Skip to main content

News stories over the weekend claimed Edwards "attacked" Dean. Edwards fires back on his blog.
What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work. Of course, I didn't think so, and I said that. I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard's outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that.  Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt!

Instead, how about: Nonsense!

We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That's a core belief we need to fight for. And what's more, we agree that we - all Democrats and all working people - should be complaining, criticizing, and generally speaking out about this critical failure of the Republican party and offering our positive vision for America.  And we have.

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years.

For the record, here's the context for Dean's much-criticized comments:
You -- (applause continues) -- you know, the idea that you have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida -- there's something the matter with that.  You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever, and get home and then have a -- still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?  Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.  (Light applause.) But for ordinary working people, who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they got to get home to those kids, the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong.  We ought to make voting easier to do.  Mail -- Oregon has got it right.  (Applause.)
Looks a bit different in its proper context.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:04 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Droppin' the "E bomb" (4.00)
    Every now and then Edward goes and impresses me.  I'm not used to that from Democratic politicians anymore.

    Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

    by Cheez Whiz on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:04:20 AM PDT

    •  Edwards impresses me pretty regularly (4.00)
      He's got my vote in the '08 primary unless something pretty drastic pops up.

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

      by ThirstyGator on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:05:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards Will Beat the Republican Whoever It Is (4.00)
        All he need to do is hold on to the base (which he will) and pick up a couple of fringe southern states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri or any combination).

        The difference between Kerry and Edwards...People WANT to like Edwards, people had to TRY to like Kerry.

        •  a little early.... (none)
 be talking about the 2008 primaries. I see battles that we have to fight here and now: Bolton, Social Security, etc. Plus the filibuster fight just isn't going away.

          Plus, party building. Raising money for the DNC. Finding candidates to challenge all GOP incumbents running for federal office. We should have a challenger in every race.

          Dems also need to find more candidates for local office. In my own county district, the Dems don't have a viable candidate to run against the Republican incumbent.

        •  What a relief! (none)
          I did not have to drop his quote from my signature. LOL
           I like the quote. :)
           Also my passion and heart lies with the problem of Poverty in America and the Homeless in this, the most prosperous country on earth is just appalling and obscene.
          I really respect what Edwards is doing now with the Poverty Center at UNC. His own bloggers and his faithful were not happy at his blog yesterday, either. Some supported with but did not applaud him and were none too pleased overall. Of course, the Media made a tempest in a teapot over both comments and wildly exaggerated.

          Whereas, not to bash Bill Clinton , so forgive me in advance....but Bill Clinton has no apologies or clarification for gushing over Bush on Larry King Live where he also talked about the Democrats weaknesses and problems. I am not sure how much of that is ex President talk.  But he sure is different than the vocal Jimmy Carter. !!!! He kept talking about how he liked some of the Bush talk especially the Ownership Society and approves of the War in Iraq.
          And notice Biden did not come out and apologize or clarify and Jomentum never does. So I give credit to Edwards for his response. Now I just hope ( but not holding my breath or I could expire ) that the MSM will cover this statement of John Edwards.

          We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

          by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:23:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I love Edwards and Dean (none)
            And I've never been a fan of Clinton. Although compared to Bush, the man is Mother Teresa.

            Edwards and Dean share an ability to make for a killer soundbite. And in today's atmosphere of intellectual laziness and poor reporting, that killer quote is absolutely imperative.

            Dean slipped. Everyone does. What Dean meant to say was "republican leadership" as opposed to "people who voted republican". To me, it's not about how you botch, but how you handle it when you do. Kerry botched with the 6 million quote, but I was more hurt that it took him until the debates to address it.

            But Edwards and Clark are frontrunners in my heart for 2008. Kerry or Feingold could win me over, too. I'm going to watch for who has a real message. And in that respect, Edwards is top notch.

            •  I don't see that this is a gaffe (none)
              Press the "republican voters are lazy and don't work" meme enough in the media and it'll start trickling down into pop culture. There ain't nothing wrong about making people feel ashamed of being Republican.

              Nobody lends money to a man with a sense of humor -- Peter Tork, "Head"

              by Field Marshall Stack on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:04:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  48% of people voted republican (none)
                I don't think that's a meme that will ever catch on. Nor would I try.

                If you try to push it, the meme "Democrats are elitists who think Americans are dumb" or "Democrats hate free enterprise and want to reward poverty" will catch on sooner.

