DFA & the New Dean Organization

Howard Dean will soon announce the details of his post-campaign group.  The full-cycle from an asterisk with an internet-fueled candidacy, to a frontrunner campaign on the verge, to an also-ran, now ends.  From the shell of one of the greatest insurgent movements ever, Dean will emerge under a new organizational structure.  Roy Neel is the executive in charge of the transition, and is guiding the formation of the new organization.  What that means is that Gore and Dean are closer than ever, that Trippi's influence has completely waned, and that the decentralized netroots effort is no longer a guiding force from within Howard Dean organization.

Burlington's DFA is in its last days, the current HQ lease ends with March, and close to none of the HQ staff remain, even longtime Governor Dean office workers are moving on.  Not a single person on the HQ's webteam of "wizards & stars" is staying on with the new organization.  Check out the blog, and you'll find a couple of Iowa field crewmembers that landed off the bus in Burlington, and are now volunteering to run BFA.  The outgoing transition for DFA staff was non-existent.  Being placated by the smooth talking Neel, a few former DFA staffers have lingered on, enjoying the free-flowing presence of Dean in the office, perhaps expecting `the movement' to continue; but the implicit transition message  --not unfriendly-- that's been given to them is to transition your way to the door.  

What Dean and Gore's Neel appear to be doing is forming a non-campaign organizational staff of about 30-35, and composed of sidelined allies. The move, with a lower prioritized webteam comprised of three, abandons the Trippi-led decentralized netroots structure of DFA in favor of something more establishment-like in structure, leaving the decentralized netroots movement to run on its own, outside their command.  

Dean will support Kerry this November (they are meeting next week in DC), but Dean, like everyone, knows the March potential of Kerry could be an empty November promise of Bush.  It's plausible.  Nader polls 2-3 times his 2000 showing in two recent polls--probably a high water mark, but still.  Kerry might do everything right that he could, and still wind up losing a plurality victory to Bush 8 months from now.  The GOP, like the LA Lakers, has been off its game for months, but the only peak that matters is in the playoffs.  

Perhaps this analysis is tilting at windmills -(like that Iowa prediction, ha)- and nominee Kerry will build a unity bridge in 2004 that makes the difference, wins the Presidency and make us all happy campers.  The stated rationale for Dean's new organization will be to "hold Kerry's feet to the fire" and it should, throughout the election, and even more so during the possible Kerry Presidency.  If Kerry really wants the Presidency, he'll give Dean power and a pulpit.  

Howard Dean, in making such a clean break from the decentralized netroots origins within which he rose to national prominence, and embracing Gore's out-of-power establishment even further, solidifies an out-of-power alliance that would seek to fill the leadership void in the wake of a 2004 Kerry defeat.  Dean's DNC-like organization will be Plan B for January of 2005 for the Democratic Party and the DNC (not to mention, there's also a plan that starts with a C).

•  Attribution?

  Thanks for the interesting post, Jerome. Where did you get the info?

  by bunny on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 03:57:05 PM PDT

  •  From the inside

    by kos on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:47:56 PM PDT

    •  Inside

      I think the only "inside" might be inside Howard Dean's head.  :-)

      by NYCO on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:48:54 PM PDT

      •  More like inside a coffee cup

        I'm responding late to this because I read it yesterday, then thought for a long long time about it.  A couple of examples of what doesn't ring true for me:

        the decentralized netroots effort is no longer a guiding force from within Howard Dean organization.

        I disagree--the grassroots were an important force because they got the word out but a guiding force?  I believe the grassroots will have a role to play in DFA 2.0.  Had you been outside the Gannett building on Saturday you would have seen the grassroots are still strong and Howard wouldn't blow them off.

        Burlington's DFA is in its last days, the current HQ lease ends with March, and close to none of the HQ staff remain, even longtime Governor Dean office workers are moving on.  Not a single person on the HQ's webteam of "wizards & stars" is staying on with the new organization.

        This isn't news.  I believe the lease ends in April, not March. But you're also dissing two new people, Tanner and Alison, who have stepped in and done a fine job manning BFA. As for the "wizards & stars", I know that some of the technical people will remain and there will likely be contracts with other DFA technical folks who want to start their own company.  Knowing Howard's propensity for fiscal conservatism, their network won't want to pay a big price for infrastructure, only for results.

        Then I get to the last paragraph and think, this whole analysis is no better than the mainstream media, and certainly no more accurate. Look, I'm not being snarky and I'm not a troll: You haven't identified your source(s). Even though Kos says you're getting it from the inside, I'm abiding by that old journalistic truism: Trust but verify.  

        by mini mum on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:22:42 AM PDT

        •  I kinda think he's right

          This is the part that rings very true:

          "Howard Dean, in making such a clean break from the decentralized netroots origins within which he rose to national prominence, and embracing Gore's out-of-power establishment even further, solidifies an out-of-power alliance that would seek to fill the leadership void in the wake of a 2004 Kerry defeat.  Dean's DNC-like organization will be Plan B for January of 2005 for the Democratic Party and the DNC (not to mention, there's also a plan that starts with a C)."

          The Democratic party is fracturing into the Clinton Party and the Gore Party with the former holding the latter in very unseemly, rude contempt.  If Kerry doesn't win in November (and thats up to a whole lot of people who aren't us and are barely paying attention now), Dean could be key to putting the Gore Party in charge, which would be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.  

          by Lois on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 03:47:09 PM PDT

          •  DEM Party fracture

            The Democratic party is fracturing into the Clinton Party and the Gore Party ...

            It was splintering in 2000.  The Clintonistas remain angry that Gore didn't use Clinton in his campaign in 2000.  The DNC was furious about Gore's populist rhetoric in his convention speech.  And I'll bet Gore rues the day he made a concession to the DNC and selected Lieberman.

            Also Gore saw up close those in the Party who were enthusiastic in their support for him and those who behaved like the Party insiders did in 1972.  He was shunned by the Party after winning.  The Party drums banged for over two years that he should not run again.  The Party would have been satisfied with Gore as the leader if he behaved like GWB and followed orders.  Wonder if Kerry will do so.    
            

            by Marie on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 03:42:09 AM PDT

•  Dean should devote himself to Kerry's election

  Let's hold Kerry's feet to the fire after he wins, but the Dean organization can't be about criticizing Kerry as insufficiently Deanesque or it will hurt Kerry's chance to beat Bush in the fall.  Make no mistake, if Bush wins, he appoints 3 Supreme Court Justices and rolls back our civil liberties in the name of the war on terror, and perhaps ushers in an era of Republican dominance for 40 years or more.  We need to bury our sectarian differences and focus on beating Bush NOW! And the new Dean-Neel alliance should be all about that, NOT about making vague characteralogical criticisms of Kerry that play into Bush's hands.

  by pontificator on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:01:45 PM PDT

  •  Umm

    post-dropout, I don't think Dean has been anything but supportive of Kerry. In fact, he said Kerry would probably be the next prez (his pre-gridiron dinner remarks).

    by joojooluv on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:04:45 PM PDT

    •  Some people will always see Dean as Nader mark II

      I was fighting with someone on another board who was trying to say that Dean was thinking about running along with Nader.

