Dems down, Dean rising

Dean determined to save party

These were the headlines that greeted me today along with a picture of Dean speaking at Dartmouth last week, in the Connecticut Valley Spectator. The artice starts;

Hanover - Don't write Howard Dean off yet. The former Vermont Governor is, in fact, a reborn warrior who's set his sights squarely on the mission of reuniting both his party and his country to undo the carnage of the Nov. 2 elections.

More after the jump.

Speaking at Dartmouth College Sunday, Dean made no mention...(of whether) he is mulling a bid to become chairmain of the Democratic National Committee. But what he did say left little doubt that Dean sees himself as a leading uniter of his battered party...Dean leveled both barrels of his political furor, one at the policies and "failures" of the Bush administration and the other at the failed strategies of his own Democratic party.

Then he lit into the Repugs for claiming to be the moral ones, saying that they use scare tactics about gay rights and abortion.

Dean, sounding very much like a candidate, asked, "But where are the works of the Republicans that they dare say they have a corner on moral values?"

Saying that he doesn't see the United States as a nation divided, he calls for coalition building along moral and societal lines to unite the country.
His perscription? "To win in 2008", Dean said, "we must build the same coalition FDR built".

Again hammering on Bush and the Republican party, Dean stated " the history of mankind is littered with the bodies of those who thought they had a right to God for themselves." Saying that history is again repeating itself, Dean said the time to reverse this trend is now.

The he went after the Dems.

Dean agin sounded very much like a candidate in proclaiming "We don't need two Republican parties, and as long as I'm around we won't!...Some say we must move more toward the middle...if we move any further to the middle, we'll fall off the edge of the flat earth", he declared.

While the former Vermont governor...didn't directly answer ...if he would seek his presidential bid in 2008, he spoke all night like a candidate, if not for the leadership of his country, perhaps for the chairmanship of his party.

My hero.

Once again saying it like it is. "No retreat, no surrender", indeed.

•  Tip Jar

  I loved the article, and doubt this little paper is online - it is a weekly I think.

  Hope you guys enjoy these excerps.

  by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:11:51 PM PDT

•  he's just plain awesome

  I hope he doesn't take the DNC chair and instead elects to run again

  by maddrailin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:15:40 PM PDT

  •  Really,

    he should only take it if he can resign in '06. The renewed chance for Dean in the WH is my only solace for this sorry mess.

    by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:20:21 PM PDT

    •  I, too, have that hope.

      Although chair is a great thought as well. However, if I had to choose btw the two, I would vote for a Dean run for presidency in '08.

      Is it even possible to just take the DNC chair for two years?

      Kerry had my support, and I like him in some ways, really I do, despite the strong criticism I have aimed at his foreign policy and some of his tactics and votes. I so wish he were the declared winner (Still have no proof Bush is, due to all the irregularities, so cant bring myself to say Kerry 'lost' lost.)

      But I cant help remembering, now that Bush 'won' won -- or got many more votes than I dreamed he would, given his abysmal record --   conservative WSJ columnist, Dorothy Rabinowitz, speaking on Dean and the other contenders to Bill Moyers. This was in the primaries when Dean was front runner.

      She was talking about it within the context of our presidential elections, going on about how she loves the grand scale, the drama of them. And she felt Dean was THE worthy opponent for Bush.

      She talked about how people were revved up about Dean, how she passed a girl in the Village, NYC, wearing a Dean button and she said to Rabinowitz "He's IT!" with her eyes all aglow. She saw this great energy Dean was tapping, and she spoke admiringly of his "jut-jawed" feisty attitude. Then she went on to disparage the other contenders as old news, unexciting. She described Kerry, with a sour face, like a "sad Polish count" ... I kid you not. Colorful descriptives, she used.

      Hey, Kerry fans, he is not a sad Polish count, I know that. But Dean did demonstrate a willingness to break ground in bold ways which offer encouragement to the DLC/Establishment weary and I think that was what Rabinowitz was speaking to.  

      She was so generous in her praise of Dean that Moyers finally teased her, saying, Am I hearing that Dorothy Rabinowitz is switching sides here, for Dean?

      She, of course, threw up her arms, protested that a Democrat would be bad news in the WH, but she was definitely giving herself license to wax unfiltered in her admiration of Dean.

      It was interesting.

      by NYCee on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:44:50 PM PDT

    •  Dean

      Don't think like that.  What we should want is a situation where Dean being chair of the Democratic Party is far more important than him being in the White House.  A White House stint is only for four or eight years.  Changing a party is something that can last for a generation or more.  

      Before we can keep our eyes on the prize, we need to get clear on what exactly the prize is.  The response to November 2004 is not to think in terms of November 2008.  It is instead to think in terms of the fundamental political facts of the next fifty years.  When Dean talks about recreating a FDR-like coalition, that is exactly the sort of thinking we need.  It won't happen in four years.  And we need it to endure beyond four years.

      by mapantsula on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:33:16 PM PDT

      •  Proving the opposite point.

        Er, being head of the DNC typically doesn't last more than eight years either (Terry came in in 2001) and changing the entire country (and the world) will last for longer than a generation.

        One thing is for sure: a Dean presidency would have a much stronger legacy than the Clinton presidency did.

        by chase on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:47:10 AM PDT

        •  Actually, no

          My point was not that Dean could be chair for a generation.  That should be obvious.  My point was that we need to make generational gains at a deeper level than just the White House.  What of Clinton's legacy remains?  Not a lot now, and much less when Bush is through.  

          by mapantsula on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:28:54 AM PDT

          •  THAT I agree with.

            But if Dean is really the only person with any clout thinking like that, we're screwed anyway.

            by chase on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:09:05 PM PDT

      •  Dean in 2008~I read it often

        I have a fantasy of a Dean presidency also. But let's get real: unless something drastic happens NOW, we may not have a viable opposition party in 2006 OR 2008. I am alarmed hearing so many projections about a comeback in 2008. The Repubs are efficiently turning fascist in so many ways I cannot keep track of it. All under the radar of the average clueless American, or with their implied consent. Right now Dean has no formal position in the Democratic party. I'm not sure if the DNC chair, or the DFA head would be the faster way to effect change. But either way, he MUST take a national leadership role the most effective way possible. Who else is going to do it? I hope Dean has bodyguards.

        by dinazina on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:21:45 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        I would love to see Dean in the WH, but I'm not so sure it could even happen at this point. Before that can even become a possibility, we need to fix the party first.

        Evolving the Democratic Party should be our NUMBER ONE priority right now.

        If we go in to 2008 as screwed up, as directionless, as divided, as "unframed" as we did this year, Jesus Christ would lose to a Republican if he ran as a Democrat.