                ... No matter how much I think there's an ounce of truth to your meme.

            •  Edwards needs a lot of work (none)
              He didn't add much in 2004, whatever the reason...Need some seasoning....Hell, he would have made a good DNC head and Dean could have had some other important position.

              But Edwards needs something. But I'm not sure what it is.

              I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

              by Volvo Liberal on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 01:21:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For what it's worth (none)
                I'll defend Kerry, despite his flaws... but a VP doesn't historically do much for a ticket. It's still a referendum on the main candidate, not their running mate.

                Still, I think Edwards comes across as having a pretty solid style. I think he's the kind of person people trust. But I think people might question his intelligence or wisdom, since he looks young (and is young). Some experience, one or two big accomplishments under his belt could make a huge difference.

              •  i think there was (none)
                a real rift between edwards and kerry -- they certainly have not done anything together since then (not that i've gore and JLieb do much together either).
                •  I saw an interview of John Edwards (none)
                  a few months ago where he spoke highly of John Kerry. But he did say he wanted to speak out right away and do a very rapid response to blast the Swift Boat Liars out of the water. But the Kerry campaign managers.  did not want to go that way and said No.
                  I got the idea Edward wanted to get out in front of some things and clarify some issues and was advised to stay silent. I think the friction is less between Edwards and Kerry and more about Edwards no doubt being shut down by the Kerry campaign advisors or Edwards vs. Kerry staffers perhaps or just the media leading us to believe this???

                  We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

                  by wishingwell on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:07:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think Dean misspoke (none)
              About half my rellies are Republicans, and I can assure you that none of them are trust-fund babies, since we're only a generation out of the coal mines. Frankly, they need to understand that Bush has no understand of, no empathy for, and no policy that improves life for anyone who take his or her daily bath AFTER work. I haven't taken a poll, since they don't talk to me, but if they HEARD what Dean said, I suspect some of them, a few, got right away who he was talking about.
          •  Nicer if he'd said it in the first place. (none)
            Edwards has obviously caught wind of the grassroots anger over his remarks. Better late than never. Of course it would have been better if he had responded that way to the question in the first place - use the question as an opportunity to reinforce Dean's basic point that Republican policies hurt working people.

            Hardball last night featured most of the gang of 14 Senate compromisers. Tweety gleefully threw the Dean quote at the Dems to incite some Dean dissing. A couple of them went for it, and everyone was tittering about Dean like he's not fit to hang out with the cool kids. When the question went to Mary Landrieu, she ignored the specific quote and started talking about the importance of Dean's main point that people shouldn't have to wait in 8 hour lines to vote. Tweety made one futile attempt to get her to address the specific quote, but she just kept talking about the voting issue until Tweety started talking over her and changed the subject. Biden, Edwards, and all the rest of the Dems should take a lesson from Mary Landrieu.

            I hope Edwards has learned something from the flak he has gotten over this and will do better the next time. Biden is hopeless. He is a tool.

            •  nobody should ever look to Landrieu (none)
              she is my least favorite dem, she votes for most repub policies, she also voted to drill in ANWR. I can't stand her!!!
              •  Still, give her credit. (none)
                It really hurts Democrats that only we know what Democrats stand for. It adds to the confusion when Democrats trash-talk each other. I suppose it's too much to ask that Senator Edwards come out and say that he is sorry he said something that sounded to the medidiots like trashing Dean, but I, for one, will be watching Edwards for any suggestion of a repeat, and will be marking my card accordingly.

                By their deeds will they be known. Sara, Senator Landrieu looks a lot better than Senator Edwards (Biden, Kennedy) right now.

                Repeat: we are playing for ALL the marbles.

          •  Bill is the best republican President ever... (none)
            Jimmy was just plain the BEST PRESIDENT.  He redisgned the military (the reforms that Reagan gets all this credit for were mostly started under his administration), he made morality and honor constituents of our foreign policy, and tried to explain to America how the oil industry was screwing us all.  The fault in Carter's prsidency is not in James Carter, but rather in an America so lazy and self indulgent we could not manage to respond to logic and good government when it was presented to us.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

            by TheGryphon on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:51:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, Edwards would beat any Republican (none)
          The question is will he beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

          "A little bit of inefficiency is called culture." Check out my Diary you might like it.

          by dbratl on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:24:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think... (4.00)
            ...lots of people will be relieved to know there's someone else on the Dem. primary ballot besides HRC who's reasonably viable.