      Personlly, I think the media has done a very good job of convincing American Dean is this crazy angry ultra left wing fanatic, of course most of those people are already forgetting who Dean was, other then he was that guy that angry guy that screams and stuff.

      by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:15:20 PM PDT

      •  mind you when I say public

        I am taking about the 69% of people that said in August that Saddam was responsable for 911. I mean I understand many in the media and especially the assholes at Bush and company were hinting at it and even connected the two, but if American people continue to be so dumb to not even be informed about why we are going to war and who caused the greatest terrorist attack in American history and who didn't then I fear for the future of democracy. Some day down we just might end up going down a wrong and terrible road once again, but next time it we might not be able to make it out of the pit.

        by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:28:00 PM PDT

        •  dean and nader

          there was a post on dkos a few weeks back on how nader wanted to run with dean, not the other way around.

          by delphis on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:16:49 PM PDT

  •  If Kerry looses it won't be because of Dean.

    And, yes I am sure that Dean will help him and campaign with him, but this is also a continuing battle for the heart and soul of the democratic party. If Kerry wins and ends up spending four years ignoring the base of the party which was a major flaw of Clinton even though I really like the man personally, then it might take a decade to get the Republicans out of Congress and they might end up in the White House anyway in 2004.

    There is alot more that Dean could do to help the party right now then to help Kerry.

    by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:41 PM PDT

    •  loose = not tight

      lose = not win.

      One "o" my friend...

      by switzerblog on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:48:47 PM PDT

  •  Not only for that reason

    but it probably is in Dean's self-interest to do so if he harbors any aspirations for Head of HHS or the Presidency some years down the road.

    by Doug in SF on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:11:11 PM PDT

    •  This again

      Why would Dean want to be the Head of HHS? I hear it over and over and yet I couldn't imagine that many positions so far beneath him, I mean unless there is some kind of health scare no one even hears the head of the HHS and even then the nation usually hears from the CDC or the FDA.

      In fact I think Dean would laugh at Kerry if he ofered it to him.

      by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:20:16 PM PDT

      •  Amen ECH, Amen

        Absolutely agree, it would be a waste of Dean's talents and ability.

        by primate on the left on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:23:34 PM PDT

      •  You're kidding right?

        Dept of HHS beneath him? The chance to revamp the nation's healthcare system in his own image? Can you imagine the political benefits if he is successful doing so?

        To date Howard Dean, though I supported him and I consider him to be the best on the issues, has only had jurisdiction over a population less than, oh say, that which Gavin Newsom currently governs. A cabinet position is NOT beneath him.

        I do think Surgeon General would be useless, though.

        by Doug in SF on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:28 PM PDT

        •  Cabinet

          A cabinet position is not beneath him, and I don't think Dean would say that.  But Dean would probably wind up quitting halfway through his term if he couldn't operate as freely as he wanted.  

          by NYCO on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:26:48 PM PDT

          •  A cabinet position no one ever

            hears the name of is beneath him. He would get signficiantly more national media exposure running his organization he is forming then the head of the HHS.

            by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:30:37 PM PDT

            •  I think it has been about 3-4 months since I even

              heard the name of Bush's HHS brought up in the media and even then it was only a short clip, something about mad cow.

              by ECH on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:32:09 PM PDT

              •  Secretary of HHS

                is one of the most important positions in the country. Overseeing Medicare and Medicaid, creating regulations for the nations healthcare providers.  Thommy Thompson (former governor of Wisconsin and current head of HHS) was one of the most succesfull governors in the past 25 years. If HHS isn't below him it's certainly not below Dr. Howard Dean.

                by Houston Dem on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:49:24 PM PDT

                •  Tommy Thompson

                  Yes, he was so succesful our Dem Gov. Doyle needed to make up the $3 billion budget shortfall from the Thompson days.

                  by john445 on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:48:24 PM PDT

              •  You also never hear...

                ... the names of Bush's Sec.'s of Energy, Labor, HUD, Education - or for that matter anyone besides Rummy and Powell (we used to hear from Paul O'Neill a lot, but only because of Bush tax policy, and only because O'Neill was notoriously undiplomatic).

                This, as Will Saletan pointed out months ago in Slate, is because all Bush does - and knows how to do - is make war and cut taxes. Under Clinton and Bush I, we heard from those other Department heads all the time because they actually had things to do. Bush has marginalized the roles of his cabinet by essentially limiting the role of the president to making war and grubbing for votes from the rich.

                by munster truck on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:53:35 PM PDT

              •  Who cares

                how much media exposure the man gets???  We are in the midst of a health care crisis in this country and he is someone who may be able to help solve it.  Therefore, he should be offered the job and should (and I think would) take the position.  Unless, of course, all that stuff about wanting to seek office to make a difference rather than to get a big office and on TV was all a sham.  I don't think it was, and I think you do your man a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

                by Superribbie on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:27:33 PM PDT

                •  Congress is not going to allow

                  the Sec. of HHS to write our health care legislation.  And Dean and Kerry had sigbnificant differences on how it could be done.  At best, Dean gets a watered down Dr. Dinosaur programnationally if he is head of HHS.  Lots of Kerry people have suggested this to me, and I just don't see it.  Yes, he is a doctor.  But, no, I don't see him at HHS... or as Surgeon General.  maybe ghe will be, but it seems to me to be not visible enough... not a place from which he can force Dems to be Dems.

                  Dean for DNC Chair!!!

                  by RosieNac on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:56:43 PM PDT

                  •  How about Dean's wife in Vermont

                    If Dean gets cabinet position, will his wife relocate?

                    by timber on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:24:50 PM PDT

                •  Sorry for my typos.

                  by RosieNac on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:57:27 PM PDT

                •  You are incorrect-

                  Though Secy of HHS is an influential position,it would mostly be a hidebound, restricted, bureaucratic appointment.  If you examine history, no one stays in that role a whole President's term, much less longer...its totally dead end.  HHS also would NOT be the initiating end of any healthcare reform.  THAT - the structure and enabling legislation,  would have to come from Congress as Medicaid and Medicare, the two programs run by CMS (an agency in HHS) do not provide the structure for healthcare reform.

                  Howdy would do best in a role that he can talk sense and be brash.  Believe it or not, I think that he would shine as Surgeon General, or when feasible, run for the Senate.  I don't see him in any other cabinet post...he is a big mouthed, gad fly (all good) and he needs to be where he can be seen and heard...not sure where that is but he has to be out and about talkin' trash....

                  by Salmonelie04 on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 03:12:25 AM PDT

                •  You are incorrect-

                  Though Secy of HHS is an influential position,it would mostly be a hidebound, restricted, bureaucratic appointment.  If you examine history, no one stays in that role a whole President's term, much less longer...its totally dead end.  HHS also would NOT be the initiating end of any healthcare reform.  THAT - the structure and enabling legislation,  would have to come from Congress as Medicaid and Medicare, the two programs run by CMS (an agency in HHS) do not provide the structure for healthcare reform.

                  Howdy would do best in a role that he can talk sense and be brash.  Believe it or not, I think that he would shine as Surgeon General, or when feasible, run for the Senate.  I don't see him in any other cabinet post...he is a big mouthed, gad fly (all good) and he needs to be where he can be seen and heard...not sure where that is but he has to be out and about talkin' trash....

                  by Salmonelie04 on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 03:13:27 AM PDT

            •  Dean would get plenty of media exposure

              I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of Dean as Secrety of HHS, but he would still get plenty of media exposure, because he's Dean.

              But I believe that Dean's main interest lies in what he can accomplish. Media exposure is a means, not an end. If HHS were offered to him and he thought he could achieve important goals there, then he would accept.