        I don't see even one other person on the horizon other than Dean even questioning the Democratic establishment. The fact that we have a DNC AND a DLC is problematic enough. We need to merge them into one organization with the same message. We don't need the DFA, MoveOn, ACT, Commom Cause, etc... We need them all to WANT to be a part or at least a division of the DNC! If we can't get our $hit together in the next 2 years, let alone 4 years, it won't matter who runs for the WH.

        DEAN FOR DNC CHAIR - it's the only way.
        

        by Czarvoter on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:48:10 AM PDT

  •  Well, if he doesn't, then Ben Barnes might get it.

    We don't want Ben Barnes in power:

    1. He's the man who failed to stand up for Max Clelland;
       
    2. He's the man who appointed Zel Miller;
       
    3. He's the man who is buddy buddy with Diebold and thinks they're just good 'ol boys.

    We already have a GOP. If Ben Barnes were to become DNC chairman, he would become GOP Jr.

    by Eternal Hope on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      I'm pretty sure it's Roy.

      by dwb115 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:37:23 PM PDT

      •  It's definitely Roy

        Believe me, I live in Georgia, and we don't want Roy. He lost to the first Republican Governor in Ga. in over 50 years.

        by madcat on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:52:50 PM PDT

  •  He was killed in the last election because the DLC

    controls the party apparatus.  If he takes over the party aparatus it will be better for progressives as a whole.  Unless we do take it over the same thing will happen to him or any candidate like him in 2008.  

    by NoAlternative on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:43:04 AM PDT

•  One Quibble With Dean

  We don't win by building the same coalition that FDR had, because his coalition was built outward from the urban ethnic machines (which no longer exist) and the Jim Crow solid south (which no longer exists, but which in some ways the Southern Republicans who now have federal power in much of the south look back on with fondness).  

  If he say a broad-based and diverse coalition that transcends class, region, race and religion, that's great.  But we have to build a new coalition, because the FDR coaltion and the Reagan coalitions are done, and both parties are struggling to build a dominant electoral majority.  

  by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:27:57 PM PDT

  •  I am sure he means

    we need to get the poor whites back by fighting for them, instead of selling them down the river to pander to the Corperate interests.

    by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:31:19 PM PDT

  •  But the FDR coalition can be updated

    to include southern blue collar women and northern techies

    by southlib on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:17:53 PM PDT

    •  How about

      Native Americans.  Could we get a politician to actually pay attention to their problems and needs.  And all the tribal money the BIA has "misplaced?"

      by SarahLee on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:05:12 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    The Dems need to run on something more than the New Deal.  We still need to remind people of the New Deal's importance, but we need so new unifying principles to go forward.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:39:00 PM PDT

  •  FDRing

    Exactly right.  The old coalition is thankfully dead, thanks to Johnson. And good riddance to it.  But a new coalition needs to be built from the urban base, from minorities, from conservative union workers, from middle class mothers, from those who recoil at bigotry, from those who live in reality.

    I posted elsewhere that in some ways Clinton's charisma obscured the loss of the majority coalition that was in place up until the civil rights act.  The only other election that was won was because of Watergate and Carter's Georgianity.  If we continue to think that US politics is about waiting for the next election with a more marketable candidate, we will continue to lose.  There will not be another Clinton for quite some time - no deus ex machina.  Can you imagine Edwards surviving a blowjob?  If we continue looking for the glitter, we will lose sight of the fact that we have been incredibly lazy at building a majority coalition in the deep structure of American society.  We have not spent enough time thinking about building a real party that can play a permanent role in American life.  What Dean did in the primaries and Kerry did up until Nov 2 needs to be nurtured, cultivated and spread intelligently.  Otherwise every election year it will be the same old same old bootstrapping a feeble wave of emotion across the plains.  

    by mapantsula on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:42:49 PM PDT

•  FDR coalition

  Funny that Dean is talking about the FDR coalition.  It's surprised me, that I actually disagree with something Dean said.  The New Deal coalition is dead, as far as the Democratic party is concerned, and we'd better accept that.

  In any case, what's particularly amusing is this little bit of trivia:  

  What two states never once voted for FDR?

  Answer:  Maine and Vermont.
  

  by DaveOinSF on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:32:20 PM PDT

  •  When the working poor

    and the lower middle and mainsteam middle class southern whites find themselves living in "Hoovervilles" again, you might be suprised how "The New Deal" will resonate.

    by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:46:03 PM PDT

    •  Hooverville

      Our daughter was in the "Annie" play this summer and everytime in rehearsal and during the play I couldn't help but think about how bad  W is screwing up when they got to "Hooverville".

      And hoping I don't end up in one.

      by wph on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:17:17 PM PDT

  •  The New Deal Coalition Is Alive and Well

    The New Deal Coalition consisted of Urban Voters, Immigrants, Labor Unions and African Americans.  If it were dead, George Bush would have made John Kerry look like Alf Landon.

    All it will take is the right candidate at the right time to bring it back into majority status.

    JR

    by JR Monsterfodder on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:41:08 PM PDT

    •  rural voters

      used to be the backbone of the Democrats. completely sold out by them. no wonder they are all GOP now. anyone know of a former rural county that went FDR and is now solidly GOP? looking to do research in one of them...

      by ihlin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:09:54 PM PDT

      •  But when was the last time

        A national Democrat went all out on a rural issue?  Campaigned to help small farmers fight against the big agribusinesses?  While the rural population has declined and their leverage at the table is down- there are a lot of rural issues that are social justice based and the Democratic silence on these issues (in exchange for a lot of money from agribusiness) has been felt as a stinging betrayal in a lot of rural areas.  Jesse Jackson actually made a good start taking the party in that direction with his W. Va.-D.C. outreach program.  Never heard what became of it though.

        by Myrkury on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:54:14 PM PDT

        •  another such issue

          back when I was buying wood to make guitars, I bought some from a guy in Northern Idaho.  Turns out that it's very hard for a small operation to log on National forest land.  You have to be willing to wipe out large areas of trees to make it worth the forest service's time.  This guy was supporting a batch of people on a few logs a year.

          I think we need to give up on the "every tree is sacred" approach.  Then we can drive the forest service towards an ecologically sound forest management that emphasises small businesses cutting a reasonable number of trees.  As it is, we've alienated enough people that we're steadily moving back towards the bad old days.

          by unterhausen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:33:59 PM PDT

          •  Build cities

            Why not just offer to build cities and provide jobs to rural communities?

            by Lucian on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:01:58 PM PDT

        •  that's what i meant

          Democrats have sold them out big time, worst of all was Clinton and NAFTA/GATT/Freedom to Farm. terrible betrayals of our FDR legacy. i don't blame rural folks for not voting Dem anymore.

          Feingold, Harkin, the late Wellstone, those are some of the few left who bother speaking up for farmers and against corporate agribusiness (hell, Wellstone got arrested regularly protesting foreclosure of farmers).

          if you speak up for rural America, they will then likely overlook whatever disagreements they have with you on the "God, guns gays" social issues. see Feingold's smashing victory in Wis. don't speak up for them, then the GOP picks them off with the faith, family values stuff.

          by ihlin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:35:35 PM PDT

•  sealed records?