            What did we do to deserve George W. Bush?

            by republicans are idiots on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:33:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We shall see . . . (none)
              I see both primary sides choosing the less palatable candidate, with the Dems picking HRC over Edwards and the Republicans picking someone ghastly like Frist over McCain.

              "A little bit of inefficiency is called culture." Check out my Diary you might like it.

              by dbratl on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:40:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hillary needs (none)
                to start voting for Dem causes and not cave in over and over. She has yet to impress me. But it would be fun to follow up Bush II with Clinton II. Payback's a bitch!

                I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

                by kitebro on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:40:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hillary is a big mistake!! (none)
                If we nominate Hillary in '08 we can guarantee the biggest smear campaign in history. Not only that we have to deal with Hillary, one of the fakest politicians. The thing about Edwards is that he really wants to change things and help people, that's what motivates him. With Hillary, I think it's more about power and success than helping the working folks. Let's be smart and nominate the person who can win, not who gets the most press and who is a very divisive figure. Please libs, don't nominate Hillary!!!
            •  both edwards and hillary are good (none)
              and the Dems need to say this more often:

              Team Bush shameless

        •  Edwards is just a hack (none)
          A slick talking lawyer is all.  I don't believe he is genuine and I don't believe anything he says...

          And I'm still left with the bad taste from this:

          "the last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do."

          I see, so he thinks I want somebody like HIM coming up north telling me what I need to do?


          (sorry to all you Edwards groupies)

          •  People like you (none)
            are the reason Democrats are out of power.

            Stuff that in your ego.

            •  Democrats can't vote like Republicans (none)
              are the reason Democrats are out of power."

              You might also consider that Kerry and Edwards voted pretty much with Bush on war and trade. If a Democrat can't excise himself from Bush on these issues then he diserves 15 minutes of fame but not the leadership America needs. No guts no glory.

              •  Get facts straight (none)
                great rhetoric.  however, it's just plain wrong.

                Edwards does not support NAFTA.  He is for a wholesale renegotiation to put labor and environmental standards INSIDE any future trade agreements.

                Edwards fought and defeated the Bushist attempt for a "free trade" agreement with Chile.

                Edwards voted against allowing China in to the WTO.

                Edwards is against the CAFTA.

                Got it?

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:10:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You're right (none)
          Edwards fairs well against any repub! He has very high likeability ratings amongst people of all political stripes. He is one of the only dems that has a majority of repubs who view him favorably, repubs! He also doesn't have a long senate record so it would be more difficult for the repubs to run an efficient smear campaign. They also can't come at him with the ambulance chaser thing, he protected children from the big corp. I don't think that would be a winning smear for the repubs. You wonder why Bush and the repubs did not want Edwards to run against Bush more than any other dem?
    •  I was not expecting to like (none)
      John Edwards during the primary. The more I heard him, the more I liked him. However, my complaint with him is his lack of experience and he still, sadly, lacks that experience. I think he has tons of potential but he needs experience to go with that potential. I will give him serious consideration in '08 should he run but I doubt at this time that I will be voting for him and I doubt he stands much of a chance for the exact reasons I've stated above.

      "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

      by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:25:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  UGH Here it is again (3.50)
        Experience is OVER-RATED.

        Did Bush have more experience than Gore?  No.
        Heck in many ways Kerry had more experience than Bush in 2004.
        Did Clinton have more experience than Bush Sr? No.
        Did Reagan have more experience than Mondale?  Not really.
        Did Reagan have more experience than Carter?  That's arguable.

        Resume's don't get people the job of president, personality, a solid campaign, and a domestic agenda win.

        Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

        by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:49:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, resumes might not get you the job... (none)
          ... but they have a lot to do with being qualified for the job and doing a good job once you get it. John Edwards does not have enough experience in my view. Does that rule him out completely? No. But it is a very real knock against him. It was a very real knock against Bush too and look at what an absolutely crappy president he has turned out to be.

          On the other hand, Bush Sr. had a very impressive resume. And it served to make him a far more qualified and capable president then his son... but still a very mediocre one.

          While not a huge Kerry fan, I believe he would have been a vastly superior President to Bush and his experience was a big part of that estimation.

          Clinton had been a Governor for several years and that is very good experience.

          The point is that I John Edwards doesn't have all that much more experience that prepares him for being President then I do. One term as a Senator. That's it.

          Will you vote for me if I run?

          "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

          by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:07:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Winning (none)
            You've got to actually WIN the election to govern.