              The future is wide open.

              by gxschier on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:50:09 PM PDT

            •  HHS is roughly 30 x Dean's previous exec footprint

              Nothing to sneeze at, especially if health care is your strong suit.

              by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:50:00 PM PDT

            •  Well, make him surgeon general, then.

              The surgeon general gets to write beaucoup papers that piss people off like those who work in Big Tobacco.

              Remember that paper Clinton's SG wrote about responsibile sexuality?  The one the Bushies shitcanned with so much flourish?  It sort of defines them, don't it?

              by republicans are idiots on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:51:49 PM PDT

        •  Revamp?!

          Come on. Like Kerry (or any other Pres.) is going to hand out that kind of discretion and authority to any Cabinet head, let alone one who ran against him. Cabinet heads definately do not get to revamp anything into their image...they do what the "boss" tells them.

          And I don't see Kerry doing much beyond diddling w/the status quo around the edges.

          by ElitistJohn on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:30:19 PM PDT

        •  Head of HHS?

          This guy is the first major fiscally conservative, socialy liberal major candidate in a long time. (I cant stand the leftist, money spending ways of some democrats).

          Plus he had executive experience (true - it was over a small population). But he was not a legislation-churning, Senator with no decision-making experience.

          Mentioning Head of HHS for Dean is almost balsphemy in my opinion.
           

          by sajit on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:04:08 PM PDT

          •  why?

            What's wrong with a position he'd be good at?  Or we still pouting that he didn't win the nomination?

            by Superribbie on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:29:45 PM PDT

            •  no,

              cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president. as secretary of anything dean's ability to accomplish his objectives would be limited by the constraints imposed by president kerry. it isn't necessarily about media exposure, it isn't necessarily about being 'beneath him', it is about having the authority to bring about real change, to do real good. i don't see why dean should simply just believe he will be given that authority by president kerry.

              by mbc on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:32:37 PM PDT

        •  Not Below, but Beside the Point

          I don't think HHS is below Dean at all. On the contrary, I think it'd be a fitting position for him.

          But I don't think it's going to happen for two reasons.

          First, I don't think Dean is involved in an exchange for support. That is, he's not saying "I want a cabinet position in support for my campaigning." He has given his support--but is hoping for certain behaviors from Kerry, not political return.

          Second, what Dean is in this for is not--contrary to what a lot of people think--just about getting people healthcare (although I agree that HHS would be a good perch to extend health care benefits to kids). Rather, he's looking for a change in the way we do politics. That has nothing to do with the awarding of political positions, and everything to do with energizing the grassroots, being more honest, eliminating a lot of the special interest money in politics, and so on. He can't accomplish these things as HHS Secretary, so the position is useless to him.

          by emptywheel on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:13:31 PM PDT

          •  I respectfully disagree

            There is no way that anything short of the right person reaching the Presidency will "change the way politics is done in this country." Power is in the hands of corporations now, and wresting it away is a herculean task that will not be achieved from the bottom. I believe that Howard Dean was smeared in the press because of just this particular threat. When he talked about it in non-specific terms, such as in his declaration speech, you could sense that the corporate media became a little uncomfortable, and then when he mentioned the media conglomerates by name later on, the Wurlitzer really went to work. This would be the fate of anyone who threatened the same things. I suppose the smears could have been overcome had Dean and Trippi taken the exact right steps the entire way, and had Kerry and Gephardt not enthusiastically participated, but how do outsiders really take the exact right steps the entire way? How does anyone? Kerry certainly didn't, but since he's an insider he got redemption.

            So how do you get someone into the Presidency who will, in fact, change things? My guess is that that person has to become an insider, but in name only. In Howard Dean's case, were he to become HHS Head, he could do an effective job as an administrator, flicking away the false accusations about his temper, volatility and what-have-you one after the other. He could serve one term and then do something that gets him foreign policy experience...say, ambassador to France (lol)...or Iraq. By 2012 he's a strong contender with a reputation for solid, even-tempered, bureaurcratic leadership who may still hold the same beliefs, but since he's been serving in someone else's administration for eight years, those beliefs are not at the forefront.

            Or...Dean can become a gadfly as many have suggested here, and chip away here and there while making no real difference, never being taken seriously by the media.

            As for trading support for political power, Dean is not above this, at least from the other end. It is crystal clear that at some point Edwards was Dean's #2 when Dean had the lead. Likewise, there were also possibly dealings with Clark.

            by Doug in SF on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:56:52 PM PDT

            •  All this is why

              Dean being appointed head of the FCC would be poetic justice.

              by barnowl on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 11:34:09 AM PDT

          •  Who Drives?

            Dean wants to be the one driving Kerry (even if Kerry is President), not have Kerry drive him.  The idea is to prevent Kerry from screwing the base once elected.

            by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:01:05 PM PDT

        •  Future Dean position?

          One potential idea that I have hopes for is that Dean is not named to some Cabinet-level position but is instead named as a health-care czar, a position kind of like what Hillary did last time around.  Something outside the normal beaurocracy for the specific goal of advancing health care coverage to more Americans.  Both more important and less important than a Cabinet position at the same time.

          by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:50:12 PM PDT

          •  hey, you're on to something!

            That might make a lot of sense.

            by jd in nyc on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:16:28 PM PDT

  •  You've got it backwards

    You can't hold Kerry's feet to the fire AFTER he wins.

    Did the Teamsters,  AFL-CIO, and Viacom give Kerry their unconditional support with the intent of getting what they require for their it AFTER the election? Hell no. They would stupid to do that and so are voters who treat their votes like roses to be tossed in the path of a conquerer.

    If Kerry wants my support he has to EARN it. What he said in the primary debates because he chasing Dean means nothing. He needs to make firm promises regarding education, health insurance, deficits, and he needs to tell Jimmy Hoffa was mistaken when he said Kerry promised to open up wilderness areas all over America to oil companies (and the Teamsters.) Kerry needs to stop moving even further away from my positions and values. My support and my vote are all I have and I'll not give it away.

    As for judges, Democrats can block any Bush nominees they choose to...if indeed the spine transplant Dean is said to have given the party hasn't already been rejected.

    As for Dean,  he doesn't owe Kerry a damned thing. He owes the people who continue to back him -- most of whom despise Kerry as much as they do Bush.

    by Koa on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:31:16 PM PDT

    •  Uh Uh

      "As for judges, Democrats can block any Bush nominees they choose to..."

      Yep, just until they go away for interim recess.
      Then Chimpy appoints whomever he wants.

      by espresso on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:36:11 PM PDT

      •  So?

          Recess appointments don't stick. They're like a "filling in for" job at a company. It's who you pick to do the job until you hire someone for the position.

          And I understand that a recess appointment is, in most circumstance, the death sentence for your prospects at that job.

        by Morat on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:42:55 PM PDT

        •  They "stick"

          long enough to pass judgment on cases before the courts....  Yes, they do ultimately get removed (and we are talking Federal Courts here--the precursors for the SCOTUS normally), but until they are replaced, they do get to make legally binding decisions.  As for it being a death sentence-- I have no idea about the validity of that statement, I'll take your word for it!

          by espresso on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:04:14 PM PDT

        •  True...

          but all it takes is one or two recess appointments of Scalia clones to the Supremes and Roe v. Wade is pffffft.

          The Supremes can do a LOT of damage in a short time- they damn near wrecked the New Deal. Rove and Norquist's wet dream of taking us back to the McKinley era probably involves Supreme Court justices...

          by pseudopol on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:05:34 PM PDT

          •  Last I checked

              You can't make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.

            by Morat on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:43:26 PM PDT

            •  Says where?