  Did the courts ever unseal Dean's records?  did anyone bother to go through them after he dropped out?  Was there nothing to worry about?

  There was an article in the Atlantic several months back that concerned me because it seemed that Dean was very concerned about the records.

  If he runs again, I hope that is not an issue.  If it is an issue, I think he should either deal with it now or not run again.

  by avoter on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:43:53 PM PDT

  •  Records

    I don't know about the sealing issue, but as I recall the issue during the campaign was that Dean supposedly sealed more of his records than any other former governor.

    It came to light after the primary that, in fact, Dean had actually sealed less records than any other Vt. governor.  Due to an error when Dean was moving out of his office in Montpelier, dozens of boxes had been sent to the archive mistakenly labeled as records he wanted sealed, inflating the tally.

    by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:56:43 PM PDT

    •  However...

      ...he asked to have the records sealed longer than any previous Governor had been able to seal their records.  As I remember, he was rebuffed, and his records are sealed for a fairly standard period of time, I think until 2007.  

      Dean's big problem in the whole records dustup was his mistake in saying something like "I don't want this records to become public if I'm running for some other office," which made it look like he had something bad to hide, and whether he did or didn't, it was an incredibly maladroit thing to say.  Of course what Dean tried to do wasn't that out of line with most outgoing Govs, and it's nothing, absolutely nothing compared with what Bush succeeded in keeping his Gubenatorial records sealed for a loooonnggg time, possibly forever.

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:50:49 PM PDT

      •  There was a little-noticed

        article in June--that I'm having trouble locating now, so you'll have to take my word for it--that the volume of records in question had been overstated by more than half.  Making his sealed records from a long Vermont career actually smaller than those of the previous executive.  Anyone have this reference?  I'll keep Googling.

        It was annoying to me that Dean did not immediately release all these records, but to not do so is entirely routine for Governors, and he was acting at the advice of his counsel at the time.  Tempest in a teapot, indeed.  Let's hear about how he claimed Osama didn't do it now...garfield, you out there?

        by ubikkibu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:38:44 PM PDT

      •  From what I recall

          The length of time a Vermont governor can seal his records is pretty flexible, and -- at least when Dean was governer -- the governer pretty much got to pick it.

          As I recall, Dean used the same standard his predeccesor used: The same number of years he held office.

          It's arbitrary, sure. But who cares? You really think there's something nasty in Dean's records that matches, oh, a certain Governor's callous disregard to his duty to review capital cases?

          Bush has shown -- if nothing else -- that a ballsy enough guy can overcome anything in his past. Well, in Bush's case -- not the live boy. The Right would eat him.

        by Morat on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:58:24 PM PDT

      •  No, no, no . . .

        I love how this kind of stuff enters into the public mind and just gets accepted as fact.

        What happened was that Madeleine Kunin in the 80s sealed her records for 6 years because that's how long she was governor. It had no real significance beyond that. Her successor, Snelling, died in office, so he never had a chance to choose the term for his records, so the Sec of State (coincidentally, Jim Douglas the current GOP Governor of VT) just chose 6. What the hell, why not? That is the full history of the "6 year tradition." Two Governors, only one of whom actually chose that number and that was just because that was how long her term was.

        In fact, giving all the records to the State Archives at all is a fairly recent phenomenon. Most previous Governors kept a lot of their "personal" files in private collections. There are still records of Phil Hoff (Governor in the 60s) that are not public.

        But, your main point (that Dean's, um, joke about why he chose that amount of time caused unnecessary heart-ache and was the real gaffe) is certainly true. btw, I was actually in the room when he said that. He was chuckling. I winced, thinking "that wasn't a smart thing to say."

        by BriVT on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:55:50 PM PDT

        •  There's video of him saying that

          And it's obviously a joke. Any reporter worth their salt would have written something along the lines of "The Governor jokingly suggested..." whenever they ran that quote.

          They certainly would have for Bush, that kidder.

          by Malacandra on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:39:39 PM PDT

      •  He refused to release them

        ... even fighting with his staff who begged him to release them.
        Just principle? Or, something to hide?

        Advice of council means not good news for citizens.

        by geri on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:34:40 AM PDT

  •  who cares ?

     That kind of crap is just a political dust up. There is no issue there, and if you think people are going to vote on someone's sealed records you have to pay more attention to what happened on Nov. 2.

     If people won't vote aginst someone that turned a record surpluse into a record deficit. They won't give one wiff about some records they don't even get to see.

    by JoshInWa on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:09:24 PM PDT

  •  The "sealed records" narrative ...

    is most like likely an Hitchcockian Mc Guffin.  

    You have to look into what is defined as "documents belonging to the public record" for the state of Vermont [as you would for any state].  Most likely, for valid historical purposes, every piece of correspondence from the Governor including e-mails are part of the "official public record".  

    To make this short and sweet, can you imagine every e-mail you've ever sent asking some (s)ucker to get off his/her ass to do something that you've asked them to do were under public scrutiny?  To get things done in this world of ours, you can't be held to some stupid PC standard of language.  Chief Executives in public office routinely invoke "executive privilege" for this very reason, knowing there are vultures who want to exploit every non-scriped interaction.

    by Glinda on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:55:51 PM PDT

•  Apologies if this was posted elsewhere ...

  I couldn't find the "strategy" diaries for the "fraud" trees.  [I've gotta recommend this diary!]

  please look at Howard Dean Disputes Media View that 'Values' Swung Election

  Now this is a man who knows how to win a boxing match!  No kid gloves here!  

  Dean for DNC Chair!

  by Glinda on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:53:43 PM PDT

  •  No kid gloves

    "The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country," Dean charged. "I know George Bush. I served with him for six years [as a fellow governor]. He's not a homophobe. He's not a racist. He's not a sexist. In some ways, what he did was worse ... because he knew better."

    Ouch.  Go, man, go.

    I think Dean is struggling as much as anyone else to sort out what happened and where Democrats need to go.   Although, when I heard that Jerry Falwell was reviving the Moral Majority and was going to form a new grassroots group... I knew that would be like a red rag to a bull where Dean is concerned.  

    by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:06:41 PM PDT

    •  argh

      imagine if that were said in the debates.

      damn there were so many ways to turn bush on his head that we didn't try...
      

      by tunesmith on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

      •  All in the name of

         appealing to the vital middle. We have go to get rid of the DLC. Kerry's loss has made that a possibility.

        by Bryce in Seattle on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:45:30 PM PDT

    •  he basically calls Bush a war criminal

      The article you link to has been getting a lot of commentary around the blogosphere, mainly for Dean calling out Bush for being a racist, sexist, etc.  But what has not been mentioned (that i've seen, anyway), is that by linking Bush to Milosevic, he's basically calling Bush a war criminal.  No two ways about it--Dean wants to make that connection.  He could have just as easily compared Bush to some US dixiecrat like Strom Thurmond.  That he brought up Milosevic is a BIG deal.

