Daily Kos

SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark to "arrive"

Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:25:23 AM PDT

[From a connected labor source -- kos]

SEIU is supposed to meet on November 6th to assemble the results of its internal polling and decide whether to endorse at that time, or, again, delay a decision. All signs point to Dean--if the internal polling means anything--he was first coming out of the last meeting, Edwards second, Gephardt third--and support of the key local leaders means anything (Rivera in NYC, Roselli in Bay Area, Medina in LA), then Dean's the guy. Gephardt's strong support for the war really hurt him early on with these local leaders--those large local unions were running independent anti-war activities from the start. And while Gephardt is 100% pro-union, his particularly strong base on midwest trade issues doesn't make that much difference to coastally based service sector unionists. Edwards gave great speech at the last SEIU political conference, he's a pro-union guy, but nobody's thinks he got a chance to win.

The other thing to keep in mind is the intra-union dynamics now favor an SEIU endorement of Dean--the mini-Gephardt boomlet in the media and Iowa and among a number of unions gives Andy Stern an opportunity to carve out an independent path from the herd--he respects and likes Gephardt, but has never thought he was electable, and is keenly aware that money matters--and that Gephardt, win or lose in Iowa, will be out of money in March, and will be creamed by Bush for months. If Stern picks the ultimate nominee in Dean, he will look prescient, while the other unions will look merely sentimental--he's too savvy to think that that "GOP thinks Gephardt will be toughest" article is anything other than a feint to get the Dems to waste money fighting each other, get the AFL to endorse Gephardt and cause more intra-party bloodletting, and create more opposition to who the GOP is really scared of, Clark.

The other intra-union dynamic to watch is the so-called "New Union Unity Partnership" of five unions, of which SEIU is the most significant, which has directly challenged the primacy of the AFL-CIO. This is all the talk inside the labor movement--there was an article about this in Business Week about a month ago. Again, what this means is that SEIU is not going to quietly "go along" with the choice of the majority of unions--look for Dean to get the nod on November 6th. The latest evidence of this can be found in this entry in today Note from ABC News:
The New York Daily News reports on a "hush-hush" meeting of SEIU leaders, who heard from Bill Clinton and Howard Dean as they laid out plans for an "unprecedented $35 million campaign to drive George W. Bush out of the White House next year."

While neither the SEIU nor its 1199 local, headed by New York kingmaker Dennis Rivera, has yet endorsed a candidate, the Daily News quotes one union shop steward as saying the crowd "mobbed Dean and cheered him wildly from the moment he walked into the back of the hall."
Dean may be a done deal but other candidates continue to fight for SEIU's backing. Union officials tell The Note Edwards and Kucinich will address the Florida 1199 local's "Dignity Congress" this Thursday and Friday, with Kerry and Dean beaming in to speak to the group of healthcare workers.

AFSCME is a tougher case to figure at this point--except that they will certainly do something different from SEIU, given the rivalry between these two giants. McEntee wants a "winner" and has always thought that the war hero credential would be crucial in this cycle. He is also not impressed with Dean. But both Kerry and Clark continue to stumble. Kerry numbers have not picked up in New Hampshire, except for that one anomalous poll--I think he's about out of time with AFSCME. I think AFSCME will delay their endorsement as long as possible, to give Clark more time to get his act together, but I don't think he has done enough to close the sale anytime soon. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that SEIU endorses Dean in two weeks, but AFSCME waits things out for a bit, perhaps until the end of the year.

But don't sell the Painter's union thing short for Dean--that union got some kind of award from the AFL-CIO after the 2000 election cycle for having the best political operation. They're not particularly big, but they're a relentless, highly professional operation--and it finally opens labor's door for Dean, with a building trades union, no less. A minor coup, for him.

This is a big deal beyond the obvious point that it's Dean's first union endorsement (which is, itself, noteworthy, and gives him momentum to get the key SEIU nod). The Painters are a political juggernaut--it's basically what they do (there was a spate of articles about this during the '00 election cycle). They are pound for pound--and dollar for dollar, which they have plenty of--one of the most effective political operations in the labor movement. When you add to that the fact that they are not in the "Starbucks ghetto" (nice phrase, Ron Brownstein), but are, instead, an old-line building trades union, this is quite a coup for Dean--his odds of getting the nomination just went up another few percentage points.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 168 comments

  •  Estupendamente! (none / 0)

    Hey, I just got back from my very first beginning Spanish class, so I apologize if that makes no sense.

    Wonderful! It's a fantabulous Dean day: he's ahead in New York, or so the latest "poll" (seeing as it comes from Fox) says.

    SEIU will definitely shout: Dean is the real thing, here to stay, and we're not hemming and hawing like other opportunists who shall remain nameless.

    I assume the New Republic blathering about Dean representing the upscale Democrats and Gephardt the downscales will now retreat down the hole out of which it emerged.

    "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

    by Marshall on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:30:02 AM PDT

    •  NY Poll (none / 0)

      Is the NY poll on the web, or did you see it flash by on Fox News?

      You have the power to change America. Yes. We. Can.

      by CA Pol Junkie on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:04:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: NY Poll (none / 0)

        I got to it through the Dean blog. Go there. It's in the comments, though they may have posted it by now.

        "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

        by Marshall on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:08:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: NY Poll (none / 0)

        The numbers:

        Dean  18 (13)
        Lieb  16 (23)
        Clark 14
        Gep   10
        everybody else is single-digits
        undecided is 23

        MOE is 5

        So it's really Dean is within MOE of Lieb and Clark, and leads Gep by 3 outside of MOE.

        And Undecided is still winning.

        Big news is Lieberman's fade.

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

        by Bill Rehm on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:36:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: NY Poll (none / 1)

          Actually, that's a common misperception about polls. The "Margin of Error" applies to each specific number. It usually means that, if the poll were done with the same methodology one hundred times, that number would oscillate within the MOE on either side in ninety-five of the polls. Usually that's the significance used, but it might not be. In other words, a showing of eighteen percent would be between 13 and 23 percent in ninety-five out of one hundred polls with the same method.

          So in fact, the MOE usually includes more candidates than most people realize. It applies to each number

          "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

          by Marshall on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:42:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: NY Poll (none / 0)

          Isn't that the truth. The more people get to know about Lieberman, the less they like him. At this rate, I almost expect him to drop out before the first of the year. Almost. He has some money by fooling rich contributors that he actually has a chance.

          A Crushie for Democracy

          by CarolDuhart on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 09:52:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The AFSCME news is surprising... (none / 0)

    AFSCME not going Gep?

    That blows me away.  I know they were hinting about Clark before, but AFSCME really is an old-line Democratic union that always urged a hardcore, straight-party vote.

    Wow.

    •  Re: The AFSCME news is surprising... (none / 0)

      Look at it from their perspective:

      The worst thing AFSCME (or any union) can do from their own perspective is back the wrong candidate.

      That way, 4 (or 8) years from now, people wonder how important they really are in the party.

      Besides, the union leadership may be with Gep., but I don't know anymore about the rank and file.