              The Constitution expressly says "all vacancies".

              All.  Every last one.

              by ogre on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 08:46:29 PM PDT

    •  The Art of Negotiation

      This is like any negotiation - you have to set a "walk-away" point before you start. You also have to know that when you walk away, you lose any ability to influence the outcome. If you've reached that point, do it.

      If I'm sitting on the Kerry side of the table and you tell me you "despise Kerry as much as Bush" - that's the Kerry campaign's walk away point. You've just marginalized yourself, and there's no incentive for them to listen to you any longer. There are plenty of people to the right who will shift their vote to Kerry when he moves in their direction because your vote is unavailable on the other side.

      This isn't just one candidate and one election - this is the on-going process of pushing the Democratic Party and the country where you want it to go. Yes, you can opt out and maybe even go with some third party or organization - historically that's not an attractive option, but maybe someday it'll work out.

      After the election, Kerry still needs votes - from Congress. Members of Congress need votes in the next election, or they lose their jobs. That still provides lots of ways to hold Kerry's feet to the fire after the election - it's just means you have to be involved in the dirty business of politics instead of the loftiness of a Presidential campaign.

      by badger on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:08:38 PM PDT

  •  Hold his feet to the fire so he CAN win

    I don't think holding his feet to the fire is going to hurt his chances of winning. On the contrary, I think it may help in many many ways.

    Remember Candidate Kerry, circa November 2003? He was a whimpy, patrician, uninspiring candidate with no good stump themes. He got some of his renovated stump themes from Edwards, but a good deal of the rest of Nominee Kerry he stole from HoDo's sock drawer.

    Further, almost all the people suggested as Veep candidates so far are solid DLC types. I recognize the necessity of that, if for no other reason than geography. But if you're going to run with someone who is fairly conservative, you need to do so in a way that retains the interest of your base. The way that WE can ensure Kerry does that is by holding his feet to the fire.

    Hot feet have probably never felt so good.

    by emptywheel on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:44:34 PM PDT

    •  "patrician"

      "Patrician" means "member of the aristocracy" or "having refined manners and tastes."  It does not inherently hold any negative connotation, so let's not buy into the idea that it does.  He may be aloof or out of touch, both of which he has improved upon greatly, but one should not be criticized for having a good upbringing.  

      by Todd Beeton on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:32:30 PM PDT

      •  Patrician

        Since when does being a member of the aristocracy = "having a good upbringing"? Most members of the aristocracy I've known were farmed out to boarding schools, which certainly doesn't necessarily constitute a good upbringing.

        Perhaps I should have taken an interim step. Kerry is aloof and arrogant (I'll admit, much less so now, but last I checked, I was making an argument about how he CHANGED over the course of the primary). He is also a member of the Boston Brahmin, commonly considered to be as close to "aristocratic" as we get in this country.

        People in this country are not very forgiving of aloofness--particularly if it seems to derive from said aloof person's elite roots.

        by emptywheel on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:52:38 PM PDT

        •  Boston Brahmin

          Kerry is a Brahmin on his mother's side.  An interesting little explanation of the term and a discussion (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) of whether Kerry's really a Brahmin appeared in Slate.  Originally, they were only protestants, and traditionally they went to Harvard, not Yale.

          by abbyv on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:08:43 PM PDT

          •  Question of being a Brahmin

            I realize there is a very specific meaning to the term.

            But once you decide to include your middle name, Forbes, in common usage, then those specific questions become moot.

            by emptywheel on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:16:05 PM PDT

            •  Oh, of course

              I was just trying to inject something light into the discussion.  Otherwise I'll never make it to November.

              by abbyv on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:19:19 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely wrong

      Kerry wasn't running against Bush during the nomination fight, when Dean and others were "holding his feet to the fire." Now that Bush is going to be unloading $170 million of attack ads against him, Kerry can't afford to be defending against Bush from the right AND worry about a Democratic backstab from Dean on the left (he already has Nader there, but Nader is small-fry - the AP poll that has everyone flustered ludicruously overinflated his numbers by posing Nader as an "independent" - Dean could do real damage).

      The nomination fight is the time to sharpen and hone the candidates against each other while the incumbent has to hold back. Now that it's a one-on-one fight, the party has to be unified if we're going to do what's important and take down Bush. Otherwise there's not going to be any "honing" of Kerry - there's just going to be a bloody Massachusetts Senator filled with bipartisan arrows.

      by munster truck on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:02:23 PM PDT

      •  Sure, I'll buy unity

        But the question is, where will that unity be. Kerry has been fluid enough that unity could land any of several places.

        He could follow the 2002 brand (and, arguably, the 2000 Gore brand) of DLC unity--with similar results.

        Or he could try to land that unity in an area that will attract more enthusiasm and support.

        Holding his feet to his fire simply ensures he doesn't sell his soul to attract some elusive swing voters, alienating a lot of the base in the process.

        by emptywheel on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:12:46 PM PDT

        •  Something To Think About

          Kerry has to attract the elusive swing voters in order to beat Bush.

          That means he has to move right during the election battle. No move to the right means four more years of Bush.

          Now we all have to understand something very important. Whatever "move right" statements Kerry makes during the election does not necessarily mean that is the way he will govern.

          In other words he must say what needs be said to attract the independents and swing republicans who are tired of Bush, in order to win the election. Unfortuately that is the way elections work.

          So for those of you who might get upset with what Kerry says and does that goes against his historical views are deceiving yourselves.

          You must understand the process.

          You must also realize that anything that Kerry does when he gets in office is going to be a vast improvement over what you will get from Bush.

          Every vote will count in this race. If some of you decide to vote your 'Ideals' instead of Voting Bush Out then one thing for sure is going to happen...

          Bush will win and your Ideals will lose.

          Hey we all want to hit a homerun with our candidate. Sometimes that is not possible.

          Isn't it better to hit a double or triple and be in scoring position?

          Or would you rather strikeout with your vote and hand the other team the bat?

          We only make Progress if we are running the bases.

          Right?

          by talex on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:15:41 PM PDT

          •  The more you demand, the less you get

            If the unpersuaded left sets a series of high hurdles Kerry must leap to win their votes, their votes won't be worth winning ... especially in contrast to a larger unpersuaded center expressing a more easily satisfied set of demands.

            Case in point: the original Clinton crime package had a lot more carrots and a lot less sticks, but WJC couldn't negotiate the last 5 votes he needed from the left. (The main sticking point was a federal death penalty provision that might have raised the execution rate by one person per sixty years.) The whole package went back to the drawing board, pitched to conservative D's and moderate R's, and came back out with more sticks, less carrots, and more death penalties.

            Play hard-to-get, if it makes you feel good. Just understand the results will not make you feel good.

            by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:09:47 PM PDT

            •  point taken, but

              You act like playing hard to get always backfires. It doesn't, obviously.

              Yes, those who want to make sure Kerry doesn't betray the base should keep in mind that if they are too stubborn he would turn elsewhere to get legislation passed. But the lesson is to use your judgment as best you can on how far you can push someone, and how far is too far.

              by jd in nyc on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:22:30 PM PDT

          •  Already thought it out quite thoroughly, thanks

            "Right?"

            No.

            I had my "Dude, Where's My Party?" experience during the run-up to the March invasion.  That's when Kerry lost my vote, and the party lost my support.  Then Howard came along, and for a while I thought that perhaps my party wasn't so screwed up after all.