      To be honest, I think Dean's already decided to run in 2008.  He's already talking like a candidate.  A 4-year campaign for the Presidency....  

      by ziggy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:43:52 PM PDT

      •  Hey,

        I am down with that. Following Howard and working for him gives me great hope. Besides, we need an opposition party in this country, and apparently, Dean are it.

        by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:48:59 PM PDT

      •  And the beauty

        And the beauty of it is, most rural voters don't even know who Milosevic is, so they can't get offended.

        Lefties, on the other hand, know who he is.

        Is part of the problem in keeping the left from flying the coop, that centrist Dems have not used the right code words?

        In trying to bring a coalition of two sides, you use code words that one side understands, but that the other doesn't.  

        "Milosevic":
        The progressives hear "War criminal."
        The rural conservatives hear crickets.

        What's a code word that Dean could use with rural conservatives that would be inaudible or inoffensive to progressives?  (preferably, something he would have understanding of from Vermont?)

        by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:35:40 PM PDT

        •  Milosevic

          NYCO, I'm curious about this post.  You have an amazing insight into the american political spectrum.

          But what is the rationale behind red staters not getting the Milosevic connection?  Is this something you've experienced in upstate NY?  Or does this stem from the fact that the Republicans were against the bombing in Serbia?

          I have to say, this is something that has never crossed my mind, quite possibly because I've lived in Seattle for so long, but even when I lived in red-states, I never felt people were that uninformed.

          by Bailey on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:51:04 PM PDT

          •  Hotwords

            It really doesn't have to do with being informed.  It has to do with emotional responses to concepts.

            No, I think it's just as simple as the fact that while most people are familiar with who Milosevic is... "Milosevic" is not a "hotword" for non-progressives.  Certainly not for the rightwing, working-class people I know in places like Oswego County.  Now, "Saddam Hussein" is a hotword for them.   "Adolf Hitler" is a hotword for them (it's one for everybody).

            If Dean said, "Bush is a war criminal, like Milosevic," yes, everyone would take notice.  But codewords, slipped into speeches obliquely, don't have that effect.  They have more instant significance to this group, than they do to that group.   It has to do with how things are received and interpreted.  

            What a guy in Oswego County hears:

            "The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to HOMOPHOBIA, when you appeal to SEXISM, when you appeal to RACISM, that is extraordinarily DAMAGING TO THE COUNTRY.  I know George Bush.  I served with him for six years. He's not a homophobe. He's not a racist. He's not a sexist. In some ways, what he did was worse ... because he knew better."

            The stuff in capital letters are negative hotwords for Oswego Guy.   The stuff in italics is soothing.  The stuff that's neither capitalized or italicized is of relatively less emotional impact.

            But a progressive hears this:

            "The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that *SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC* used in Serbia. When you appeal to HOMOPHOBIA, when you appeal to SEXISM, when you appeal to RACISM, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country.  I know George Bush.  I served with him for six years. He's not a homophobe. He's not a racist. He's not a sexist. In some ways, WHAT HE DID WAS WORSE ... because he knew better."

            This is armchair psychology of course but I suspect it's not way way off the mark.  

            My ultimate point is that in an age when every speech gets reported on in the media and is accessible to all, a canny speaker who is trying to appeal to diverse constituencies can theoretically soothe one group while firing the other up at the same time - if the right words are chosen.  The problem is that our current political discourse tends to center all around mutual hotwords that are well known:  "Rights."  "Choice."  "Values."  "God."  etc.   These words have a high emotional content and have clashing meanings to the different groups.

            Why not instead choose words which have high emotional impact (and "hidden meanings" too) to one group, while being utterly nondescript to the other group?  It's sort of like framing, but with a twist.  It is literally how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth.

            Where do you think the religious right gets its marching papers from?  They listen intently to the code words being used by the rightwing politicians.  Code words that the left doesn't even hear.

            A canny politician should be able to speak at the same time to two opposite audiences and have them go away thinking that he's been speaking directly to them.

            (Personally, I don't think Dean had any grand design with this statement, but it's good enough for a theoretical example I suppose.)

            by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:06:41 PM PDT

            •  Dred Scott

              Kind of like when Bush mentioned Dred Scott in connection with his judicial appointments during the second debate.

              Most folks didn't know what he meant, but it was something historical, but it's vaguely good that our President Knows Stuff We Don't.

              Most of us were going, "WTF?!?".

              And his Christian Right base was going "Excellent! Pro-Life!!!".

              by Malacandra on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:56:54 PM PDT

              •  True but

                The Dred Scott was a great example of code talking at its best.  (And, if I remember correctly, Bush had completely mangled the meaning of the Dred Scott decision anyway in that debate, but merely mentioning it sent off good vibes to his base.)

                As some of us on the left have come to find out, Dred Scott actually meant something to some people--it's an argument used in rightwing publications and no doubt sprinkled in Sunday morning sermons.

                My question is more of a "why Milosevic" in general.  Although I understand the method of framing a discussion and using subtle cues of language, I guess I'm still not seeing the reasoning why Milosevic would somehow trigger urban blue staters rather than rural red staters.  

                I mean, is there some documentation out there that supports the theory that rural Americans don't understand the history and devastation brought on by Milosevic?  Or that it doesn't seem important to them?  Is this something that urban voters discuss more than their rural counterparts?

                by Bailey on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:24:13 PM PDT

                •  Milosevic

                  My question is more of a "why Milosevic" in general.  Although I understand the method of framing a discussion and using subtle cues of language, I guess I'm still not seeing the reasoning why Milosevic would somehow trigger urban blue staters rather than rural red staters.  

                  Well, it doesn't necessarily - but it certainly seemed to trigger some people here.  So I was just using it as an example.

                  As for the talk on the other thread about "Ooh, Dean shouldn't have said that, he'll offend people!" -- another thing the Democrats do that Republicans don't do, is parse their candidates' words so publicly and then worry openly about how it will affect the other side.  The religious right listen to and understand their code words, but they don't blab them all over the airwaves, picking them apart, and being worrywarts.  They allow themselves to be energized with righteous fervor, then retire to their quiet corners and work.

                  The religious right doesn't worry about what others think.  They know that people will follow someone strong and wrong every time.  

                  by NYCO on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:38:29 AM PDT

                  •  Sort of

                    I think the Religious Right cares very much about their public image, probably more so than democrats in general.  The difference is that the Religious Right and the GOP do not openly fret over their image, opting instead to hone their image in private, and freak out in private when their image goes awry.  This is why we have not heard over corporate news that Bush's biggest voting bloc believes God speaks through Bush, because they know that voicing their true beliefs in public would result in a violent backlash.