    •  Re: The AFSCME news is surprising... (none / 0)

      McEntee doesn't like Gephardt.  He wanted Kerry, now he wants Clark.  I think he wants a soldier.
  •  Ah, the biweekly labor gossip (none / 0)

    The "connected source" strikes again!  He should know that it's the "New Unity Partnership," not the "New Union Partnership."  One of the key members of which -- the Laborers -- has endorsed Gephardt.  So it's not like the NUP is some Gephardt-hatin machine.

    I'll be surprised if the SEIU endorses Dean.  They're not going to endorse Gephardt, either -- but my sources tell me that Stern is just as worried about Dean's electability as your "connected source" says that he is about Gephardt's.

    Is your source Dean's labor liason?  Because he does seem to favor the Dean rosy scenario.

    •  Re: Ah, the biweekly labor gossip (none / 0)

      nope
    •  Re: Ah, the biweekly labor gossip (none / 0)

      i am a rank & file bay area seiu member, & i am all-out for dean.  every member who knows me knows it.  if the polling reaches me, i'm voting for dean.  

      this is not to say that dean will ultimately get the endorsement, but "give 'em hell howard" is appealing to union rank & file.  

      i think gep is the sentimental favorite, but he's old school.  kerry & clark seem to lack spark.

      though the union bosses might want a soldier, the rank & file want a fighter.  dean is that man.

      GO DEAN!

    •  Re: Ah, the biweekly labor gossip (none / 0)

      Trapper John, I just had a thought...

      Why don't you write up a piece about what you are hearing re: SEIU, AFSCME, and AFL-CIO, and I'll give it front page treatment?

      I'm not being sarcastic or anything. This stuff is fascinating, and if you have particular insight it would be great to share.

      And then we can see by the end of the year which gossip was more accurate :)

      •  Re: Ah, the biweekly labor gossip (none / 0)

        Kos--

        I appreciate the offer, but I don't really have enough insight into the SEIU and AFSCME situations to wring a decent sized piece out of it.  Pretty much all my "inside info" can be found in this comment thread.

        That will likely change in about a week or two, though -- if it does, I'll be sure to take you up on the offer.  Until then, I'll confine myself to sniping from the sidelines.  ;)

  •  Re: SEIU leans Dean (none / 0)

    Good for Dean.

    On AFSCME, it looks like they want to endorse Clark if he can give them an excuse.

    As a supporter of the General, I think and hope  that the next few weeks will provide that justification.

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:39:01 AM PDT

  •  Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

    It's great to hear informed analysis of the labor movement. Keep it coming.

    If Dean can show that he can win support from the tradiational dem constituencies that he is not associated with at this point (labor, african americans, the elderly) then it will be near impossible for any of the other candidates to catch up to him.

    •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 1)

      That's an interesting point, but I have some questions:

      Why is Dean seen as weaker than others on African-Americans, labor, etc? I mean, other than Gephardt and labor, it's not like he's at a disadvantage or anything. He doesn't need to make up lost ground. Nobody else is doing better than he. I agree that adding those groups would be excellent, but I don't get the argument that he's somehow failed in not doing so already.

      Especially with regard to Clark: where did the idea that he has the support of the Democratic working man come from? The Clark supporters I know are all middle-class people who simply think they're savvier than the Dean supporters. Great.

      "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

      by Marshall on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:48:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

        "Where did the idea that Clark appeals to the working man come from?"

        Polls.  Several show Dean trailing Clark, Edwards, and Gep among these voters.  Dismiss it at your own peril.  

      •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (3.33 / 3)

        Why is Dean seen as weaker than others on African-Americans, labor, etc?

        On the Af-Am issue, I think Dean is perceived as "weak" here only because of strange media coverage. (And I'm usually not one to point a finger at the media.) I say this because:

        A) Dean has SO many people at his events and

        B) It's easy to spot the fact that there aren't many black faces - in other words, if you want to make a critique of Dean's crowds and you are lazy, this one is easy to come by. (Remember how silly that NYT reporter looked when she insisted, just by gazing at the crowd at Bryant Park, that there were no union members there?)

        When you have, say, 50 people show up to an event, the sample size is small, so if most are white, I think it stands out less. When you have 5000 people at an event, then the whiteness factor stands out more.

        So I think Dean is a "victim" of his own success here - his large crowds make it easier to point out their homogeneity. I think the other candidates (with the possible exception of Clark, but not sure on that yet) are drawing in similar proportions of minorities.

        And lastly, I think the fact that so many white people - and so many men - are attracted to the Dean campaign is a FANTASTIC thing. The Dems have had a hard time drawing in whites (and white men in particular) in recent years, so the idea that Dean's supporters are "overwhelmingly" white is far from a bad thing.

        That said, Dean cannot take for granted the support of African Americans. But it's obvious he isn't - his campaign has been focusing heavily on minority outreach in the last few months. I think that the campaign had to get its feet on the ground, raise its millions, get established, etc. before it could start doing broader outreach.

        •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

          The "diversity" meme is far overblown, and mostly the creation of the last two cycles where the primaries were either uncontested or narrowly contested. Due to minority status, various ethnic groups behave much in the way as interest groups do...they hold back, and jump in en masse at a certain point. It makes sense, as it increases influence by playing kingmaker. If you attend any function for a candidate you'll find a majority of middle class white folk (excepting big money fundraisers, of course).

          Gep. would be the exception, but it isn't a reflection of increased minority support, it's just a reflection of union support. That interest group trumps the ethnic interest group. And the unions are savvy enough to push their minority members front and center. Should Dean get SEIU, the same effect will occur.

          We really won't see minority groups coalesce on any candidate until the field narrows, or the primaries reach a point of tipping one way or the other.

        •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

          I'm with you on the strange press coverage.  The coverage appears to reinforcing the press' own perception of the issues regardless of what is actually happening on the ground.  I was at the Chicago Dean rally this past August and while there were not a great deal of non white faces in the (large) crowd, the much bigger point was that the crowd was LARGE.  Yet the media chose, (and continues to do so) to make issue of his supposed lack of inclusiveness.  This is not just a problem for Howard Dean, but for all the Democrats as our lazy media does a terrible job of actually 'reporting'.  
          •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

            I didn't mean to imply that Dean had problems with African americans or with union members per se. I was just suggesting that if he caught fire with these folks, and added them to the demographics he already has firmly in his column he would be unstoppable. We may yet see this happend, but as of today Dean is not as popular with those traditional constituencies.
      •  Re: Love the Labor stuff (none / 0)

        Why is Dean seen as weaker than others on African-Americans, labor, etc?

        Because the media portrays him that way.

  •  More source (none / 0)

    Interesting that in this long disquisition on "intra-union dynamics," there's no mention of the formation of the Alliance for Economic Justice.  The 20 unions that have endorsed Gephardt (including those NUPpies in LIUNA), angry at the AFL non-endorsement, have created a new non-profit with the sole goal of getting Dick Gephardt nominated.  It's going to be a major organizing and fundraising tool.
    •  Re: More source (none / 0)

      Trapper
      How important are the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO? Are they large or small? I know you know a lot about this subject so I'm asking you.

