Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems to the barricades? Bullshit (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Try convincing me (none)
    I was very firmly in the ABD camp.  And I believe I have been vindicated, although I don't want to have that fight in this forum, right now.

    Rather than argue it, I will explain, and then ask to be convinced.

    I saw Dean speak several times in the summer of 2003.  I had been arguing since before the war that an anti-war candidate could not win the election because the war would be won quickly and Bush's popularity would soar, and the media would brook no opposition.  I argued that the problems of the occupation would only start to become acute after about 18 months, or just around the time of the election, and that by that time an anti-war candidate would have been railing against our foreign policy for an 8 month general campaign...and would be largley perceived as disloyal and as undermining public support for the war (the strategy of all insurgent campaigns).

    I also was not impressed with Dean's speaking style and felt that he had a bit of a tin-ear for politics.

    Let me be clear, that I didn't object to Howard's message and I did have tremendous admiration for how we was running his campaign.  I was mainly worried about Dean losing 49 states and destroying our already depleted numbers in Congress.

    Well, the problems of the occupation began after 6 months, not 18.  And we found no WMD, and we didn't fake finding any either.  All of that combined gave Dean more of a chance against Bush than I had anticipated.

    But his tin-ear I had correctly diagnosed.

    We had a similar problem with Ed Rendell in 2000, when he made several off-the-cuff comments that really annoyed the Gore campaign.  I love Rendell, but he sometimes says things without thinking.

    So, why should I trust Howard Dean to be a spokesman for the party.  Again, I like Dean, and I support a reform movement, and I think he and his people are well-suited to carry that banner.

    But even when Dean is right (like about capturing Saddam not making us safer) he tends to lose the argument.

    See if you can convince me that we is the right man to be a major face of the party.

    They were Nazis, Walter?

    by BooMan23 on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:59:51 AM PST

    •  That's Dean's Biggest Weakness (none)
      People talk about the time about how Dean punches back, and they're correct.  But some consideration needs to be given to how often one leads with their chin and while they're winding up with their powerful roundhouse that they allow their opponent a clean shot right into their face.  

      It's not just how hard or often you hit, it's also how you manage to not get hit.  To paraphrase The Greatest, it's not just about stinging like a bee, you also should be capable of floating like a butterfly.

      •  I agree (none)
        there is a fine art to "straight talk".

        McCain seems to be able to tell "truth to power" in a very opportunistic way, without ever getting whacked for it.  

        Sharpton blunts his occassional outrageousness with knee-slapping comedy.  (I'm going slap this donkey...)

        Dean has a little of the Bill Maher problem.  And in politics, as in comedy, sometimes timing is everything.

        They were Nazis, Walter?

        by BooMan23 on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:19:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Will Point Out, However... (none)
        ...that being party chair doesn't require the same attention at defensive positioning.  You're seen as pretty much a party hack, so your latitude to say crazy shit is much greater.  Haley Barbour is exhibit A in my argument.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site