                    In fact part of the carefully crafted image for Bush is that he doesn't care about polls, which is utter bullshit.  But the GOP maintains this image by not having any Bush aides jabber to journalists about the latest polls and how Bush will change his style or speeches to help in the polls.  That was a major problem with Clinton - it seemed with every poll, some White House staffer would talk to the press of how they planned to deal with the poll, and thus gave the impression that Clinton was influenced by polls more than other presidents.

                    by Subterranean on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:44:50 PM PDT

        •  Accidentally gave you a 3 ...

          It was late at night.  It's nice to see you can correct yourself.  This is most certainly a 4.

          I have been thinking about your analysis all day and have decided you've nailed it perfectly.  I just checked the freeper site and they are all over Dean about this speech.  But they are obsessing about the use of "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia".  The Milosevic line did not even phase them ... "crickets"!  

          I'll bet the smarter members of the right-wing will not go near that line with a 10-foot pole either.  They want at all costs to avoid weeks and weeks of pundits' articles putting Bush's name in the same sentence as the phrase "war criminal" even it is in an effort to tear down Dean.  I'll bet they ignore the speech altogether.  

          I really hope they do tear into Dean for that speech.  Think of the pithy "I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him"  (mis-quote intended) columns that could be written about how Dean is way out of line in comparing Bush to Milosevic. [Sample: "Milosevic slaughtered his own countrymen because of centuries-long ethnic hatreds.  Bush slaughtered the citizens of a country clear across the globe because their leader threatened his daddy."]

          BTW what happened to the diary about this that mimi9 opened up.  Seems to have disappeared.

          by Glinda on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:59:35 PM PDT

      •  Milosevic

        That he brought up Milosevic is a BIG deal.

        Someone ought to do a separate diary on this and get some attention on it.  Maybe if Kos picks it up the blogosphere will pick it up and then the foreign press will.

        by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:46:22 PM PDT

        •  there is this diary

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/13/19518/579

          Some people feel that the Milosevic remark can do nothing but offend people.

          Not me.
          

          by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:12:16 PM PDT

    •  Traditional Conservatives could break off

        We have a real chance to take on the Moral Majority if we reframe this issue around freedom. i.e. "We believe in the freedom of homosexuals to pursue happiness just like everyone else."
        More over, there are cracks showing up in the conservative alliances. I think the traditional freedom loving conservatives are pissed about the takeover by the evangelical Christians because of their intent to impose a Christian dogma. We could bring win their support if we make the argument. Dean might make that arguement.

      by Bryce in Seattle on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the link,

    it's great. maybe I would feel better if I started googling for Dean stories, hearing him always makes me feel better.

    What struck me is that he made fun of "the scream" in that speech. He did in the one I quoted too, in fact I think he does it all the time! Do you guys remember when Monday night Football started this year? Dean doing a spoof of "the scream" was in one of their commercials.

    The guy is running for Pres again, no one works that hard to undo something to be the DNC chair.

    by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:13:40 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      He is running for president not DNC chair.

      by ECH on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:15:50 PM PDT

    •  spoofing The Scream

      He's still spoofing it.  I think he has a commercial running now on AAR for some book promotion where he not so subtly yells the state names when he gets to them.  Gotta love em.

      by dalemac on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:55:43 PM PDT

      •  I think you must mean

        the Yahoo! commercial I heard on my local all-news AM station and laughed out loud.  I thought it was an ad for his book at the time, too, oddly enough.

        Dean is prepping the way for a Presidential run in '08, if you ask me.  What he's doing at the moment goes to nationwide sentiment about him, not sentiment within the party, in my view.

        Here's a link to an article about the ad:

        Boston.com

        And here's the specific bit of text that describes the ad, for those who are wondering what the heck is being talked about here!:

        In the Yahoo! Local ad, Dean makes light of the tempestuous side of his nature that contributed to the undoing of his campaign, shouting out the names of states in his guttural growl.

        ''Yahoo! Local has helped me find all sorts of things, like books stores in IOWA! and convention centers in NEBRASKA! and some very interesting diners in ILLINOIS!," Dean says in the advertisement. ''Next week I'm doing a book signing in OHIO! And then we're going to stroll through some museums in CALIFORNIA!"

        He concludes, ''I'm just trying to get people more excited about the Democratic process," adding ''My sentiments exactly" as an announcer yodels the name ''Yahoo!"

        by Loquatrix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:46:29 PM PDT

      •  Yahoo! local

        He does a radio commerical for Yahoo! local, where he talks about finding bookstores in CALIFORNIA! or coffeeshops in IOWA! or museums in MICHIGAN! before unwinding in WASHINGTON D.C.!

        Then you hear the "Yahoo!" yodel and Dean comes back on and says "My sentiments exactly".

        by DaveOinSF on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:49:57 PM PDT

    •  A bit tired.

      Actually, if you've seen Howard more than once this summer, you'll realize that spoofing "the scream" and the lead-up speech is his standard intro now.  I'm all for self-deprecation, but he could freshen it up now.  (Although most folks probably haven't attended more than one Dean speech this summer and fall, so perhaps I protest too much.)

      For example, In Denver he began his rally a month ago with something like "Boy we're sure running a hectic schedule here.  I just got in to DIA to go to Denver for a couple hours, and then right after that we're heading out to Arizona.  And then we're gonna go to Portland, and we're gonna TO DES MOINES, and we're gonna go SAN FRANCISCO, and..."

      Ahh, nevermind.  I like it.

      by ubikkibu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:43:59 PM PDT

      •  Just rub our noses in it why don't you?

        You obviously live nowhere near the Carolinas. I don't think he's been within 5000 miles of here since dropping out.

        I pity you having to listen to Dean MULTIPLE times this summer.  Send him this way when you get really sick of listening to him.  PLEASE.

        by wph on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:02:02 PM PDT

        •  Ouch.

          (rubs face from smackdown)  Clearly I protest too much.

          I have no influence in Burlington, but I do hope Howard will share the wealth, so to speak.  Tom Hughes mentioned in the conference call Thursday that Governor Dean had visited 25 states in the last few months, "and will probably hit the other 25 in the future."