      I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

      by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:53:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: More source (3.00 / 2)

      Trapper,

      The source made the point that Stern' would likely go against the "herd" i.e. the new organization of 20 unions backing Gephardt.  That organization probably makes it more likely that SEIU will endorse Dean, whatever Stern's misgivings about Dean--he doesn't want labor to be rolled by Gephardt, whom he fears might be the Dem's Dole, however worthy he is on the merits.  Remember, Meyerson's comparison of Stern to Reuther is somewhat apt--he's prickly, arrogant, smart, and convinced that he's got the answers--he's not going to go with the consensus choice of Gephardt, even less so now that consensus has hardened into organizational form.

      Regarding the Laborer's endorsement, that's actually more intra-union dynamics.  NUP is looking to work with Teamsters--Teamsters won't work with anyone who won't endorse Gephardt, and has made that clear to NUP.  Laborer's endoresment is bone thrown to Teamos. This is a bit more than speculation on my part, a bit less than a hard fact.

  •  CTA endorsing Dean? (none / 1)

    PoliticalWire is reporting that the California Teachers' Association may endorse Dean this weekend.  They are very big players here in CA.

    You have the power to change America. Yes. We. Can.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 06:53:34 AM PDT

  •  But they gotta pick a winner (3.50 / 2)

    Gep has nothing but labor. Like the painter's union leader said, at least the painter's union doesn't want to carry all the water for a candidate so they're joining the Dean Army. Labor is all Gep will have, he excites no one else. Most rank-and-file union people I know are Dean backers - and excited. Nobody can beat the record of Gep on labor issues, but Gep has only that! I guess I also like the endorsement of the Apollo II effort.

    Labor should pick a winner this time.

  •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (3.71 / 21)

    The move to endorse early is part of a wave of panic that caused Democrats to jump into the Presidential race right after the mid-terms in 2002.  It's now showing, with tired campaigns from everyone except Dean.

    The fact is that unions don't need to endorse now, but Clark isn't giving them a very good reasosn to wait.  Dean has serious problems; he consistently matches up worse against Bush than any other Democrat, and his message isn't resonating well among those who think Bush is doing a bad job but isn't a bad man.  That said, Dean is the only one who has anything other than a 'this guy is a theoretically good match-up against Bush', because his message of working through allies and creating more political space is working, whereas that dour 'Bush bad' line coming from Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and all the others just isn't.  Fundamentally, the ABB meme is a threat; vote for me or you get him.  Dean isn't saying that, he's saying vote for me and you get you.

    Dean is a sort of upgrade of Paul Wellstone's methods, putting Wellstone on the web in a way that Wellstone couldn't.  What Dean isn't is inclusive of those segments of American society that share common interests with the Democratic Party but culturally segment apart - Wall Streeters, who want liquidity, free trade, and fiscal prudence - Military families, who want someone who served or can pretend to sacrifice -the working class - who want faith that goverment is on their side - minories - who have a deep understanding of sacrifice, unjustice, and empathetic condescension.

    The support of unions is important for politically tactile reasons, but unions are not a proxy for the working class.  They are an institutional peg of the Democratic Party, and as such, they will help on the road to the nomination.  

    Dean's repudiation of free trade, however, is a clear pander to the union institution, and has lost him business and Wall Street confidence.  His anti-war criticism, loud and stark in tone but nuanced in reality, turns off military families and the working class because it comes off as anti-military and snobby.  Any Democrat has a tough road to hew, because Democratic candidates are stuck in a symbolic minefield, where embracing one symbol means blowing up support of another constituency.

    Few figures have the ability to navigate the Democratic primary without supreme political talent and relevant experience.  Clinton did it, but Dean just isn't talented enough.  The alternative to navigating among the symbols is to blow up the field, and reformulate the party - it's not about free trade for labor, it's about transforming unions into health care, job training, labor information, and investor education centers.  That is, wiping the tired slate of Democratic politics clean and changing the model of our governance structures.  Clark might be the figure who could do this, but it doesn't look at this point like he has the experience to effectively put forward that message.

    Ultimately, Dean is pointing the party in the right direction in terms of the methods he's using, but I remain unpersuaded that his message of policy wonkiness, anger, and self-confident rational liberalism can overcome the deeply problematic historical memory of failed Democratic leadership we've all seen over the past forty years.  Then again, one thing Dean is not is a loser.  He's not running to win, but he's not running not to lose.  Which is better than most of the rest of the field.

    •  Excellent analysis of Dean (3.00 / 8)

      This is excellent (I rated it as such too). Nuanced, mindful of Dean's considerable strengths, yet echoing that nagging feeling I and a lot of core Democrats have that Dean would make either a crappy candidate or a crappy President.

      This is especially good:

      Ultimately, Dean is pointing the party in the right direction in terms of the methods he's using, but I remain unpersuaded that his message of policy wonkiness, anger, and self-confident rational liberalism can overcome the deeply problematic historical memory of failed Democratic leadership we've all seen over the past forty years.  Then again, one thing Dean is not is a loser.  He's not running to win, but he's not running not to lose.  Which is better than most of the rest of the field.

      I'd quibble a bit with the details--the only really rank example of failed Democratic Party leadership I can think of over the past forty years is the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a wonderful man who happens to be one of the five or so worst Presidents in our history. It sure doesn't help that Carter is the guy Dean reminds me of most (I know these comparisons are façile, but they're a useful yardstick at times).

      As a politician, I think Dean is the class of the field. Although I agree he has the way of identifying the political center of gravity and grabbing it, I'm worried that he's just a slick pol, that the Kool Aid drinkers are busy imbuing him with personal qualities he doesn't have because he was front and center, relentless, with the one issue that energized them. His policy flip-flops, such as on trade and entitlements, seem to confirm this tendency. Dean also has some personal qualities that I doubt will go over well in a campaign; he'd be the weakest in head-to-head debates with Bush and stand-ups with the press, the two venues where swing voters are won over.

      Is Dean just a guy who is good at getting to the front of the line and then doesn't know what to do once he gets there? That was the problem with Carter, and it allowed an extremist (Reagan) to move the country by a giant destructive leap to the Right. We can't afford that risk right now.  
      Winning this election will not end the threat posed by the far right; we need to use a Democratic presidency to strengthen America's safety, security, and well-being. I want George W. Bush to share an answer to a Presidential trivia question with Gerald Ford, not Grover Cleveland.

      So those are my beefs with Dean: he's has too many unknowns to judge whether he really is electable, and too many unknowns to judge whether we really want him to be elected. But he's running a kickass campaign...and who knows, he may really be the second coming of Clinton.

      •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (3.66 / 3)

        Kev, you may be right, but there's even less reliability in projecting governing style than there is in projecting victory.  

        Dean is running a great campaign - so far.  Polling does show, despite the constant and increasingly angry denials here, that he has weaknesses outside of the educated base, and while a union endorsement would be nice, their membership overall is tiny. And even with endorsements, significant numbers vote for others.  

        It's independent men nationwide - especially those who don't have college degrees - where Democrats need to make the most gains - exactly the demographic where Dean currently trails several candidates in multiple polls.

      •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (3.33 / 6)

        I share some of your misgivings about Dean, but you guys are leaving out one key dynamic: Dems are losing turnout battles everywhere these days.