            But events proved otherwise.  I'm not about to vote to exchange one set of corrupt politicians in Washington for another, when that will only solidify the grip that people whom I despise have on the only major party with any hope of reform.

            So if the party doesn't earn my vote before November with some visible and substantive reforms, I'll hope for a loss that will shake them into a more receptive frame of mind next time - and make sure that my vote is recorded to make my rejection of the status quo plain.  Because 4 more years of a weakened Bush administration doesn't scare me nearly as much as the possibility that my own party will become irredeemably controlled by the same types of people whom I so despise in the opposing one.

            - bill
            

            by Bill Todd on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 02:20:33 AM PDT

            •  Let'see...

              Kerry wants to Fund NCLB. Bush doesn't.

              Kerry want to Control industrial pollution. Bush doesn't.

              Kerry has a plan to make Health Care affordable. Bush doesn't.

              Kerry will cut out tax loopholes for off-shore Benedict Arnold corporations. Bush won't.

              I could go on...but evidently these moves Forward either do not mean anything to you or you have not bothered to read Kerry's proposed policies.

              In either case you think it would be better to leave a "weakened" Bush in power.

              With Bush in power the only things that will be weakened will be...

              Children in school - The Environment - Affordable Health Care

              What won't be "weakened" is Corporations who want to control government.

              Leave Bush in power huh?

              Now that is some rational thinking!!!

              by talex on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 02:30:48 PM PDT

              •  How could you have forgotten

                ... the Supreme Court?  The idea of Bush-appointed justices (plural) is what features most prominently in the nightmares I will have every night from now until November.  

                Dean's my man, forever and always.  But Kerry is also my man for the time being.

                by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 05:46:23 PM PDT

                •  Oh I didn't forget

                  You are right. The Supreme Court is VERY VERY important.

                  Like I said in my post, "I could go on...but" - there is just to much to list. Besides if you read the post I responded to you can see that it would be a waste of time to list everything for  'Bill Todd'. After all he "Already thought it out quite thoroughly, thanks".

                  Yeah right!

                  Anyway, the Supreme Court is a vastly important reason to get rid of Bush.

                  And you know what? Bush has been slamming activist judges lately. But only because they are not HIS activist judges.

                  P.S. I voted Dean in the California primary. Will vote Kerry in November.

                  And you are right, Bush will not be 'weakened' if reelected. He would still have Executive powers and has shown he is will to use them regardless of popular opinion.

                  But try to explain that to people like Bill :(

                  by talex on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 06:24:33 PM PDT

              •  and I don't see how Bush will be weakened

                If he wins, then he will certainly have control of Congress.  

                by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 05:48:34 PM PDT

      •  I'm ready to vote

        for Kerry, tho I don't like him at all.  And if Dean asks me to send him money, I will.  But Kerry will be making a mistake if he assumes the "left" is in the bag and he can run right really hard.  He can't.  The "left" is very wary of Kerry right now.  I put that in quotes because the people I am talking about are not the traditional left.  We are not looking for big spending and dovish foreign policy.  We are looking for honest governmment that is not corporate-owned.  Kerry doesn't really offer that.  And if he starts pandering to the business lobbies now, he's going to lose some people in this group who are just going to hate the idea of Kerry getting to be President enough to let Bush stay there.  It's all about making them see that they can't get away with being corporate shills.  If we always let them get away with it, how exactly do they ever change?  The people agree with Dems on domestic policy, and a strong foreign policy ticket protects us there... we don't have to give in to corporations to win.  And Kerry better not, or he loses for sure.

        by RosieNac on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:11:18 PM PDT

        •  Kerry not scary

          I have expended more words than most here pointing out John Kerry's flaws, and how progressive, or leftist if you prefer, Democrats are wary of him as you point out.

          But once in a while he does something right.  Today I heard him on the radio talking about how he'll have a team of monitors for the Florida elections, and how we must look very hard at "these Diebold machines" and have a verifiable paper ballot that can be used in a recount.

          F**k yeah!  I yelled and pumped my fist while driving, then did a double-take as I realized my reluctant support was edging towards active support.

          Keep it up, John, and you might not lose all of the Nader wing of the Democratic party.

          by ubikkibu on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:19:01 PM PDT

        •  Actually, Kerry can count on my vote

          I'll vote for Kerry because he's not demonstrably in favor of a fundamentalist American Taliban take-over of our government. He has the "gays are icky" stance on marriage, but that's better than the Bush "gays are Satan" stance.

          by perianwyr on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 11:54:37 PM PDT

•  ha!

  I was curious to see who would still be standing in the end after DFA disbanded. Looks like it's the Dean/Gore alliance for now. Fascinating...what happens if they get to a point where they have to decide which guy drives the bus?

  Of course the political CW is that Gore is the touch of death--have to see how that plays out.

  Mr. JMS, who is at least as flippant as I am summarized Dean's presidential bid thusly "who is this guy? why can't he make up his mind what he wants to do? stockbroker not interesting enough? so what, he becomes a doctor--but that gets old after a while? so he goes into politics--but he's tired of being governor--so what, he runs for president?" I guess this would be the "so what, now he wants to be Democratic party powerbroker and head of a shadow DNC?" phase.

  I hope that Dean doesn't completely chuck his incredible connection with the grass roots and with people in general. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

  Well, none of this contradicts what I had hoped for in my "I had a dream" diary, so I'm still quite curious about what will happen next.

  by JMS on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

  •  If he does what

    I hope that Dean doesn't completely chuck his incredible connection with the grass roots and with people in general. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    I hope he does with this organization, namely provide a counterbalance to the DLC and develop a less dysfunctional 'strategy' than the current CW Al From pumps out he will be aiding grassroots organizations immeasurably. And I don't believe he will completely chuck that connection, that connection is central to his political vision.

    by colleen on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:39:26 PM PDT

  •  read that report with a skeptical eye

    The language made it very clear where that much of the information came from sources very close to the netroots aspect of the campaign. Those individuals left Dean to work with Trippi, but you should be careful in drawing the conclusion that Dean doesn't have an interest in the netroots.

    I'm not sure the "inside" sources are entirely bias-free here...I think I hear the sound of an axe grinding in the distance.

    by jd in nyc on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:28:21 PM PDT

  •  To hell with Mr. JMS and his summary.

    What?

    Tell Mr. JMS that Dean became Governor because the former Governor DIED, and not because he necessarily went against some stupid and archaic idea that 'Thou shalt stick to one career thine entire life,' OK?

    by Peace JD on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:01:47 PM PDT

•  to repeat myself..

  if kerry wins, it will not be because dean held his feet to the fire or that deaniacs voted for him.

  if kerry loses it will not be because dean held his feet to the fire for too long or because enough deaniacs did not vote for him.

  kerry has to win by turning out more ABB in the key states Ohio, florida and nh while holding the gore states.  dean or deaniacs (or even the ridiculous sounding DFA 2.0) cannot do that.

  Kerry has to earn that.

  He made a good start by coming out forcefully against our reprehensible behavior in haiti.

  but i want to know:

  why is kerry not able to raise funds now that he is the putative nominee?

  I mean, I don't know his finances, but there are no stories burning up the wires about how he is now tapping into the rich vein of ABB?

  what's up with that?

  by cynic on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:14:49 PM PDT

  •  hm

    This is a really important point. Dean raised millions because people responded to his message and to his vision. Kerry has neither at this point.