          Here is a page listing Governor Dean's upcoming public appearances, although in my experience it's not been updated that regularly.

          by ubikkibu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:51:34 AM PDT

      •  It's classice

        Turning a liability into a strength (or at least into a non-issue)

        by tango on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:30:45 PM PDT

  •  God, I hope he was joking:

    No part of me is pierced that I'm willing to discuss publicly.

    by DaveOinSF on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:08:37 PM PDT

    •  Body piercings

      I haven't seen the old crushies running around here lately, but I'm willing to bet some of those folks would be happy to check whether he's joking or not!   ;-)

      by Bailey on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:43:28 PM PDT

      •  Although not an official "crushie",

        i have been known to cruise the site from time to time. I would highly doubt that Howard has a piercing, he is endearingly square. He and his family could step onto the set of "Leave it to Beaver" pretty easily, he is a very 50's kind of guy somehow. Funny part of his appeal - he made you believe all that stuff you were taught abot America in 2nd grade, that you had realized since you "grew up" was a bunch of crap. Or, made you believe America could be like that if we "took it back".

        by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:31:30 PM PDT

        •  Piercing

          I have it on good authority that Howard does indeed have a piercing.  It's his scrotum, and there's a pair of 5lb brass orbs hanging off.

          by wph on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:38:24 PM PDT

          •  Take a 4

            for that, wish I could make it an eight.

            by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:59:04 PM PDT

  •  Good article

    Good article...but it's "cojones" not cajones (as in Senators should have more cojones). Cajones means large boxes.

    by eoglesby on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:22:08 AM PDT

•  Hu-Rah !

   Dean 08

  "He could be intemperate and impulsive... the image of wrath - his forefinger pointing, his fist pounding his palm, his eyes ablaze."

   Sean Hannity on Howard Dean? No, Theodore White on Bobby Kennedy in "The Making of the President 1968."

  by JoshInWa on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:05:35 PM PDT

  •  A 4 for the

    Marine hu-rah.  Former military?

    by John on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:15:08 PM PDT

    •  Naw . . .

       Just former Deaniac.

       Well, still Deaniac =)

      by JoshInWa on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:34:16 PM PDT

•  Terrific!

  Howard Dean is the future of the Democratic Party in my view, and if he is not elected Chair, then I'm ready to write the whole mess right off.  He is exactly what we need.  

  by lightiris on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:13:11 PM PDT

  •  I agree. And disagree.

    I agree that Howard Dean is the future of the Democratic Party, if it is to have one.

    But here's where I disagree with you:

    I'd be perfectly happy with someone else as DNC chair of s/he wants to take the party in Dean's direction - and says so, even if it's not in that many words.

    Which would mean that Dean is free to pursue the Presidency in '08.

    I think he'd make a splendid President.

    by Malacandra on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:41:57 PM PDT

•  I was at the Dartmouth talk

  When asked if he was going to run in '08, his actual answer was, "It was a lot easier for me to decide to run when I didn't know what I was getting myself into."  That made me think he might not be serious about running next time.

  But later he told a story about a young woman visiting from Texas who caused an awkward moment at a fundraiser dinner when she publicly expressed some anti-choice opinions.  Dean talked to her afterward, and she said that despite social views shaped by her evangelical Christianity, she planned to support Dean as the nominee and the president, largely because of his desire to reform healthcare, which was an issue in her family. She told him that even though she disagreed with much of what he stood for, she believed that he cared about his issues and intended to do what he said he was going to.

  Now you can take this story from a politician for whatever it's worth, but I think it was telling in two ways.  First, it was told in answer to a question about appealing to "moral values" voters, and Dean felt that conveying personal credibility was critical, a point that I agree with.

  More importantly, Dean must know that his ability to convey that credibility is one of his major assets.  And telling that kind of story, in that kind of context, adds value to that asset.

  That made me think, "ah, he IS planning to run..."

  by cerebrocrat on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:35:27 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    She told him that even though she disagreed with much of what he stood for, she believed that he cared about his issues and intended to do what he said he was going to.

    Its even better that you belive he will do what he says when you agree with him on 90% of the issues. =)

    by JoshInWa on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:45:20 PM PDT

  •  He was on Russert

    right before the election, talking about his new book. When asked about mistakes he mentioned two, chiefly the media. He stated he would not make the same mistakes, twise.

    And we will really need him by '08!

    by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:15:09 PM PDT

  •  That is EXACTLY it

    I talked to a conservative Dem last week who voted Bush on moral values not because he agreed with Bush, but because he thought that Kerry didn't have any -- i.e. that he said what he thought people wanted to hear instead of what he believed.

    This is a guy who loves his guns, hates taxes, hates social security, runs a heavy machinery business, and said he would have voted for Dean in a heartbeat. Those words. Solely because he thought that Dean had more integrity than Kerry and Bush.

    by spiderspider on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:32:50 PM PDT

    •  Actually,

      I guess I agree with that guy. The reason I love Dean so much is because he says what he believes, he does not feed you a line of bull about who he is or what he will do if elected. He cares more about the country than getting elected, which makes him a public servant. It is about time we had public servants again, instead of self-serving politicians.

      by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:45:00 PM PDT

      •  That's what scares people about him

        He means what he says. He doesn't pander. He wants change and intended to make it happen for what he believe is the good of the people of this country.

        As much as I came to like Kerry, this could not always be said about him.

        However, this is also Dean's biggest weakness as well. He telegraphs his punches. Everyone knows where he comes from and where he's going, and what he's going after.

        That's why I love the guy, but why he is a target so easily.

        by michael in chicago on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:37:55 PM PDT

      •  Trust

        Why does no one ever talk about credibility? The importance of being able to actually trust both the substance of what a leader says... and trust their ability to make good choices?

        Even though I didn't always agree with Dean's policies (Death Penalty, for one) I could always see how he rationally came to his positions... and I thought there was reasonable judgment on his part to back it up.
        

        by Malacandra on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:38:31 PM PDT

        •  Balancing ratings abuse

          I'm 4-ing your last few comments today because they're getting zeros they don't deserve.

          This one I agree with in substance as well.

          by Makeda on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:34:02 PM PDT

    •  Howard Dean, the electable candidate

      Both of my parents voted for Bush, which was to be expected, I suppose, because they're Republican. They're not big Bush fans, though, but they couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Kerry.

      During the primaries, I had both of them committed to supporting Howard Dean. My dad is a fiscal conservative, a gun owner, and a health care professional, and he admired Dean's record of balancing budgets, his A rating from the NRA, and his stance on universal health care.

      I think Dean could have brought quite a few classical conservatives over into "blue" territory, had he been given the chance. Sadly, the all-powerful farmers of Iowa had other ideas regarding the concept of "electability."

      by buddhistMonkey on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:55:00 PM PDT

      •  Same here.

        My 82 year old Republican mother has never voted dem but said she'd vote for Howard, Clark or Edwards if one of them had been the nominee.  She can't stand Kerry either.

        by nolalily on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:58:58 PM PDT

  •  Dean running in '08???

    <sarcasm on>

    But doesn't he realize Hillary already has the nomination locked up if she wants it?

    <sarcasm off>
    

    by regnaDkciN on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:58:20 PM PDT

•  aoeu

  I want Dean to do whatever he wants to do.  If he wants to be DNC chair I'm all for it, if he wants to run for President in 2008 I'm all for it.

  by TealVeal on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:55:20 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I want him to do something very constructive but would gladly support whatever makes him happy.  I just want to see more of Howard.  

    by wph on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:04:27 PM PDT

    •  Now that,

      is true love. Me, I am selfish, I want Dean in the WH where he can do me the most good. And so I can see him on TV everyday, which would make my heart go pitty-pat.

      by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:05:40 PM PDT

  •  Do you think

    he'd do anything he didn't want to do?