        If support among union rank-and-file is tepid, as has been reported here, I don't see Gephardt exciting massive turnout numbers in any other constituency, do you?

        As for Clark, jeez, he is still so much of a cipher. And the whole Republican in sheep's clothing thing could come back to haunt him.

        As for Dean, if he can turn out Democrats and Independents as well as I think he can, he has a much better chance against Bush than polls indicate.

        It's a big "if," I know.

        •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

          Jim,

          Turnout among households with a member of a labor union is consistently higher than almost any other demographic.  Throughout the nineties voters from labor households typically constituted around 20% of the overall electorate, even though union workers are only about 14% of the overall workforce.  The one exception, of course, was 1994, when it was only about 12%-14%, and the Dems got waxed big time.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 09:02:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (4.00 / 6)

        I'd quibble a bit with the details--the only really rank example of failed Democratic Party leadership I can think of over the past forty years is the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a wonderful man who happens to be one of the five or so worst Presidents in our history.

        I doubt very much that Carter was one of the worst five, especially considering how he has been maligned by the historians (Grolier's claims unemployment soared under Carter; it actually dropped slightly).

        Although I agree he has the way of identifying the political center of gravity and grabbing it, I'm worried that he's just a slick pol, that the Kool Aid drinkers are busy imbuing him with personal qualities he doesn't have because he was front and center, relentless, with the one issue that energized them.

        All of Vermont is like one big small town, and people there saw him up close and personal for years. He drove their kids to hockey games. If he was inauthentic they'd know it.

        Dean also has some personal qualities that I doubt will go over well in a campaign; he'd be the weakest in head-to-head debates with Bush and stand-ups with the press, the two venues where swing voters are won over.

        I'm looking forward to the first (and probably only) head-to-head debate with Bush. I have a hunch he'll be a lot closer to Bartlet than to Gore.

        Is Dean just a guy who is good at getting to the front of the line and then doesn't know what to do once he gets there?

        See his record in Vermont, his statements about the need to change the direction of the country, and his acknowledgment of the challenges faced by incoming former governors (he wants a Washingtonian VP, for instance). He knows exactly what to do and he's spelled it out, with both specifics and vision, better than anyone.

        So those are my beefs with Dean: he's has too many unknowns to judge whether he really is electable, and too many unknowns to judge whether we really want him to be elected.

        Which of the other candidates is any better known? Which of them is a safer bet? We know already about as much as is possible to know about a candidate at this point. If anything, the other candidates are bigger ciphers, Clark in particular.

        With FISA like these, who needs enemies?

        by chase on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

          I'm looking forward to the first (and probably only) head-to-head debate with Bush. I have a hunch he'll be a lot closer to Bartlet than to Gore.

          (I say the following as a Dean supporter...)

          Assuming that's a reference to the Bartlet-Ritchie debate early in Season 4, I'd be careful what you wish for. During that first exchange, over taxes, there was a moment where a good debater who knew his stuff could've blown Bartlet away, and would've if he hadn't had the writers on his side. That's exactly the sort of trap I worry Dean could walk into with his brash overconfidence.

          (Ritchie's response to "Can we have it back, please?" just needed to be, "Well, Mr. President, last year Floridians paid $1.01 in federal taxes for every dollar that came back. So if you're saying would we like you to stop taking our money, skimming a penny off the top, and giving it back to us, yes, as a matter of fact, we would.")

      •  Simpsonian analysis? (3.66 / 3)

        ...immy Carter, a wonderful man who happens to be one of the five or so worst Presidents in our history...

        Jimmy Carter, he's history's greatest monster! [looting commences]

        Seriously dude, the Simpsons writers were being facitious when they wrote that episode.

        Carter was president in a really tough time -- oil embargo and hostages and all -- but he did well under the circumstances, and was probably the most progressive president we've had since Kennedy. He has been historically smeared by the same wave of conservative nostalgia that has lionized Regan.

        But stop and think about it for a second. Just imagine what the country would have been like if Carter won in 1980? It was a close election, you know...

      •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

        "5 or so worst"? Let's see; worse than:

        Bush II
        Pierce
        Buchanan
        Grant
        Harding
        Nixon
        Hoover

        ??

        And that's just after ten seconds of thought ...

        •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

          Bush II
          Pierce
          Buchanan
          Grant
          Harding
          Nixon
          Hoover

          >>>I did say "five or so" to give myself a little leeway, but the list you give is of the really shitty Presidents, and Carter as a President is not far off from that company. He had no leadership skills, alienated congress, fanned the flames of pessimism, and was plagued by events bigger than himself (hostages etc.). No President deserves a pass because he was "unlucky;" lead the country through those times or get the hell out.

          But Carter's worst legacy was enabling Reagan to be perceived as a reasonable option. (He also is responsible for the first exodus from the Democratic Party.) Reagan swept to office in a landslide. The country has been hamstrung ever since.

          The Right is so much better organized now it isn't funny. A feckless, rudderless, pessimistic, and ineffective Carter-type presidency now would be worse than re-electing Bush, because it would give the Right nuclear ammunition. (Look what they did to an effective, confident, centrist President in Clinton...).

          •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 1)

            "But Carter's worst legacy was enabling Reagan to be perceived as a reasonable option. (He also is responsible for the first exodus from the Democratic Party.) Reagan swept to office in a landslide. The country has been hamstrung ever since. "
            -Kev Starr

            Gotta take issue here:

            It wasn't Carter that "enabled" Reagan: Reagan was "enabled" (if you want to learn that language) quite purposefully and directly by Iran Contra and the agreement not to free the hostages until after the election.  Had Carter managed to bring them home, the campaign would have looked very different "morning in America" or no.

            Gotta remember - Iran Contra wasn't just a scandal, it was the first successful public enactment of the radical right's long term plan.

            A semantic quibble perhaps but I don't think I'd argue that Carter was a bad President.  He was a terrible leader of the party, which is why he got no support, but alot of the things he did as President -- outside of his Cold War foreign policy -- were the right things to do, they just weren't the right things to do to get re-elected.

            What I find hard to forget and forgive about Carter, however, is the legacy he left us as a candidate:  He's the one who gave us the "only a southerner can give the Dems a victory in the post-Nixon race strategy Republican party.  He's also the one who brought the Washington outside card to the top of the deck, and that's been used to the nation's detriment more times than it has been used to its advantage, think GWB, Arnold, even Clinton.  He also started that spate of Governor's Mansion as the path to the White House candidates.  For all those reasons I'd call him a bad candidate in the long view, though that's generally thought to be one of his strengths.  

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

              Reagan was "enabled" (if you want to learn that language) quite purposefully and directly by Iran Contra and the agreement not to free the hostages until after the election.

              Yes, except that that never happened.

              For a full debunking of the "October Surprise" hoax, wander down to your local library and pull up the 2/2/93 issue of the Village Voice and read Frank Snepp's "Last Rites: The Implications of the Final Debunking (We Hope) of October Surprise".  (Sadly, the Voice does not appear to have the article in their online archives.)

              I think we're all bozos on this bus.

              by Doctor Memory on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 12:30:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Excellent analysis of Dean (none / 0)

              One "r" in star, please. I'm not from Pepperdine.

