Daily Kos

View Story | 20 comments

  •  Guess I was making a (none / 0)

    distinction between someone whose goal is to be POTUS versus someone who has an agenda that can be advanced from the POTUS position.  The genius of the GWB campaign was that they took someone from the first group and made him look like someone from the second.  That's why people like you and I liked Dean -- it truly wasn't about Dean.  It is also beginning to appear that it wasn't about Gore either, only he either hadn't thought it all through by 2000 or couldn't articulate it at that time.  How an individual handles defeat gives a big clue as to which group they fall into -- Bradley, McCain, Lieberman compared with Dean and Gore.  From what I saw of Kerry's responses while Dean was on top last year, it's pretty clear how he would have behaved had he been defeated.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 09:14:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know how to break this to you (none / 0)

      But my support for Howard Dean was at least 70-30 Dean the man vs. Dean the agenda.

      I wanted (still want) Howard Dean to be my president. He is a good man.

      Agenda is only part of what a president accomplishes. He (at least in 2004) has to respond on the national and world stage to events he has not control over, as well.

      I sure don't want somebody who thinks of POTUS exclusively as a position to push an agenda from. I want somebody who thinks they're the person for the job.

      I'd really like it if they were the kind of person that the right likes to paint Ronald Reagan as (or many on the left paint Jimmy Carter), but the reality is that you have to be a damn good politician to become POTUS, and there is a lot of bad to take with the good in that.

      God bless America. God bless our troops.
      God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

      by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 12:24:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  confusing parenthetical (none / 0)

        The "he (at least in 2004)" in the third paragraph was supposed to explain my choice of pronouns, not indicate that 2004 was the only time POTUS would have to respond on the national and world stage.

        God bless America. God bless our troops.
        God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

        by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Probably should have (none / 0)

        used "theme" instead of agenda because that's broader.  When a candidate articulates the agenda that flows from his/her theme, they are not only telling us what they would like to accomplish as POTUS, but also supplying us with a window into their decisionmaking style/process and what they value.  When all of this is integrated in the individual, the electorate will generally not be surprised by the actions of the individual once in office.  Dean just makes all of this so much easier to read because he's one of the most honest of politicians, of course that's another quality that some of us respond to.

        Maybe the shorter version of what I've tried to say, and seem to have done poorly at, is that it's a question of "To Be" or "To Do" that is the primary driver for those who seek the Presidency.  And I suspect that the electorate responds more favorably to the candidate who is perceived to be more in the "To Do" column.  

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 01:22:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 20 comments