United States," he said.

The issue may be moot anyway. Clark said in his interview that he didn't see the vice presidency "in the cards," and Trippi said the Dean campaign has not been considering the matter.

"Look, we haven't won Iowa or New Hampshire, a vote hasn't been cast," Trippi said. "And particularly back in the period he was talking about, we were still an asterisk in most of the polls.

"So to be talking to anybody about being vice president doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It doesn't make sense now."

Continue reading/discuss Dean for America Press Office: No Deal Was Ever Offered To Clark ...

With no comment -- except to say that fools can be bright and pious -- Dean National Hoffman relates this at home, and at Points West:

Joe Lieberman's sure been coming to Bill Clinton's defense lately when he feels that Howard Dean is slighting Clinton. Nothing like using Clinton to boost your own political standing among Democrats.

But as American Stranger asked me this morning: Wasn't Lieberman one of the most critical Dems back in the impeachment days?

Absolutely. In his speech during the impeachment proceedings, he was quite the good soldier in voting against it. But he still took the opportunity to spank Clinton several times (presented in small type since there's so stinkin' much of it):

As I have stated previously on this Senate floor, I have been deeply disappointed and angered by this President's conduct--that which is covered in the Articles, and the more personal misbehavior that is not--and like all of us here, I have struggled uncomfortably for more than a year with how to respond to it. President Clinton engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship with a young White House employee in the Oval Office, which, though consensual, was irresponsible and immoral, and thus raised serious questions about his judgment and his respect for the high office he holds. He then made false or misleading statements about that relationship to the American people, to a Federal district court judge in a civil deposition, and to a Federal grand jury; in so doing, he betrayed not only his family but the public's trust, and undermined his moral authority and public credibility.
-----------------------
...I conclude that the appropriate question for each of us to ask is not whether the President committed perjury or obstruction of justice, but whether he committed a high crime or misdemeanor...
-----------------------
I have no doubt that under certain circumstances such offenses could demonstrate such a level of depravity, deceit and disregard for the administration of justice that we would have no choice but to conclude that the President could no longer be trusted to use the authority of his office and make the decisions entrusted to him as Chief Executive in the best interest of the nation. It is because I hold this position that I found reaching a decision in this case such a difficult matter.
-----------------------
I am puzzled by the President's including in his prepared grand jury testimony the statement that `I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this [inappropriate] conduct.' (Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton p. 9.) As the House Managers pointed out, according to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President engaged in `this conduct' on the first day they met.
-----------------------
I am, of course, profoundly unsettled by President Clinton's irresponsibility in carrying on a sexual relationship with an intern in the Oval Office and by the disregard for the truth he showed in trying to conceal it from his family, his staff, the courts and the American people.
-----------------------
My disappointment and anger with the President's actions were reawakened as I listened to the evidence the Managers have presented.
-----------------------
I have observed that roughly two-thirds of the public consistently expresses its opposition to the President's removal. But I do not think we can leave this proceeding, especially those of us who have voted against the Articles, without also noting that roughly one-third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation's leader.

And that was after THIS little stampy-feet tirade Joe had on the floor of the Senate as he cried about Clinton's morality. Some friggin' friend. I gotta think Clinton remembers as well, and must be seething every time he sees Joe invoke his name against another Democrat for political gain.

If Joe's still having a hissyfit over Gore's endorsement of Dean, too bad. That's politics - the game you're in. Gore gave him a golden opportunity in 2000 which he squandered by turning into a sweat puddle debating Dick Cheney. Get over it, Joe. Better yet - just go away.

Cross-posted at Hoffmania!

Hear the man! Really, as John Cleese might put it: this - has - become - just - silly!!

Continue reading/discuss Holy Hypocrite, Joe-Man! ...

a new poll reveals that the general public agrees with Dean that America is no safer after Saddam's capture:

Dean has been a vociferous critic of the Iraq war. Most voters believe, as Dean does, that the U.S. is no safer from terror in the wake of the arrest of Saddam Hussein. And while Dean’s rise may have been helped along by former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent endorsement, most primary voters say Gore’s nod makes no difference to them.

Dean has the backing of 23 percent of likely primary voters, the same as he did in the days just prior to Saddam's capture, and up from 14 percent in November. His nearest rivals today are Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman, both at 10 percent.
[...]
AFTER SADDAM'S CAPTURE, THE TERROR THREAT IS…?

Increased:
Democratic primary voters 22%
All voters 17%

Still the same:
Democratic primary voters 63%
All voters] 61%

Decreased:
Democratic primary voters 13%
All voters 18%

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security also agrees with Dean - the terror threat alert level is being raised to mango peach.

Continue reading/discuss no safer ...