              Even if the deal with the Iranian revolutionaries went down as you describe, it took a lot more than that for Carter to win only six states and the District of Columbia. He was a miserable failure as a President.

              Your analysis of Carter's failings as a candidate is pretty insightful. That Carter, one of the most sincerely pious men in American public life and a distinguished graduate of a United States military academy, appeared so weak that a draft dodging divorced dude was able to paint him as a Communist sympathizer and atheist (and by extension, all Democrats) speaks to the lasting harm his weakness has wrought on our party and our nation.

    •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (3.20 / 5)

      Very, very well said.

      I am troubled by the free-trade position, as well.

      One thing that would set a lot of us at ease is a speech that actually sets out what Dean is for, particularly regarding foreign policy, not just what he's against.  Right now, his candidacy is about methods and not overarching message.  

      It has become almost too easy to be critical of Bush.  It's low-risk in a primary and, tactically, makes all of the sense in the world.

      But we're nominating a Presidential candidate.  It isn't enough just to be against Bush.  It's a Dem. primary.  EVERYONE is supposed to be against Bush.

      So... what are the candidates positions on the following three issues:

      1.  Rebuilding Iraq so we don't leave it as a vacuum.  The UN is a partial answer, not a complete one.  It's our baby now.  How do we as Dems deal with it?
      2.  Winning hearts and minds in the Arab world so we limit the appeal of Al Queda.  We won the Cold War because of the West's message, not just because of our military might.
      3.  What is our reaction when we lose low-wage jobs overseas?  Barriers to trade or something more long-term?
      •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (3.33 / 3)

        One thing that would set a lot of us at ease is a speech that actually sets out what Dean is for, particularly regarding foreign policy, not just what he's against.  Right now, his candidacy is about methods and not overarching message.

        See his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations and his announcement speech from June.

        People who say Dean is just running as "Anti-Bush" are clearly not paying attention.

        With FISA like these, who needs enemies?

        by chase on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 08:14:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (2.66 / 3)

          Your response, with all due respect, proves my point.

          I've read the CFR speech and went to an announcement speech party.

          Those were two speeches regarding his overarching position were given several months ago.

          Speeches like that should be the rule, not the exception.

          I've also seen him speak in Iowa, Missouri (two weeks ago) and at several debates.  The stump speech is, forgive me, red meat/anti-Bush and nothing more.

          There's nothing wrong with red meat.  But all the other candidates have caught up with him on that score.  It is time for something more.

          •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (none / 0)

            Well, I agree with you that there's room for more - it's time for him to kick it up a notch. But I just meant to point out that he is indeed very much for something worthy (the restoration of community, locally, nationally, and internationally) and has been for some time.

            With FISA like these, who needs enemies?

            by chase on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 05:55:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't take a whole lot of digging (3.60 / 5)

        Chris R.

        It doesn't take a whole lot of digging on deanforamerica.com to find any of this out. All the reports in the NYT, WaPo, etc. that Dean is thin on policy and vague on policy are people who are too lazy to look it up; he matches Kerry note for note on policy. Are any of the other candidates able to captivate an audience with their discussion of trade negotiation strategy?

        Howard Dean weaves all policy discussion in to energy policy, national security, environment.

        An old lady at my work, who's the furthest thing from a policy wonk you can imagine, watched Dean talk on C-SPAN. I told her to just listen to him sometime if she ever sees him on TV. I asked her what he said; she remembered every point on Trade and the Environment. When she was done she was very surprised with herself. "Well, that is an impressive memory you have there!" "Well he just said it in a way I could understand."

        That's how we win!

        •  Re: It doesn't take a whole lot of digging (4.00 / 2)

          You've got a point.  In fact, that's why I support Dean:  he has the capability of articulating a Dem. foreign and domestic policy in actual English.

          I do view the official website as a bit sparse.  It does take digging to get beyond the generalities.  Dean Defense Forces is much better, in my view.

          Some of this is crankiness over seeing the same stump speech eighty times.  A lot of it is that I view him as capable of moving beyond where he is now.  Particularly regarding Iraq, as I think his current position is much more moderate (and, frankly, very rational) than many currently view because it hasn't been stressed.

          But I do think we as a party need to view the primary process as something other than "who can be the most full-throated in their opposition of Bush?"  

          •  Re: Nomination vs General Election (none / 0)

            My only comment to add is that a successful presidential candidate has to run two campaigns; the first in the nomination process where you have to win over your base (i.e. a little more extreme). The red meat/anti-Bush is perfect for that. The second is winning the general election, that's when it's time to head for center and show independents and fence sitters why you should win. If Dean and his campaign are good, you'll start to see shifts in the rhetoric soon, and if he can lock up the nomination, the message will start to reach out to a larger proportion of the public.

            "If you want a fiscal conservative in the White House, you better elect a Democrat..." -Howard Dean

            by Pisistratus on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 10:15:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Nomination vs General Election (none / 0)

              Agreed, but what does it say about the primary process that one has to usually wait for the nomination speech to hear it?
            •  Re: Nomination vs General Election (none / 0)

              In this regard, we're no different then the Repubs.  In their primaries, candidates have to run to the right then moderate in the general.

              Clinton simply proved that we could do the same thing, only looking in the mirror.  Run left in thr primaries and head to the middle for the general.

              Gore seemed lost. He went left, then to the middle, then back left, then down, then up, then..

              The guy couldn't get his own message straight and he ran away from his biggest asset which was seven years of prosperity.

              Dumbass.

        •  Re: It doesn't take a whole lot of digging (none / 0)

          I would agree that Dean has plenty of policy positions.  But everytime I read/hear/learn more about them my doubts increase.  His policies sound a lot like DLC policies, slight variations on any other candidates policies, not particularly a new direction at all.  

          That's the one question I'd add to MattS's original post: Is Dean actually taking the party in the "right" [implied different] direction, or is he more likely taking us to the same place but with a different form of transportation?  

          I honestly don't know the answer to that question.  But unlike others my sense of "not knowing/possibly not trusting" the Dean phenomenon lies not in any sense that the man himself is disingenuous, but that the characterizations about what his campaign is doing are.  

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 11:49:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (3.66 / 6)

      Lots of interesting stuff here. Just wanted to comment on a couple bits.

      Dean's repudiation of free trade, however, is a clear pander to the union institution, and has lost him business and Wall Street confidence.

      "Repudiation" is a bit strong, IMHO. After backing NAFTA as a governor, Dean is coming out for fair trade, with labor and environmental protections. That might be pandering to the union institution, I don't know. But you're conflating "business" and "big business". Dean also "panders" to small businesses, arguing for special loan programs and pointing out that "small businesses don't send their jobs overseas".

      His anti-war criticism, loud and stark in tone but nuanced in reality, turns off military families and the working class because it comes off as anti-military and snobby.
      Dean's criticism has consistently been anti-THIS war. He argued against preemption. He said Bush didn't make the case. He never said "war is always wrong and we should have a Department of Peace".

      I don't know enough about military families to dispute your position that he "turns off military families", but I've read a lot of stuff that (at least anecdotally) shows that they're all pretty sick of Bush's war, too.