    Many Kerry people imagined that Dean's wave of contributions were due mostly to the anti-Bush feeling among voters, and that they were simply supporting the person they thought would be the nominee. Now they're wondering why the dollars aren't flowing for them when they are going to be the nominee. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what Dean was and what he meant to his supporters.

    The dark side of ABB, of course, is that it carries with it no particular attachment to whoever's personifying it. Hardly anybody really likes Kerry or thinks he's going to really accomplish anything other than some damage control on Bush's havoc; it's politics as usual with him, and no one seems to really mind because, say it with me, He's Not Bush™. That's why he's not raking in the dough like Dean was. He's not inspiring. He's not new. He's not bringing new ideas to the table, or new voters to the polls. In a combination of fear and blind panic, Demmycrats chose the "safest", "most deliberate", "electable" candidate. Well, safe candidates don't inspire love.

    by GorgeousOrifice on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:36 PM PDT

    •  A! MEN!

      In fact, in some of us, he inspires revulsion.

      Kerry doesn't acknowledge that the system is broken.  Dean did.

      by Brassmask on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

      •  dude

        honestly, I'm there with you. I find Kerry disgusting, but not so much him personally as he's done many admirable things in his life and his career. I find modern politics and political discourse disgusting, and he represents all that I can't stand about both Demmycrats and most people in this country who don't care about their government or about their role as citizens. I know that most of this is projection, so I'm only really pissed at him for the Iowa hatchet job on Dean. Of course, I never really expected any more of him.

        It's become clear to me now that, angry as I am, upset and literally crying like I was when Dean finally dropped out, that no one really gives a damn. As everybody keeps saying, the only important thing is to get Bush gone. I never believed that, but the vast majority of others apparently do. I've given up on anger venting, since no one's listening, and all it does is make me feel worse.

        by GorgeousOrifice on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:44:33 PM PDT

        •  Oh well

          Recognize it  for what it is. Tammany Hall Dems. Just so long as some crumbs drop off their way, sleaze and crooked behavior is just fine.

          by ElitistJohn on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:50:23 PM PDT

        •  How do they do it?

          That's why I even bother hanging around here.  I am really curious how people turn on the blinders to the bullshit and convince themselves that Kerry is not just a default candidate and they have to spend hours apologizing for his numerous faults and ineptitude so that hopefully, people who don't know any better will believe that he is worthy of their vote or at least not as unworthy as Bush.

          Is that what we're all supposed to feel okay with?  Pepsi vs Coke?  Sprite vs 7Up?  One's just sliiiiiiiiiiiightest bit sweeter.

          Wake me up for the revolution.

          by Brassmask on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:02:50 PM PDT

          •  "People who don't know any better"?

            Over the last 19 years, John Kerry's record has consistently shown him to be more progressive than Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Wes Clark, and the vast majority of Dems who ran for the nomination this year.

            If you say there's no difference between George Bush and John Kerry, you're either saying there's no difference between any Democrat any any Republican that could conceivably have run for President this year, or that you just don't know the issues these people stand for. In which case I suggest you actually do some damn research before you vote, because people like you terrify me.

            by munster truck on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:13:02 PM PDT

            •  When did you...

              get to define what progressive meant?

              I know a lot of progressives (self-labeled).  Fiscal responsibility is not anathema to them at all.

              Please note that Dean attracted that very peculiar inverse bell curve--strong on the liberal and conservative wings of the Democratic party, weakest in the moderate center, despite the fact that everyone insists that Dean Is A Moderate.

              There's something very wrong with the meme or the metric, or both.

              by ogre on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:17:23 PM PDT

              •  It may

                indicate that "moderate" is often another word for uninterested and uninformed.
                We've got to admit that Average Citizen is most likely to identify him/herself as moderate because the word has come to mean nothing.
                It is too overused and squishy.

                by barnowl on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 11:58:00 AM PDT

                •  My motto:

                  Moderation in everything--including moderation.

                  I couple this with:

                  Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess

                  (Garlic is what leaps to mind)

                  by ogre on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 08:14:19 PM PDT

                •  IT's also used by people who don't fit

                  the clear stereotypes of the parties.

                  "Moderate Republicans" almost always mean that they're socially liberal.

                  And until Dean, Democrats who were staunch on fiscal responsibility were "conservative" Democrats.

                  Moderates in common American parlance means that you're only par-way inside the thematic boundaries of the current party.

                  The parties have tried to move and radicalize the electorate (particularly the GOP; the Greens really left the Democratic tent, so there's less radicalization there), and the moderate middle's squeezed inbetween.  

                  by ogre on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 08:50:39 PM PDT

          •  I don't.

            Kerry's a fine candidate. He has a solid environmental record, is thoughtful or foreign policy, strongly in the internationalist tradition of the Democratic party (hint- not every person who considers themself a liberal Democrat didn't struggle with the issue of invading Iraq). He didn't accept PAC money as a Senator. He's voted for and sponsored Clean Money, Clean He beat a VERY popular and charismatic Republican governor in a hard-fought re-election capaign. . He voted against Bush's dumbass tax cuts, as well as a lot of Pentagon fluff during his Senate career. So far, he's running a very creditable primary campaign, and is hitting back at Bush and keeping them off balance.

            These are all positive reasons for ME to support him. Was he my first choice? No. Am I happier with him than, say, Lieberman? Unquestionably yes.

            What gravels me here is how Saint Howard of Burlington's record as governor is actively ignored while the pissing and moaning about Kerry goes on. If you actually take the time and look at his dealings with the progressive wing of his state's party...well, they didn't particularly love him to bits (his environmental record's none too good, and he was a tightwad and pretty incrementalist on social programs). They shut up when he ran for President, though- the same way many people who are now supporting Kerry have, because they are realists, and thus know that the perfect (a very leftist/liberal candidate President from Vermont) is not the enemy of the good (a middle of the road to liberal President from Vermont).

            As for the standing up to the establishment that Dean did- you mean getting people like Gore and Harkin (who voted the same way as Kerry did on Iraq, and is part of the ADM special interest lobby) to endorse you? Trying to get Carter's pseudo-endorsement? Man, that's EDGY! I have a good deal of respect for the guy, and would have been as enthusiastically behind him as I am behind Kerry- but that's because if we get past projecting whatever we want to see onto the candidate and look at what's actually there, the policy differences between Kerry and Dean (or between either of them and Gore) aren't very big at all. Dean may have wrapped himself in anti-establishment rhetoric, but he was a hardheaded, commonsense moderate to liberal governor. Making him into a candidate for canonization is something I never understood, and castigating a moderate to liberal Senator Kerry as Satan isn't one I understood either.

            by pseudopol on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:23:33 PM PDT

            •  We. Know. Already.

              What gravels me here is how Saint Howard of Burlington's record as governor is actively ignored while the pissing and moaning about Kerry goes on. If you actually take the time and look at his dealings with the progressive wing of his state's party...well, they didn't particularly love him to bits (his environmental record's none too good, and he was a tightwad and pretty incrementalist on social programs).

              You know, I don't do a whole lot of screaming around here, but sometimes you just gotta...

              DEAN WASN'T A LEFTY PROGRESSIVE!  WE KNOW!   WE KNOW!

              WE ALWAYS KNEW!

              WE'RE NOT SHOCKED BY THIS "REVELATION"!

              Sorry, but I am so sick of people saying this like nobody knew, like this is some state secret, or that we were misled.  I have heard this "Well, you didn't know who he really was" thing so many times before.  Some of us liked Dean for these reasons.

              by NYCO on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:19:50 PM PDT

              •  OK, fine.

