Skip to main content

View Diary: Dean calls Cheney "Aaron Burr" on Face The Nation (358 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Loss with dignity? (4.00)
    Hardly.  A loss is a loss.  And I suspect that instead of a close election, Dean would have been shellacked.  We'd have lost more ground in Congress, more than likely, and he'd have gone back to private life instead of the party chairmanship, and the spotlight would not have been on Kerry as it is now in the Senate, where he is trying his best to advance something of an agenda, despite the Dem's minority status.

    If you vote Republican, you vote for corruption.

    by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:31:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Right... (none)
      and a Kerry loss was so much better than a Dean loss?!

      In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor- let them be caught in the schemes they have devised. -Psalm 10:2

      by chicagochristianleft on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:38:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly what did I say above? (4.00)
        "A loss is a loss."  Can it be any more plain?

        We lost in 2004.  Find a way to take Congress, at least one house, in November.  Fighting the last election over again will get us nothing.  

        If you vote Republican, you vote for corruption.

        by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I heard this on Alito, and disagree. (4.00)
      See my previous diary. Dems are portrayed as weak, we need to change that. Kerry was weak, Dean is anything but. Lose a battle if it contributes to winning the war.

      /Chinese Curse: May you live in interesting times.../

      by barrettzinn on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:39:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly!! (4.00)
        That is why they paint any strong Dem as crazy, angry, unhinged in some way. They depend on being able to scare any "uppidy" Dems who might get ideas from real leaders back into submission. They then can accuratly portray Dems as "weak", and beat them everytime they can convince Americans that they are in danger. Repeating the Repug talking points that Dean (Ie... a strong Dem) would not stand a chance in a national election plays right into thier hands. Dean would be a great candidate, but right now I am hoping for a Gore run (no difficulties w/promises there).

        We are all wearing the blue dress now.

        by PLS on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:09:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  After Gore's last public appearance, I agree! (none)
          He's really gotten passionate and he'd bring back memories of the good old Clinton years where we almost had a peace deal in the Middle East, terror attacks were few and far between and we weren't ignoring thousands of body bags of our soldiers killed in an unprovoked war.  I think Gore would be a tremendous candidate and possibly our only hope for getting prepared for the havoc that will result as the polar ice caps finish melting.
        •  The answer to the "Angry" meme. (none)
          It's simple and true:

          "If [Democrat X] gets angry, then it's because there are some things that are damn well worth getting angry about."

          Then talk, in specific terms, about Bush's crimes and fuckups.  Not a laundry list, but whatever the compelling scandal of the day is.

          This defangs the "angry Democrat" meme and turns it right back against them.  I guarantee if someone did this to Hannity, he'd switch his talking points really fast.

          •  This whole conversation is funny to me (none)
            as an older woman, because this Rethug technique is exactly the same method that men have always used to control women, when they get too uppity.  "You are emotional, irrational, crazy!"   Then they smugly claim to be the rational ones.

            What was it -before the election --someone sent around a post talking about how the Dems are like abused wives?  They buy into the accusations against them and try harder not to do it again!  It reminds me of when I was young and in art school. Almost all the students were women and all the teachers men.  The biggest insult they could give to us was to say that our art was like "women's work."  So all the female students tried to make art like men, or what they thought men would approve of.  You couldn't make art about women's concerns --God forbid you should put a child in your drawing!  The question of how we could avoid being female and btw what was wrong with that? --didn't get raised and when it did, with the women's movement in the 70s and 80s,  women suffered violent ridicule and attacks designed to keep them in their place.

            The Dems are suffering from being treated like women. I'm waiting for them to wake up and start questioning the premises of the argument --just as Howard does.   Too bad Betty Friedan died. She could give them some pointers.

            •  Maybe... (none)
              There's a subtext I missed.  When they say Hillary's "angry", it's just shorthand for "she's just having her period."  Anger is an honest emotion, whereas the period thing is just men being patronizing and dismissive.  It's a pretty piggish tactic, but ya know, Laura does seem to blurt out something stupid about every 28 days or so.  I'm not sexist, I'm just sayin...

              One of my favorite scenes in the history of TV was in the old Andy Griffith show.  It seems that one of the women, Andy's girlfriend I think, wanted to run for mayor.  The dialogue went something like this:

              Andy:  Women shouldn't be allowed to run for Mayor.

              Andy's GF:  (Indignant) And why not?

              Andy:  Because one might win!

          •  The party of Rush Limbaugh, (none)
            Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity is calling Dems unhinged and angry?  It's ridiculous on its face.
            •  The party of Rush Limbaugh (none)
              Is itself ridiculous on it's face.

              And "Angry" is the new "Shrill".

              Even with an enabling media, the "Angry" slimeball is easy to spike back down Republicans' throats.  The "pathological liar" slimeball they hit Gore with was a lot harder to counter.  Just like the "wild-eyed, crazy" slimeball they hit Dean with.

    •  On what basis do you surmise that (none)
      Dean would have lost in a landslide?

      First off, if Dean were to have been the nominee it would have been because the Party establishment would not have ganged up on Dean, sending Gephardt in as sapper to take Dean out in Iowa. If Dean had won Iowa or come in a close second, the scream never would have happened.