      I don't understand what about Dean's position on the Iraq war comes off as "snobby" that would "turn off" the working class. IMHO, Kerry's (and Lieberman's) style of speaking might lead to that, but Dean's about as (red) meat and potatoes as you can get when he talks about this stuff.

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

      by Bill Rehm on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:57:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anecdatum on "military families" (3.16 / 6)

        I don't know enough about military families to dispute your position that he "turns off military families", but I've read a lot of stuff that (at least anecdotally) shows that they're all pretty sick of Bush's war, too.

        As a father of a soldier who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, I know of one military family (mine) which is working energetically to elect Howard Dean because his position on both conflicts is very close to ours.  Dean's stump speech about never lying to the American people about why he was sending troops to war resonates pretty well with us.  

        The soul is more than the hum of its parts. (h/t Daniel C. Dennett)

        by Schmendrick on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 08:47:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (3.75 / 16)

      I can't decide if this piece is meant to further your passion for political memes or if it represents your heartfelt true beliefs.  Perhaps both.  Regardless, you make several strong assertions with absolutely no convincing evidence.  The assertions may be true, but you don't provide any gristle to support them.  Provide some clothes for these memes lest they die of exposure:


      • Dean has serious problems; ... his message isn't resonating well among those who think Bush is doing a bad job but isn't a bad man.

      • Now, this isn't just your opinion.  Rather, you are making a factual assertion about other peoples opinions without bothering to back it up.

      • What Dean isn't is inclusive of those segments of American society that share common interests with the Democratic Party but culturally segment apart ...

      • How is Dean not inclusive?  Please provide some evidence.

      • Wall Streeters, who want liquidity, free trade, and fiscal prudence ...

      • One of Dean's core strengths is his credible message of fiscal prudence.  His free trade stance is not materially different from the other major democratic contenders.  Only Kucinich is materially different in my estimation.

      • Military families, who want someone who served or can pretend to sacrifice ...

      • This only works because you've defined it so narrowly.  I see no evidence that a significant part of the military families are against Dean.  In fact, among those military families that are disenchanted with Bush's war on Iraq, I would say Dean has a clear strength.  He is the most credible candidate who has consistently opposed Bush's war of aggression.  The rest are caught in a state of limbo.

      • the working class - who want faith that goverment is on their side ...

      • How is this group alienated from Dean?  You provide zero rationale for this conclusion.  None.  Just an empty statement?

      • minories - who have a deep understanding of sacrifice, unjustice, and empathetic condescension.

      • Once again, no evidence that this group is alienated in the least with Dean.

      • Dean's repudiation of free trade, however, is a clear pander to the union institution, and has lost him business and Wall Street confidence.

      • But Dean hasn't repudiated free trade.  Far from it.  He has called for sensible international standards to apply to all nations.  That is a free trade stance and it is not out of agreement with the other major democratic contenders.

      • His anti-war criticism, loud and stark in tone but nuanced in reality, turns off military families and the working class because it comes off as anti-military and snobby.

      • No evidence.  You are making a factual assertion about other peoples opinions, with no evidence.  Dean repeatedly says that he wouldn't hesitate to apply military force when national security is on the line.  He has pledged to keep the Pentagon budget.  How do you view this as 'anti-military' or 'snobby'?

      •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (3.92 / 13)

        But Dean hasn't repudiated free trade.  Far from it.  He has called for sensible international standards to apply to all nations.  That is a free trade stance and it is not out of agreement with the other major democratic contenders.

        From my perspective, as a labor Dem, the best thing that Dean has brought to this campaign -- after his grassroots innovation -- is an endorsement of fair trade principles by the New Dem wing of the party.  For the past 15 years, we on the left of the party have been fighting -- and losing -- a battle with the ascendant New Dems over trade policy.  We've been called protectionist and against free trade, and it's just not true.  What we were for was fair trade, trade with provisions that would help workers around the world.  But Clinton and Gore bought into the corporate notion that "free trade = unfettered trade with no worker protections whatsoever," and we were left with nowhere to go.

        All of a sudden, Howard Dean -- a budget-balancing, NAFTA and PTR supporting New Dem if there ever was one -- is endorsing trade policy that looks more like Kucinich's than Lieberman's.  It was a sort of silent coup -- after 15 years, the labor left had won on trade policy without a real fight.  The most prominent New Dem in the party, and possible nominee, had come around to our side.  I've got a lot of problems with Dean, and I question the heartfeltness of his late conversion, but I'm thrilled by the conversion nevertheless.  It's changed the dynamics of the trade debate in the Democratic party.

        As for MattS's point -- some folks in the party haven't adapted to the shift.  Some still cling to the failed notion that if we just wait long enough, trade with no labor agreements will create a rising tide for all boats.  But it hasn't worked for American workers, and it hasn't worked for Mexican workers, who see their "high wage" jobs getting shipped off to China.  The American polity at large never bought the NAFTA lie, and today, even the mainstream New Dems are on board with labor standards.  But there remains a sizable portion of the intelligentsia that still has blind faith in Free Trade as defined by Nike.  And those folks are angry at Dean's betrayal.

        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

          Great points, Trapper.

          I'm confident that as more and more accountants and insurance adjusters lose their jobs to Bangalore and Pretoria we'll see more of a sea change on people's perceptions of fair trade.  

          Too bad it's going to take the type of disruptions to the white collar middle class that the blue collar middle class have been undergoing since the late seventies to bring it about.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 08:35:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 1)

          I agree with you Trapper John.  But I would credit your man, Dick Gephardt, with the success of this shift.  Dean is not the leader of the free trade movement, just a willing and wonderful addition to Dick and the rest.  Remember, Howard has volunteered for Gephardt's campaigns in the past so I don't find his position that surprising.  Dean and the rest of the New Dems are coming around because fair trade is the only correct policy.  We have to have a level playing field or American jobs will continue to be lost.
        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (3.80 / 5)

          Boy, this is the best pro/con Dean discussion I've seen around here in quite a while.

          Personally, I believe that Dean's conversion to fair trade is a genuine response to the history of the last few years. It's become obvious that something needs to be done about it, especially as the moving of jobs off-shore has broken out of the traditional "labor" positions and into more white-collar fields (I've been "fair trade" for quite some time, but I think the recent trend of moving computer engineers and others off-shore has blown a big hole in the earlier idea of training our way out of the situation). I've seen his evolution in some comments over the last couple of years, and it's not a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing. His thinking has been changing for a while. And, I agree with Trapper, this was a very, very important political development.

          As for any questions about his ability to govern: forget it. Going into this election I was all for Dean because of what I thought he'd do as President. I was worried about his ability to fire up supporters and raise money (really!), so my hopes for him were tempered by what I thought of as reality. But, he's a supreme leader of an executive branch, engaged and knowledgable without being a micro-manager, trusting staff without letting intra-agency squabbles getting out of hand. He understands to a degree I've not seen in others the political realities of a situation, and he has an acute sense for how far he can push things to get what he wants.