                So then you'd acknowledge the actual POLICY differences between Kerry and Dean aren't too big...and the differences are mostly in rhetoric or style?

                Fine by me.

                Just wish people would look past the rhetoric and the style to the substance.

                by pseudopol on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:29:48 PM PDT

                •  heh

                  If you want substance, compare Dean's record as governor to Kerry's record as senator. Who actually got things done? Who had to answer to the voters every two years?

                  The point is, your policy positions are just words. Action is what matters, and Dean kicked Kerry's ass all over the schoolyard.

                  sigh.

                  But no one gives a damn anymore. Kerry's "more electable". That's all that matters to most people.

                  by GorgeousOrifice on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:37:23 PM PDT

                  •  Lessee.

                    Kerry's been in the majority all of 10 years out of 18. So just over half the time.

                    Of those, exactly TWO of those years (1993-1994) were with a Democrat as President and Democrats running the "other body". All the rest of the time, one or the other was run by GoOPers. Which means the ability for any Democrat to do a whole lot of legislating's been pretty limited.

                    And oh yeah, there are 100 Senators (and 435 Congresscritters) in our legislative brnach...and one governor per state. Gee, is it easier to influence policy being the head of an entire branch of government...or one out of 500+ people in another branch?

                    For that matter, who in the Senate outside of Kennedy or Feingold has DONE much legisl;atively for the D's lately? I'll grant Kerry's no LBJ-style legislative whiz- but damn few people are, and Kennedy and Feingold weren't running.

                    Is your argument as shorthand for "not allowed to run for President unless you've been a governor and have shown your chops as a state executive"? Do you want to disqualify people on that basis? We'd have lost out on JFK and Truman that way.

                    by pseudopol on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:27:14 PM PDT

                    •  We'd what?

                      Is your argument as shorthand for "not allowed to run for President unless you've been a governor and have shown your chops as a state executive"? Do you want to disqualify people on that basis? We'd have lost out on JFK and Truman that way.

                      Aside from the silliness of putting the words in someone's mouth, Truman was president BEFORE he got elected, because he was VP when FDR died.

                      He'd also headed up some very public and very effective senatorial commissions.

                      by ogre on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:35:03 PM PDT

                •  Beyond policy

                  Positionwise, I have don't have much of a problem with Kerry.

                  The problem here is that the level of frustration with our elected leaders has gone beyond policy.   We're at the point now where many Democrats want and need some reassurance that their Democratic leaders are actually going to stand up for these values and policies, or show some real commitment to finding other ways to achieve them.

                  It comes from years of electing people who make all kinds of promises and are a collection of policy positions and promises that never really get done, rather than men and women with solid and demonstrated commitments under fire.

                  I am saying very little about Kerry because the time has come to step back and let him show his stuff in this department.   That takes some time to unfold, if it is going to unfold.  Bitching about it isn't going to help.  You can't just keep saying "I don't trust you!  I don't trust you!"  That's counterproductive.   I can understand the unhappiness of people who don't trust him, because I really don't either, but I choose not to make a fuss.  

                  by NYCO on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:57:57 PM PDT

                •  Uhh...no.

                  George Bush's two biggest sins are:

                  1. The War in Iraq
                  2. The Patriot Act

                  Kerry voted for both of them.  Dean led the fight against Bush while the other Democrats, including Kerry, quivered in the corner.  There are no policy differences?  Please.

                  I'm going to vote for the guy, but let's not pretend that there was no difference between Dean and Kerry.  

                  by 511PF on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:11:33 PM PDT

                •  As soon

                  as you're done smugly patting yourself on the back, you might also notice it was about process.

                  You know, that silly little thing that ends up driving policy. Process is why we have "corporate welfare", because each of the Congressonal prostitutes picks our collective pockets to pork up their voting districts to insure that they get to avoid having to get a real job. That bastion of brave liberalism, Teddy Kennedy is noted for rigging the corporate tax laws in a manner that somehow only gives credits to his State's employers, or major donors. Funny that.

                  Policy, as others have noted, is just so much words. One never has any idea as to what these guys honestly believe. And even if they do somehow follow through the next guy can reverse it. But process changes have long reaching and powerful effects, and can skew the types of canddates and policy views for a long time.

                  That's why we have an Electoral College. Winner takes all. It reduces the universe of policy possibilities which can get in. Even the Reps. get this, which is why they have been hijacking the redistricting process.

                  by ElitistJohn on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:20:19 PM PDT

                  •  So, show me how Dean changed process in Vermont.

                    He had a chance to have Clean Elections/Clean Money there...and coughed it up by not financing it in the budget after signing legislation enacting it.

                    http://www.commoncause.org/publications/dec01/122101_2.htm

                    That's a change in process...a BIG one (taxpayer-financed elections and removing special interest money). But hey, Dean DID make speeches about the Evil Special Interests, so that's OK.

                    Dean also came out against the caucus system, which is pretty undemocratic and insider-influenced. Ooops, wait, no, he took it back.

                    Hmm, a candidate who flip-flops on issues. Guess he must be disqualified under the "Kerry's an Evil Flip-Flopping Special Interest Whore" standard...

                    by pseudopol on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:39:24 PM PDT

                    •  Uh...that law was ruled unconstitutional

                      Dean defunded the clean elections fund because the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. There wasn't much point in money that couldn't be used sitting in the fund.

                      New Patriot - It's time for a new patriotism || DFLers.org

                      by LFinMN on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:19:55 PM PDT

                    •  Don't start "Goring" Howard Dean

                      There's been a lot of that going around for the past 3 months.
                      He never "took it back."  He did say how much he enjoyed and learned from the people of Iowa.
                      He was right, of course, in his judgement of the Iowa caucus system as stated on the Canadian panel. In fact his description was near perfect.

                      by barnowl on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

                    •  Incumbent Protection Funding

                      "Clean Elections" is just spin. Public financing has numerous problems, not the least of which is my title. Incumbents have a huge advantage in public profile, and equal financing means effective incumbent protection. Second, who decides who gets it? So now these rules will be established by the very same incumbents who have an interest in weakening challengers. Plus, they will be from the two major parties, so wanna bet they set the qualification standards high enough that only memebers of said parties can get it?

                      This leaves aside outside group advertising and efforts, which could never be completely stopped due to First Amendment issues.

                      So "Clean Elections" is just hilarious spin.

                      More practical would be greater restrictions on donor amounts and sources, so as to make everyone a player, rather than the upscale. Funny that. It appears to be exactly what Dean's position was.

                      by ElitistJohn on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 05:16:55 PM PDT

                •  Differences

                  Rhetorical style?  Yeah.  
                  (Snooze or Scream?  Seems to me that there's a lot more worth screaming about, and screaming for than snoozing over...)

                  But no, there's more.  Dean was a pragmatic who drove his agenda and accomplished things.

                  No explanations about how his party or wing of the party or whoever didn't allow him to.  Record of accomplishment.

                  Opposition to Bush's War.
                  Fiscal Responsibility.
                  Health Care in Our Lives.
                  Economics and Taxation with the "Little Guy" in mind.

                  And an air of real sincerity and honesty.  The story that he wasn't running initially with any idea that he might win, but to push "his" issues rings true, and meshes with what many people felt. He was running because America needed a president with those values, a president who really cared about "us" and about the Constitution.

                  And that resonated.