Well, the (so-called) liberal media picked up the "Bush Tax" story by trying to point out that Dean was responsible as Governor for property tax hikes.

Hi-larious.

One man deals with the impact of a national recession on his local budget by choosing to limit spending growth rather than raising taxes in a state that already had fairly high tax burdens.

Another man walks into office and proposes tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, with very little stimulus in any of the packages, all of which negatively impact state tax collection and do little to help states deal with a recession.

These two situations are "similar"?

Hmmmm.

Now the distinction in this situation goes back to something that has confused some folks in other situations. Dean points out in the AP article that when faced with a recession, and making the tough choice that fiscal responsibility was in order, Dean slowed the rate of growth of Vermont government. Local governments chose to maintain previous rates of growth.

In the Bush system, Bush chose to make cuts that slash state tax revenues without providing any good way for states to get more aid from the federal government to make up for it. States would not just have to slow the rate of growth, they would have to reverse it. Virtually every state has faced the choice of tax hikes or service cuts, not simply growth rate reductions.

The only question in my mind is which campaign planted this story: Bush or Kerry.

If you see this story pop up in your local fishwrap, respond to it. Write a letter to the editor emphasizing that Dean dealt with temporary budget shortfalls by reducing the rate of growth of government - a reasonable response that does not cut essential services while also not forcing the government to raise taxes - while some localities decided on their own to raise taxes to maintain previous rates of growth.

Bush on the other hand has taken a slash and burn approach, leaving states with dire choices of either steep tax hikes or severe service cuts.

It's no contest. Dean was faced with a tough decision. Bush forced a tough decision on the states. That's the Bush Tax and it is very much a reality.

Continue reading/discuss The AP Gets Half the Story ...

One of the things you have to keep in mind about video taping is that you constantly kick yourself for not rolling when certain things are said. That's a trade-off to get people to feel comfortable with you, however. I wish Aziz and Anna at Dean Nation could have heard the praise for them from Mathew Gross, Dean For America Internet Legend, and the little crowd that gathered around us when the camera was off. Oh well, I'm sure they know they are loved.

Here's a little appreciation for all of Dean Nation from Mathew (via DeanTV.org) for all that you are doing. Thanks Mathew!

QuickTime
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

Windows
56KDownload file
100KDownload file

DeanTV archives--University of New Hampshire at Durham (12-9-03)

Continue reading/discuss Dean For America Legend Mathew Gross Is Nostalgic About Dean Nation! ...

By a clear majority, the Backbone Award goes to the troops for the incredible job they are doing in Iraq under never-before-tested circumstances. Just this week, 200 of Vermont's bravest were shipped out to join the fight for Democracy. We at Dean Nation will say a prayer and wish during these holidays for their safe return.

(Tom Kean, R-NJ gets a special tiki gift in his stocking for having the guts to speak the truth in the hope that 911 will remain a catastrophic lapse in intelligence sharing and cooperation).



Hands down, you voted for a special Jellyfish in a Jellyroll award for "Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values."



We asked you if this was a time to directly hold other candidates accountable for such attacks by opening up the voting to the competition.

As a testament to why we will win this election--no one at Dean nation pounced at the chance to take our Democratic "leaders" down for winking at blatant, despicable fear-mongering politics (the Bin Laden pic tied with Dean).

SCforDean put it best: "Democrats don't need to attack other Democrats. Reptilicans do enough of that. Let's take the high road in these awards, ok?"

You did take the highroad SC, and you won. We'll still leave the awards open to all discussion, however, in the pursuit of democracy and the great American political experiment.

UPDATE (Aziz): Dean Nation leads the way, and TIME Magazine follows! Person of the Year for 2003: The American Soldier.

Continue reading/discuss BACKBONE AWARD: THE TROOPS; JELLYFISH IN A JELLYROLL: THOSE BEHIND THE AD ...

I was just looking at the Dean Nation fundraising goal and realized how close we are. Let's make our own goal for the weekend! Go ahead and donate today!

Goal: $35,000.00
Achieved: $32,327.47

We're 92% of the way there.

Trippi didn't give us a bat this weekend, but let's just do it ourselves. Let's do it to show the pundits and the critics, that not only will we meet the challenges the campaign gives us, but we'll make and meet our own goals as well. Because this is our campaign, and we have the power to take our country back!

Continue reading/discuss Let's Do it this Weekend ...

I believe one of our fine fellow bloggers, Nathan Newman, says it best when he called this new DFA website -- The Bush Tax -- "brilliant."

'Nuf said.

Now it's our job to make this The Mother of All Memes. :-)

Continue reading/discuss The Bush Tax ...