          I'm no Deanie-come-lately; I don't support him for his ability to campaign (although I am a fervent supporter of the Dean/Trippi creation). I'm also not a naive political supporter, and I've been with Dean all the way (check my January Cattle Call comments). I supported him because of what he'd do after the election. I support the man who would make the best President, and, from my long experience with Howard, that's always been Dean to me.

          disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

          by BriVT on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 09:09:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

            Great discussion. I just want to thank you all for the great posts.  I can't think of anything to add but thank goodness for dkos.

            Direwolf

            Once in awhile you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right

            by Direwolf on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 09:27:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 1)

            Count me in on that as well. I went to grad for international econ, and remain a firm believer in free trade. However, we don't have that.

            What i've come to realize over the past few years is that what we call free trade in unsupportable from an honest (and lassez-faire) econimic standpoint. The problem is that the fundamental basis of free trade, transportation and communication is one of the most highly socialized things in both our and the global economy.

            Think about it. We subsidize oil (if we made gasoline pay for itself, it would cost $4-$6 a gallon). We subsidize the road network, shipbuilding, aerospace, communication networks, etc...massively. We do this directly (R & D and tax abatements), indirectly (Govt. contracts), and implicitly (military basing to ensure the oil flows and the sea lanes are safe).

            This artifically lowers the barriers to trade, or job transfer. In effect, the massive road and gas subsidy acts as a net payment to industry to move manufacturing to Mexico (just one example). What we claim to be efficiency gains via trade is at least partially rent seeking. Free trade is good, in that it utilizes resources more efficently. But the underlying subsidies make many forms a hidden efficiency loss.

            So, you don't need to be a socialist or isolationist here. You can derive an arguement from rabid capitalist economics. "Fair Trade" to my mind is simply taking the subsidies and spending them on improving conditions, rather than lining profit margins. It also returns efficiency gains to the equation, which is the entire point of trade at all.

            •  More un-fair "free" trade (none / 1)

              Another big form of cost transfer is in the environment. As the study out a couple weeks ago stated, environmental regulations save the overall economy and society a lot of money, but the savings are to the general populace, while the costs of compliance are to the specific polluters (generally speaking). So, when a company moves somewhere to avoid environmental standards, they are pushing the cost of the transaction off themselves and sticking the greater world with a much larger bill.

              disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

              by BriVT on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

          I would have preferred to have Dean frame free trade in the same light that Joseph Nye frames multilateralism, as one element of American soft power.  That way, Dean could acknowledge the inefficiency of tariffs or restrictions while making a valid case for their existence.  He could even tie excessive intellectual property rights in cases like drug companies and AIDS drugs and tie them to labor and health standards.

          The unrestricted free trade argument sort of falls apart when you point out that what we have now isn't actually free trade, but restrictive trade based on the interests of a plutocratic class.

          The way he did it was just a pander, and he'll be held accountable for it if he becomes President.

          •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

            He hasn't pandered.

            There are basically two views on trade among the Democratic contenders.  Kucinich's and everyone else.  This is a testament to the success Dick Gephardt has had bending the Democratic positions on trade toward a fairer system.

            Kucinich believes we should repeal NAFTA and other trade agreements as the first act of our next president.  Period.

            Everyone else believes free trade is necessary, but promises to push for fair trade without repealing NAFTA.  The degree to which they emphasize this is the only difference.

            So, if you are going to criticize Dean's position as 'pander' then pony up for everyone else too.  Fair is fair.

            •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

              I can't say whether Dean's position is pandering or not. It certainly helps him with the unions and environmentalists. When he was governor, he did support NAFTA, as written.

              So his explanation that he's learned different could be true at face value or rhetoric.

              On the other hand, it's pretty hard to say the Gep is pandering on this issue, since he was willing to vote against Clinton on NAFTA to push for these kinds of protections.

              I'm a Dean supporter, but our guy doesn't win all rounds.

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

              by Bill Rehm on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 10:16:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

                "I'm a Dean supporter, but our guy doesn't win all rounds."

                I hear you Bill.  But what you are describing is the other "election evil" ... changing your mind.  It does not describe pandering.  Regardless, I wasn't trying to insinuate that Gep was pandering at all... I think Gep is the leader of the Dems when it comes to the issue of trade.  He always has been.  I'm just saying that Dean's current stance is not substantially different from any of the other major candidates.

                •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

                  Your specific comment that I was addressing:

                  So, if you are going to criticize Dean's position as 'pander' then pony up for everyone else too.  Fair is fair.

                  What I was trying to point out is that is possible that Dean is pandering on this issue. I don't know. Your comment that it could just be changing his mind is perfectly reasonable. But he did change his mind on this topic pretty recently. Versus an opinion on rate of growth in Medicare 8 years ago.

                  Again, I'm not saying Dean is pandering, just that it's possible. I, for one, don't know. Perhaps you have some information that I'm not aware of.

                  Nobody could realistically make a similar claim wrt Gep and his position on trade and NAFTA. He has a record of championing this issue.

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

                  by Bill Rehm on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

                    Yes, it is theoretically possible that Dean isn't being sincere on his trade policy.  It is also possible that he is.  We don't know, can't know, so its up to each of us to decide based on our own feelings for Dean.  However, I don't think that is what MattS is criticizing.  MattS, if I understand correctly, is taking issue with Dean's current stance on trade.   I don't think he agrees with how Dean's presenting his position.  My point is that Dean is presenting his position in a way that is not materially discernable from any of the other major candidates.  So, if MattS believes Dean is pandering, based on how Dean's presenting this issue, fair is fair, he must believe the other major candidates are also pandering.
                  •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

                    Well, Dean has said he was all for NAFTA as Vermont governor, because that agreement was bery, bery good to his state: They quadrupled their trade with Canada, which probably has better worker protections than the US does.

                    But when he first started his presidential run, and started talking to people in the Midwest, he saw the other side of the coin, people who had been adversely affected, and that's when he started looking at it differently.

                    That certainly makes sense, and it fits in with his stated philosophy of changing opinions when faced with new facts, so if you doubt his sincerity on this change, that must mean you doubt his sincerity, period.

        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

          Trapper,

          I think Dean's early position on NAFTA made sense from the perspective that at that time, he was Governor of a highly agricultural (primarily dairy) state with relatively little industry.

          In its simplest form, NAFTA was good for farmers and bad for factories.

          Dean took a position that was in the best interests of his constituency.

          Ultimately, NAFTA has proven to be beneficial to large corporate farms and much less helpful to small farmers.  But when introduced, small farmers lined up behind NAFTA.  Dean's position made sense at the time given the fact that he was Governor of Vermont.

        •  Re: Naked assertions? A game of meme tag? (none / 0)

          Thanks Trapper John for putting into words what I've had trouble articulating.  Altho I must confess I'm often disturbed about the way that "fair trade" rhetoric sometimes masks old fashioned protectionist/isolationist "keep our jobs here" criticisms rather than the the broader based (and more progressive)analyses of these policies are actually harming the quality of life for the people who live and work in them, regardless of where they are.  