    He'll do what he wants, when he wants to. If he thinks he can bring about change long term as DNC chief, then he will fight for that position.

    It's his decision and he'll be the only one to make it.

    by michael in chicago on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:40:11 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      Right, which is why I'm not signing no Draft Howard for DNC petitions, or talking about leaving the Party if he's not the chairman.  Short of the unthinkable happening Dean's with the Democratic Party for a loong time.

      by TealVeal on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:16:29 PM PDT

    •  Of course it is his decision

      but he did explicitly ask his supporters--at least meetup hosts and coalition group leaders--for their opinions on him running for DNC chair.  So signing the petitions and emailing him are not wastes of time, and will certainly factor into his decision.

      by ubikkibu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:56:25 AM PDT

  •  Just so

    That's why I haven't signed on to any petitions.  I trust him to figure out where he would be most effective.  When he makes his decision, I'll back him up all the way.

    by sj on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:37:06 AM PDT

•  I don't think Dean wants to be President

  Honestly.  His comments during the campaign made me think he hardly wanted it then.  I think he mostly wants his party to stop being a bunch of marginalized, spineless wankers.

  Our hope in '08 is to find a candidate who embraces Dean's politics, but with a smoother style.

  by nclefty on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:05:33 PM PDT

  •  Dean not smooth

    that is part of his appeal.  He's a regular guy, does chores, takes care of his kids, pinches pennies, cares about his community.  

    The real anti-Bush.

    by lapin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:13:18 PM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      I mean, the country voted for a guy that can barely piece a sentence together and you want smooth?

      -5.88, -6.82

      by Debby on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:21:04 PM PDT

  •  Not President

    I think Howard would run for President in 2008 only reluctantly.  While some folk want to paint him as an egotistical careerist (which I simply cannot fathom), the more I know of him, the more I think he is simply passionate about us not losing our country, and unlike many leaders in our Party, is willing to chop wood or wash dishes if that's what will get the job done.

    Which is why I really think his sweet spot would be as DNC chair.  Although I do see the strong argument for him simply remaining as head of the DFA juggernaut.

    by ubikkibu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:47:12 PM PDT

    •  DFA juggernaut?

      Sorry, but despite a lot of energy in DFA, they're young and unorganized. Say what you will about the DNC, they've got an infrastructure. They use it horribly, but you can't just throw people and money at a problem and hope to fix it.

      That said, do you honestly believe that if Dean became DNC chair that DFA wouldn't pretty much just join up wholesale?

      by spiderspider on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:35:34 PM PDT

      •  By "juggernaut," I am

        emphasizing the swelling ranks and growing importance of DFA, not implying that it is an alternative to the DNC itself, not yet.  Young?  As an organization, of course, but many members are not spring chickens in politics nor life.  Unorganized?  I'd say decentralized, by design, although many coalition groups are eager for further plans from national HQ beyond the current mega-database of local Democratic meetings and infiltration of same.

        As to your question--I don't know what would happen.  I think Tom McMahon or Tom Hughes would likely take the reigns at DFA, and I believe Howard when he says continuing DFA is of the highest importance even if he were to become DNC chair.

        In practice, I think a huge number of DFA people would follow Howard to become involved with the DNC and to volunteer for their Democratic Parties directly--although most already do.  And that's one more reason I'd like to see him as DNC chair: thousands of grassroots leaders will come in his wake.

        by ubikkibu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:11:00 PM PDT

      •  oh my gosh, the young meme

        46 year old first time voter and serious DFA stalwart here. actually, it's a pretty mixed age, race, gender and geography bag at DFA. and we've been making some waves:

        http://tinyurl.com/57fnk
        Democracy for America Success Stories

        At the local and state level, Democracy for America and Gov. Howard Dean have reason to celebrate this year's election results. Many DFA-endorsed Dean Dozen and DFA-supported candidates won elections at all levels of government, throughout the country.

        One of the two new Democratic United States senators was a "Dean Dozen" candidate--Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Obama and the other new Democratic senator, Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), received contributions from DFA.

        One "Dean Dozen" candidate won her race for Congress, Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) and DFA contributed to five of the fourteen incoming freshman Democratic Members of Congress.

        Some of the notable non-federal success stories include:

        Both of the new Democratic governors are "Dean Dozen" candidates: John Lynch (D-NH) and Brian Schweitzer (D-Mont.)

        Two "Dean Dozen" candidates won their mayoral race: Peter Corroon was elected as mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and Tom Potter was elected as mayor of Portland, Ore.

        Democracy for America contributed more than $600,000 to 634 candidates for non-federal office. 319 of those candidates won--a 50% win-loss record.

        "Dean Dozen" candidates were elected to state legislatures in 16 states. Candidates for legislature who received Democracy for America contributions, but were not part of the "Dean Dozen," were elected in an additional 12 states.

        Democracy for America played a large role in regaining several legislative chambers for the Democrats, including: the Colorado House and Senate, the North Carolina House, the Oregon Senate, the Vermont House and the Washington Senate. DFA also helped secure a tie in the Iowa Senate.

        "Dean Dozen" candidates were elected to the bench in Alabama and Georgia.

        "Dean Dozen" candidates also won races for soil & water commission, supervisor of elections, township clerk, county commission and constable.

        Governor Dean commented on the election results:
        "The Dean Dozen candidates and the hundreds of other candidates that Democracy for America supported are the future of the Democratic Party. Win or lose, these fiscally responsible, socially progressive citizens fought to take our country back and helped spread the message that to change America, Democrats must compete everywhere, including the red states."

        Throughout the months leading up to the election, Governor Dean attended press conferences, fundraisers and campaign rallies, to help spread the DFA message and raise campaign funds for 50 candidates in 26 states. Many of you--our supporters--volunteered and financially supported these candidates as well and your actions were invaluable.

        DFA has raised over $5 million since we became an organization in March 2004. We have donated money to 748 candidates throughout the country--in 46 states and at every level of government. We believe that Democrats will return to national prominence very soon. DFA will continue to endorse and support candidates and train campaign workers and volunteers in 2005 and beyond.

        by tokyoterri4dfa on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:35:48 PM PDT

        •  Nope.

          By "young" I mean that DFA is not an old organization, so they don't have a lot of infrastructure, not that their members are young.

          Also, "decentralized" is a wonderful concept and all, but it also means that the DFA doesn't coordinate action very well, and it isn't vertically integrated like the DNC, so a lot of its costs are distributed as well.

          Not saying that there's not a lot of potential there, but in order to be a really effective organization, you'll have to take some organizational cues from the DNC, which is why Howie running the DNC would be such a boon to you.