Isn't it amazing how all these conservative ideolouges all claim to know the "real story" ? Case in point, Michael Reagan, son of the former President and cloned angry conservative radio talk show host #34,725, who offers up his theory about Dean's VP pick:

Despite talk about Howard Dean asking Hillary Clinton to be his running mate in November, it’s not going to happen, says top talk radio host and nationally syndicated columnist Michael Reagan.

"As far as Dean’s probable pick for his running mate, I’m willing to bet that he’ll choose Tennessee congressman Harold Ford," Reagan told NewsMax.

"Right now Dean is desperate to win the black vote in the South, and Ford is one of the most attractive and articulate people in politics today."

Let's just say that the headline for this link on FARK is "Conservative thinks that Howard Dean wants a running mate who can't legally be vice president until May 2005." 'Nuff said. The intriguing thing here though is that conservative talk show hosts are thinking about Dean's VP picks. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad one from a strategy perspective.

Continue reading/discuss Michael Reagan is bad at math ...

Last night on FAUX news, Greta Van Susteren spoke with Laura Ingraham, and she tossed in a whole new comparison that I had yet to hear: Dean is like Dole. No transcript -- unlike CNN, FAUX picks and chooses -- but to paraphrase:

"Like Dole in 1996, Democrats really like the guy but he's not going to beat the incumbent. And like Dole, it looks like they are going to nominate him anyway."

What a great illustration as to why we shouldn't take campaign advice from the opposition. Ingraham obviously has zero clue what is happening right now in the Democratic Party. The battle, in my view, is to not make the Republican mistake of 1996 -- namely, nominatiing some old party hack-saw like Gephardt, Lieberman, or Kerry. Dean is nothing like Dole. Dole received a consolation prize for years of service, something the Democrats are poised to avoid by nominating Dean, or perhaps even Clark, not vice-versa -- thus their appeal. Dems don't just wanna fight Bush, as the pundits seem to claim -- we wanna win.

Now, as I count them, the pro pundits (and even yours truly) on both sides of the aisle have now compared Dean to: FDR, Truman, McCarthy, Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton and Dole. Do you realize that the other Dems have been compared to, well, really not one single president that I can recall? Two exceptions: a short-lived JFK exception for Kerry -- and that a comparison his campaign pushed hard -- and the unavoidable Eisenhower comparisons for Clark. Dean has been compared to at least 11 presidents and nominees from both parties in the last few months, and with alarming -- quite frankly, frustrating -- frequency.

So, any doubts that we have a candidate who's "presidential" on our hands? Not me. Obviously, on this our critics and our supporters seem to agree if all the comparisons are to be believed, and the fact that they can't pin him down to any one of them is an encouraging sign -- very encouraging.

But ultimately, you know who he reminds me of most? President Dean.

Crossposted at Daily Kos and Points West

Continue reading/discuss Dean = Dole? ...

thus spake the snake in the garden:

"Dean's record as governor is nothing to shout about," Mr. Nader says, noting that his preference would be Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But Mr. Nader waxes on about how preferable Mr. Dean is to President Bush. In 2000 the consumer advocate suggested there was little difference between candidates Al Gore and Mr. Bush.

"Unlike most of the other candidates," Mr. Nader says, the Vermont governor "is not compromised by votes for the Patriot Act or for the Iraqi war resolution."

Let's take note of several things. First, Nader will choose to run irrespective of how much you or I hate him. This means he does hold a real influence over the presidential race, by virtue of (not just in spite of) his 2000 spoiler role. The fear of a Nader run is a tangible one that should give all Anybody-But-Bush voters serious pause. Nader has political capital and he will use it - he would be a fool not to use the Fear Of Nader to the advantage of his party.

Second, Nader's preference in terms of issues is closer to Kucinich. As such, Nader may simply be exerting pressure on the field, such that Dean gets the nomination rather than a more "compromised" candidate such as Kerry or Gephardt. While this works to our favor (in that some ABB voters may support Dean out of Fear of Nader), we cannot let temporary convenience blind us to the threat from the left flank. DON'T take Nader at his word on this, especially if you are a Dean supporter - because avoiding the Nader stigma is essential to preserving our fledgling grass-roots campaign, the like of which has never been seen in American politics (and which represents a sea change in our democracy itself). The stakes are too high. If we get lazy and try to capitalize on Fear of Nader, and then Dean wins the nomination, and Nader subsequently spoils the 2004 race by entering anyway, we are tainted as much as Nader is. This will undermine everything we have worked to achieve.

It is critical that we denounce Nader and ignore his statements that seem to support Dean.

Continue reading/discuss Will Nader run if Dean runs? PROBABLY. ...

For those who haven't heard, we've gotten Kermit the Frog on our side.

On that note, here is an open thread, as requested below.

Continue reading/discuss Kermit the Frog ...