                  Kerry has yet to persuade me that he fills Howard's Seven League Boots. Or even his socks.

                  But he's all we've got at this point (barring acts of God and other miracles).  As long as he doesn't turn out to have sold his soul to the other set of buyers, I'll vote for him.  But I'm not enthused.

                  ...

                  When someone has to tell you and tell you and tell you that they're honest as the day is long, you should know to worry about your wallet and car keys.  When Kerry's slogan is "The Real Deal"... I figure I need to read the ingredient label, because it's almost certainly processed "American" cheese (food), not real cheese.

                  But as long as he doesn't smear the cheese food on past the sell-by-date mystery lunch meat that Gephardt represents, I'll try to swallow the sadnwich.  It beats another Bushit burger.  

                  by ogre on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 09:32:42 PM PDT

                •  It's rhetoric and style . . .

                  . . . that will determine whether Kerry (or any Democratic presidential contender) wins or loses.

                  Remember, electorally, the Democrats are always running from behind.

                  by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 12:54:05 AM PDT

              •  amen

                I originally liked Dean because he didn't kowtow to either extreme; in Vermont's interesting political climate, he was the middle ground between a strong progressive movement and an entrenched Republican pro-business demographic, with a healthy sum of independents mixed in.

                Not only did he steer the state down the middle path, he did it while earning the respect and trust of both sides as well as independents who knew he wouldn't throw money away or raise/cut taxes without a damn good reason. Everybody got something they wanted, and nobody was completely stiffed. The man won in landslides; he got over 70% a couple times. SEVENTY PERCENT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

                I can't speak for NYCO or Brassmask or any other diehard Deaniacs, but the fact that Dean WASN'T a wingnut like Kucinich AND could talk sense was a killer combination. I don't like Kerry because he can't talk sense, he's prone to covering his ass, he dodges controversy, and he doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself.

                by GorgeousOrifice on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

              •  Yes

                In fact, we made a similar bargain to the one that we are blaming other Dems about now. I liked alot of things DK said a great deal in the beginning, I went with Dean because the Iraq war was a litmus for me on the one hand, but he was moderate enough to stand a chance I thought. I am for stronger gun control than Dean, but I liked his reasoning on the issue, and I liked the fact that this would take away one of the right's weapons. My Green friends who voted for Nader in 2000 felt the same, as did my Independent son who wrote in McCain. We fell in love later, as we started to hear and see him.

                I think the same desperation was driving us that is driving the Kerry vote. Unfortunately, those of us who got involved earlier tend to really look into things. Most people apparently tune in at the last minute, and are to lazy to do thier homework and thus are spoon-fed by the media.

                We all started out ABB, believe me.

                by PLS on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 10:22:46 PM PDT

          •  I disagree

            with the Pepsi vs. Coke characterization.  I think Kerry wants the same things we want. The question is, is he risk-taker enough, does he have the guts, to make them happen?  Only about 30% of the people ever wanted most of the things Bush is doing, but they just cram 'em through.  And they are getting away with it for the most part.  Is Kerry willing to do that?  Stake his career on doing what's right?  I'm sad to say I think not.  But he also won't push hard to do what's wrong, as Bush does.  So he would be better.

            by RosieNac on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:21:49 PM PDT

        •  Plenty of people

          are listening, or thinking along the same lines as you. It's very frustrating having someone like Kerry as the Democratic candidate, and the pull of the radical left is quite tempting.

          by asdf on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:05:40 PM PDT

          •  pull of the radical left

            sure...i suppose you mean the radical left that will give us the radical right for another 4 years? or are you tempted by something else?

            this isn't the best of all possible worlds.  it's the real world.  it's not ideal. it's not even close.  but it's what we have to work with.

            by delphis on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:22:32 PM PDT

            •  No,

              I mean the radical left where the fuel economy standards are tightened (unlike Clinton/Gore), where 'merican SUVs aren't subsidized by a 25% tariff against foreign trucks, where the country doesn't have to go to war to maintain stability in foreign oil fields, where the nuclear waste is stored in a decent disposal site, where the energy policy isn't "mumbo jumbo alternative energy b*llsh*t will get us out of this," where the attitude towards climate change isn't "we'll sign the Kyoto treaty and everything will be fine."

              If you really believe that global climate change is happening, and is a threat to everybody, and is mostly the fault of the consumerist greed of the United States, then voting for Kerry is a waste of time. He's not radical, he's a rich, ivy-league, finger-in-the-wind, labor-supported, power-hungry traditional politician.

              Kerry's sort of on the right side of some of the social issues (hello, gay marriage anybody?), but mostly he's just another mainstream politico.

              by asdf on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:31:21 PM PDT

              •  that's

                not to say that I won't vote for him, I probably will. But if there were any chance that a real radical environmentalist were out there, I'd vote for her.

                by asdf on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:32:23 PM PDT

                •  i'd like all those things too...

                  but i see no evidence that in a three way race between your postulated radical, kerry, and bush, your radical would win.  nor, sadly, do i see any evidence that voting for her would even make a statement.  i just can't formulate a realistic plan of how voting for her would lead to actual implemented policy change.  maybe you can think of one - if so, please share it.

                  instead, the only effect i see of voting for her is to make it more likely by one vote that bush will win.  and the effect of that is that the opposite of what you want will take place. (instead of, say, treading water...which i'm not entirely convinced will happen with kerry - but then again i'm not convinced it won't either).

                  by delphis on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 06:41:13 PM PDT

                  •  yup.

                    That's why I probably will vote for Kerry. But the pull of the radical left still appeals.

                    by asdf on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 07:05:03 PM PDT

        •  The right places for the right fights

          I agree with you that ultimately, fixing the system is more impoartant than who gets elected in 2004. Well, sort of, anyway. I don't think it will ever be fully or permanently fixed, but it can get a lot better than it is. Our government needs to be much more responsive to the needs of individual citizens and much less, therefore, to corporate interests.

          Unfortunately, that's not a fight that can be won in electoral politics alone. It requires a citizens' movement which responds to the skewed media (both news and entertainment) and it requires civic forums which are enough fun so that they will attract people who aren't already convinced. Move On is a start. So is dKos, for that matter. So are the adult and youth education programs developed being delivered by the New Jersey chapter of Common Cause (assuming that group is still part of Common Cause, I'm out of touch and don't know the current status).

          So things can get better. Modern life (TV, mostly, but also all other forms of solitary entertainment) has stripped society of the associations that Tocqueville recognized as the heart of American democracy. But I think we're now in a phase where America is becoming somewhat more social again. That's where real improvement can come from.

          Of course, the forces of evil have been much less affected by TV. Corporate interests don't need voluntary associations to focus their attention and influence. To the very rich and their direct reports, the per person importance of the government is large enough so that they'll seek out the information they need. And the fundamentalists (of all religions) associate as part of their way of life.

          If we want to compete with those forces, we must develop a sense of community that is not solely political, and not solely on the Net.

          Politicans can help, but they can't do it alone. And for all the reenforcement we give each other here, the polity as a whole has been so stupified that we are too close to alone. You could try to blame that on mealy-mouthed candidates, but with the media as it is, boldness almost never pays for long. If you expect your politicians to get too far ahead of the middle-of-the-road voter, you will cuth their legs out from underneath them.

          So let's move where the road is. But until we've done more of that heavy construction work, don't insist that candidates drive over bridges that we haven't built yet.

          by Dvd Avins on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 11:27:47 PM PDT