      So, let's pretend for a minute that Iowa had turned out different, Dean won New Hampshire and went on to win NY, CA, PA, WI... and was the nominee. Then, answer me this, when whatever swift boat equivalent was pulled on Dean do you think he would have waited a few weeks to respond? Do you think Dean would have given Bush any quarter whatsoever in the debates? Do you think Deaniacs would not have come through with the cash needed to respond to each and every trash piece the GOP ran?

      Dean's campaign organization needed some help, no doubt, their tactics in Iowa were not up to the required level and they didn't have the control they should have in the post caucus rally. If things had been different enough that Dean ended up as nominee, I expect that the campaign organization would have been improved, the media team upgraded and the kind of fireworks we see from Dean today would have been a sight to see. A Bush landslide? No way - as it was a significant percentage of the vote was against Bush, not for Kerry, no reason to believe it would have been any different and if the anecdotal evidence of acquaintances who said if it had been Dean they would have voted for him and not Bush are any indicator at all, I wager that Dean would have been the victor.

      Democracy is a contact sport...

      by jsmagid on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 05:21:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  have to disagree (none)
        Dean's campaign organization needed some help, no doubt, their tactics in Iowa were not up to the required level and they didn't have the control they should have in the post caucus rally. If things had been different enough that Dean ended up as nominee, I expect that the campaign organization would have been improved, the media team upgraded...

        Dean was already close to out of money.  I doubt that anything other than a total blowout in Iowa (as in, had he won by a 30-40% margin) would have got him enormous donations - if he'd have been close, he'd have been one of many.  And this doesn't even get into why he didn't fare better than he did.  If he was a strong candidate, he ought to have been able to pull off a close second, or at least a close third.  He didn't.  And the DNC, or the DLC, if you must, had little to do with it.  Caucuses (MN does them as well!) are not like primaries.  You're in there with your neighbors, voting in a room full of people, and in Iowa (and NH for their primary), as a "leadoff" event, the candidates are also up close and personal.  Gov. Dean didn't fare better than he did because he couldn't convince Iowans he was a better candidate.  Iowa, for all its Midwestern agrarian whiteness, is actually pretty representative of Middle America.

        Look, I love what Gov. Dean is doing with the chairmanship.  He's on the absolute right track.  It's time to realize that we cannot refight the last campaign - there's simply no reason to do so.

        And the level of wishful thinking I'm seeing in all of this is really disheartening.  Yes, we need a bevy of strong candidates.  A clutch of vigorous campaigners.  A stampede of Fighting Dems.  Howard Dean, much as I admire him for what he is doing nationwide to revitalize the Democratic Party as an institution and a voice for people across America, was not that man in 2004.  America looks at how someone runs a campaign and asks if that person would run the country the same way.  They looked at the Dean campaign and found it wanting.

        And again, there are far, far more important things to do than engage in nostalgic wishful thinking.  There are Republicans to be defeated in November.  That is beyond important - it is essential to the future of your country and mine.  Rehashing 2004 this way helps us...how?

        If you vote Republican, you vote for corruption.

        by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 05:47:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry but you're wrong on almost every count (none)
          I've corresponded with enough people who were there, Dean volunteers, Dean staff and Iowans as well as paid close attention to post mortems from others to know the facts pretty well.

          Re: Dean was already close to out of money.

          The proper perspective is not cash on hand, but rate of contributions leading up to Iowa. Dean did not raise all the money that was spent months before Iowa, hoard it and then blow it, the money was going out almost as fast as it was coming in - much as is the case now with Dean's 50 state strategy, which brings mostly praise here on DKos - and there is every reason to believe that with success in Iowa the contribution rate would have gone up if anything.

          Re: the DNC, or the DLC, if you must, had little to do with it.

          I don't know how you can say that. Gephardt went full bore after Dean while Kerry stayed above the fray. At the same time a 527 funded by well heeled supporters of Kerry, Gephardt and others similarly ran all kinds of slime adds against Dean. Top Dean staffers said afterwards that they made a major tactical error in going back after Gephardt in kind. That undercut Dean's image and hurt him.

          Re: Caucuses (MN does them as well!) are not like primaries.

          Undoubtedly true, as is the fact that caucus outcomes depend mightily on the ability of each campaign to collect seasoned leaders to manage the process in each caucus. Having the Party machine on your side makes a huge difference as they can set you up for success or to get creamed. Iowa Gov. Vilsek did not take sides, but his wife was a key Kerry backer and worked hard to ensure the Party machine was running on all cylinders in Kerry's car. Dean's campaign did not have sufficient numbers of experienced and/or properly trained people leading their effort caucus by caucus - that in addition to a backroom deal between the Kucinich and Edwards camps that any time they fell short of the needed votes to stay in for the next round of voting their people would throw their support to the other, cutting Dean out of the process. This is how Edwards was able to move into 2nd place pushing Dean to a disappointing 3rd.

          Re: there are far, far more important things to do than engage in nostalgic wishful thinking.

          As stated elsewhere on this thread, honest and accurate assessment of the past is critical to learning from mistakes and positioning for success. We need to know what really happened so that next go round, let's say Mrs. Clinton is in Kerry's shoes and we've got a great outsider campaign going, let's say with Feingold, we don't end up getting fragged again.

          Democracy is a contact sport...

          by jsmagid on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 05:53:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site