          I've also been surprised at how little discussion or even recognition of what happened in Cancun here on these boards.  That was a seismic turn in the politics of international trade and finance, as is what's going on across South America at the moment.  Its going to be a very interesting party in Miami when the FTAA folks hit town.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 12:00:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting for Clark (none / 0)

      Dean has serious problems; he consistently matches up worse against Bush than any other Democrat, and his message isn't resonating well among those who think Bush is doing a bad job but isn't a bad man.

      Dean is not matching up worse than other Democrats any more. He hasn't had the best match up in a poll yet, but in different polls he has tied Clark, Kerry, Gep, and Lieberman.

      Do you know Dean isn't resonating as well as other Dem candidates with those who think Bush is doing a bad job but isn't a bad man? Are there surveys which show that others are doing better with this demographic? Or is that something you got from the recent Salon article which interviewed a couple of Republicans for Clark?

      In any case, I would much rather that Dean helped expand the number of people who think that Bush is doing a bad job AND isn't a very reputable man, than that Clark or anyone else sucked in a few who maintain the view that Bush is a good man. in the long run, the former would be a much better state of affairs (of course, I grant that we don't know if Dean can succeed).

  •  Re: SEIU leans Dean, AFSCME waiting (none / 0)

    Is there a list of major unions anywhere? I confess that I don't know much about any individual union, or what the larger "meta" union structure is.
  •  Re: SEIU leans Dean (none / 1)

    Part of the intra-union dynamic going on here is electability versus loyalty.  Labor has been kicked around badly by both Bush and the Repub Congress.  Look for huge labor GOTV efforts next year.

    The Painters' endorsement is huge.

    •  Re: SEIU leans Dean (none / 0)

      Of course, there's no evidence that Dean is any more electable than Gephardt.  To the extent that there's any evidence that either of them is more electable -- in the form of head-to-heads against Bush -- Gephardt comes out slightly ahead.
  •  Why is Labor Soft On Dick? (2.00 / 2)

    I thought the GOP accidentally let it slip to  WaPo that Gephardt is their worst nightmare??

    Doesn't Labor Bite Dick Hurts Bush??  Balz says Dick is too big for Buch to handle?

    Kos are you going to be "Gratuitous" and attack Clark until super tuesday?  Can't you stay above it, like Gov. Dean?  

    You're starting to sound like Kerry and Lieberman with all your dismissive critiques and neo-unelectable analysis.

    If he's that bad off why bother to waste your time that could be spent with a paid client?

    ps, The winner of a contested IOWA Caucus has
    been elected President only twice, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:05:50 AM PDT

    •  Um, Bush (none / 0)

      Yeah, that guy won the caucuses and the presidency. Oh, and didn't Clinton win in 92? I could be wrong about that.

      "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

      by Marshall on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:16:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Um, Bush (none / 0)

        No.  Harkin won in '92.  Bill Clinton lost both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary (a quite likely scenario for this cycle's eventual nominee as well).

        - J.R.

        Please step away from the Kool-Aid! We're only trying to help..

        by Stratagem on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Um, Bush (3.66 / 6)

        No, Clinton did not win Iowa in '92:  Tom Harkin, Senator from Iowa, won Iowa by a landslide.  Kerrey came in second, Clinton may have placed 4th.

        Clinton also didn't win in New Hampshire that year.  Former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas did.

        Next up that year was South Dakota - Bob Kerrey of Nebraska took that one.  And after that?  Delaware, where the flat tax of Jerry Brown won the day.

        So when did Clinton finally get a victory?  March 3rd, in Georgia.

        You know, while we all here fixate on the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, I think most American's can put it in perspective: If Gephardt wins Iowa (like I'd bet my dog he will), the average Joe will shrug his shoulders and say, so?  Favorite son.  If either Dean or Kerry win New Hampshire, same thing.  Heck, everyone here expects Dean to walk away with Maine because of our proximity to Vermont, but you know, there's a significant geographical feature in between the two states, and it's called New Hampshire!  We here all expect Dean will take NH because, heck, they actually make a nice medium-sized, rather square state if you just remove the boundary along the Connecticut River.  

        I personally think that my boy Edwards has the same problem in South Carolina.  Fact is, no one is going to get any true momentum until they take a state outside their region.  If Dean hits the Lotto and takes Iowa, then that is his momentum, not NH.   If not, he's rather cold until he takes something, anything, on Feb. 3.  Same with Gephardt, and Edwards needs something like Oklahoma or Michigan to get him going.  

        •  Re: Um, Bush (none / 1)

          Fact is, no one is going to get any true momentum until they take a state outside their region.

          I quibble with this.  Yes, winning states outside the home region is hugely valuable, but it's not the only way to establish momentum.  Clinton's second place finish in NH in '92 was a huge victory after the Gennifer Flowers and draft-dodging scandals.  It established him as "The Comeback Kid" with the big mo, setting him up for later victories.

          If Clark or Gep buck expectations and take 2nd in NH, their star will soar in the media for at least a week and is likely to bump them up in the 6 states the following week.  If Edwards gets third in Iowa, he may get some bounce by proving he resonates with Midwesterners.

          Conversely, if Dean can with NH by a double-digit margin, he gains momentum by virtue of the scale of his victory (a likely-unstoppable momentum if he also wins Iowa).

      •  Re: Um, Bush (none / 0)

        Bush didn win

        Just ask Lt. General Boykin.

        (aha ha aha ha aha ha aha ha aha)

        McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

        by Al Rodgers on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Why is Labor Soft On Dick? (none / 0)

      Can't you stay above it, like Gov. Dean?

      this is sarcastic, right?

  •  Backing a winner vs modern grassroots organizing (none / 1)

    When the AFL-CIO and other big unions came out for Gore early in 2000, wasn't that was an historical anomaly?

    As I see it, the question for unions in this race is whether to go with the candidate they believe will be the winner, or to go with the candidate who's approach to political organizing matches their own. With no consensus on who will be the winner (also a normal state of affairs) that leaves political organizing as the decisive factor.

    I've worked alongside SEIU folks in campaigns, and they are are definitely a union that has been re-inventing organizing in recent years. Dean's reinvention of grass-roots campaigning seems to fit quite naturally with the SEIU's, so it makes sense they would lean toward him.

    But, as Dennis Riviera showed in endorsing Pataki in the last NY governors election, this is a canny union that is not above making deals and getting behind the winner. Not that organizing and deal-making are necessarily at odds, but I suspect the natural friction between those approaches is one reason in this election that many unions such as the SEIU have been cautious to endorse anyone.

    Based on my experience, any candidate who gets the SEIU's endorsement before the primaries will be extremely fortunate.

  •  Money...it's a crime (none / 0)

    Gephardt, win or lose in Iowa, will be out of money in March, and will be creamed by Bush for months

    This is a crucial point. This is when Bush will spend his $250 million, from March until September, during his "primary" campaign. This is why it's crucial we pick a nominee early; if Dean wins Iowa and NH I hold my nose and go all out for Dean. (As of right now Dean is best positioned to fight Bush's money with money of his own, but any single Democratic nominee will be plugged in to the Internet base of small donors. Dean does have a very impressive head start.)

  •  OT, but Lehane is officially joining Clark04 (none / 0)

    That same Note that Kos references in this post also had this bit:
    "The Clark campaign is also ann