          And yes, in reference to the above, I do think that a lot of DFA people would help Howie if he was running the DNC. Not everyone, but he'd definitely bring support with him. It was "Dean For America" first, wasn't it? Point is that I can't see current members leaving en masse because of Dean, so him running the DNC can only swell their ranks of supporters/volunteers. And he's shown that he's able to motivate and organize those people as well.

          by spiderspider on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:46:31 PM PDT

•  Let's be realistic....

  We have enough support in the progressive states.
  We need somebody who can make red states purple and purple states blue.As much as I respect Dean for standing behind what he believes in, he didn't carry anything other than his home state. For Christ's sake , Clark even won one (Oklahoma). What's going to change for Dean in 2008 ?

  by mikece on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:27:06 PM PDT

  •  What red states need

    We need somebody who can make red states purple and purple states blue.

    How about what red states need?

    I think they need someone to save them from the depraved excesses of the ascendant religious right, and somehow I don't think some DLC GOPlite person is gonna do it all that vigorously.

    DLC GOPlite will go after purple states for their 51% majority and leave the red states - and ordinary people in them - to the dogs.

    by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:47:44 PM PDT

  •  Four more years

    of BushCo.

    by Loquatrix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:48:44 PM PDT

  •  Let's see..

      Hmm. Speaking for the WASP conservatives in Texas: Dean's high NRA rating and history of fiscal conservatism. That does it for, oh, about 50% of the non-fundie crowd I know.

      He won't take your guns, and he's not about wasting money and saddling your kids with the debt.

      The "Dean as liberal" thing is utter bullshit, and if I've got faith in anything, it's his ability to shred that bullshit. He didn't really try in the primaries -- after all, primaries are about running to the base -- but everything I've seen from him says he's quite capable of hammering home a few pointed ideas.

    by Morat on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:02:59 PM PDT

    •  Dean

      Dean never got a chance to run as himself in the primaries.   I can only speak for myself that  many of the red, rural and semi-rural areas of my blue state would have gone fucking nuts for him - if they'd ever seen him up close.   We're talking places where Perot got 50% of the vote in 1992, but where Bush actually gained fewer votes this time around, than he did in some of the bluer suburban areas.

      by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:26:59 PM PDT

      •  kerry

        what was the reaction to Kerry out in your area NYCO?

        i admit, i thought the windsurfing ad they ran was incredibly effective and would really hurt Kerry in rural area.

        by ihlin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:19:41 PM PDT

        •  Kerry

          I live in a blue county in a state that rarely sees presidential ads so I'm not sure how to answer.  I suppose Kerry went down here as well as he did in other Northeastern industrial cities.

          Bush gained everywhere from 2000, however.
          Interestingly, though, the more rural Oswego County (to the north of my county, Onondaga) showed only a 2.5% gain for Bush from 2000, compared to Bush's 3% gain in Onondaga - a traditionally bluer county.  Go figure.  But then again, it's the comfortable suburbanites and exurbanites that put Bush over the top nationally.  

          by NYCO on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:33:31 PM PDT

•  Dean as Head of DNC...

  ... and the type of candidate he would be able to mentor and support - that would be a winning combination, IMHO.

  Now, to find the "Dark Horse"....

  by Timoteo on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:29:47 PM PDT

  •  Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Obama

    That's the Ticket!

    by RegenerationMan on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:49:53 PM PDT

    •  NO! Dean/Edwards, Obamba or Clark !

      Dean would make a great president.

      by checkers on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:12:55 PM PDT

      •  Yes,

        TO HELL WITH "WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE", look how wrong that was, and how far it got us. Time for "WHO WOULD BE THE BEST PRESIDENT", cause we are really going to need someone good after Bush is through.

        by PLS on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:25:58 PM PDT

      •  NO! OBAMA/Edwards, Clark

        Obama belongs at the top of a ticket for sure.  He's got the charisma, passion, and "moral clarity" to move people, and it would be a crime to put him second to someone with less charisma/oratorical ability only because that person is white.

        by Subterranean on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:30:07 PM PDT

        •  Not to me,

          I see Obama as the first black President ever. However, he will not get there with only 4 years in the Senate. As VP for 8 years he will have the experience to be taken seriously.

          by PLS on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:39:44 PM PDT

    •  No Edwards at all...

      He was ineffective as VP, why would he be more effective as a Presidential nominee?

      by Asak on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:22:12 PM PDT

      •  From a marketing standpoint,

        I'm not sure why John Edwards couldn't be our nominee.  From the coveted South, easy on the eyes, and really catches fire with the Two Americas speech.  A losing VP candidate doesn't really carry much baggage from the loss IMHO.  Speaking purely as a political marketroid, I think he could run, especially if he could extend Two Americas into a broader and more sincere set of populist ideas.

        But personally, I never liked him or trusted him.  Found him hollow, surprisingly conservative in Senate votes, and too tight with the DLC.  But "Four Trials" was a great book, still worth reading.

        by ubikkibu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:29:17 PM PDT

        •  Still doesn't answer the question

          I admit, I'm perplexed when I see so many people vaunting Edwards as the candidate in 2008.  While I agree that a losing VP slot doesn't necessarily give him a lot of negative baggage, I don't see how Edwards actually improves between now and then.

          Yes, "Two Americas" is a great theme, but it clearly crashed and burned this time around.  We can keep talking about how much it resonates, but sooner or later we're going to have to realize that it didn't.  

          Beyond that, John Edwards is a man without a political job for the next 4 years, so I fail to see how he gains any further credible experience.

          by Bailey on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:54:46 PM PDT

          •  Johnny "one speech" Edwards

            His Daddy was a mill worker. Can anyone remember one thing of substance he advocated during his campaign?

            P.S.  My heart and best wishes are with the Edwards family as they once again battle tragedy.

            by rusrivman on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:56:21 PM PDT

          •  Bizarro Kos

            is the alternative world blog where apparently I end up defending John Edwards.

            Your point about him being fairly inexperienced, and now having little opportunity to gain much more before 2008, is a very good one.  Especially since he is so fresh-faced, it makes this angle all too easy to play up.

            I still think "Two Americas" was great, but I did not hear Edwards really continue with it the same way after he became the VP candidate.  I think it did and would resonate with most of America, but that few of them got to hear it, and eventually he just started reading what Kerry's folks wrote for him.

            And as I alluded to in my previous post, I'm talking as a shallow marketing guy here when I boost Edwards.  I never felt there was much substance behind him (although "Four Trials" did convince me that somewhere in there, Edwards' heart is for the little guy). He is not the strong, progressive leader we need now, nor in 2008.

            by ubikkibu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:16 AM PDT

        •  Edwards

          Edwards caught fire like shark shit shadow.  Sure, there was a sugar high when Kerry gave him the nod, but after that there was no substance