            When we nominate a presidential candidate, we need to nominate one that can actually WIN.

            I don't know, have you been a senator?  did you defeat a sitting gop senator from the Helms machine in a red state? did you give the closing argument that helped saved Clinton from the impeachment/coup?  did  you help pass the Patient Bill of Rights?  were you key in getting McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform passed?  Did you grow up among the common people, become the first in your family to go to college, and then build a hugely successful business/law firm?

            Are you one of the few Democrats in America that can speak a language that most Americans can relate to?  Do you have a photogenic family?

            If so, then let me know you're three core principles and I'll consider you.

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:17:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aaah... the electability (none)


              Listen, I like John Edwards. I will give him consideration if he runs and may even vote for him depending on who else runs. But he does lack experience and that is a legitamate knock against him. Does it disqualify him? As I said earlier, no. Does a "perfect" resume mean an automatic vote? Or an automatically good President? No. But a fuller resume is and important consideration and should be taken into account. That's all I'm sayin here. He lacks experience and that's an irrefutable fact. He does have more qualifying experience then me but not much. One term more than me as a Senator to be exact. He has a great deal of talent and intelligence, both areas in which I am sorely lacking, and excellent speaking ability, though he did surprisingly poorly in the VP debate.

              So yeah, he is a good guy and I'm glad he is one of ours but he lacks experience plain and simple.

              "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

              by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  'cause we wouldn't want (none)
                to actually get elected.

                Look, electability is still a key issue.  Just because, unfortunately, many Dems, including many ex-Dean supporters foolishly thought Kerry was more electable, doesn't make the issue crap.  You've just got to think it through more.

                As for your other points I refer you to my comments above.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:59:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well... if you think... (none)
                  "electability" is an issue then we shall not see eye to eye. Ah well, long as we're both willing to work for the same side and not attack other democrats instead of republicants then I guess that's ok too.

                  "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

                  by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 06:14:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  strange (none)
                    On the contrary, it's very important to be critical of Democrats and certain ideas within the Party in order to have the best candidates and ideas win out.  It's the marketplace of ideas.

                    Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                    by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:22:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hmmm... (none)
                      I chose my words carefully most of the time. I did not say one cannot be critical of other Democrats. Wasn't that what i was doing in regard to Edwards experience? I said we should not attack each other. There is a big difference between being critical and attacking as I'm sure you'll agree. Healthy debate is... healthy. It's the airing of dirty laundry and the public attacks on members of our own side that has to stop. Lets save the attacks for the bad guys.

                      "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

                      by Andrew C White on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:24:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  But then our experienced candidates (none)
        Do not necessarily win elections...see
        Kerry, Gore, McGovern, Humphrey...

        Bush had less than 6 years experience in politics total. Carter was more experienced than Reagan, George Bush Sr more experience than Clinton..and on the list goes throughout history.

        We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

        by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:51:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Our current system for choosing (none)
          both presidential candidates and presidents is designed essentially to choose the best politician, not necessarily the best person for the job.

          In fact, I would venture to say that our system tends to filter out many potential candidates who would make excellent leaders.

          IMHO, the best leader is the reluctant leader, the one who needs to be convinced to take a leadership position.

          Our current system -- in which candidates are essentially self-chosen, and are then put through a process that only those who absolutely crave the position are willing to endure -- almost guarantees that our final choice will be between two mediocrities, and that the final winner will almost always abuse the the power he (or she)has so slavishly sought.

          Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs

          by leftvet on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:06:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  See response above..... (none)

          "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

          by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:07:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Old hat" (4.00)
      I think Edwards did a great thing by stepping forward and sending a clearly uniting message.

      The GOP latches onto Howard Dean's alleged "anger" and tries to turn the public off toward Dean because he rips them apart in his speeches, but I really don't think that old trick is going to work much longer. It's getting to be "old hat".

      If Howard can tone down the less tactful comments he has been known to make, he will become a powerful weapon on OUR side and, in his position as DNC Chair, he will surely have the GOP on the run. He really gets to them - and it shows. With a Bush approval rating in the low 40s, we can assume that Dean's message is resonating with more and more Americans (not only the left).

      John Edwards, with all his positive wisdom, his charismatic nature, and clear, earnest political statements, is coming in and showing all Americans what a refreshing difference he could make for this nation, even though he hasn't declared any intention to run for President. We are so lucky to have them both of supporting us, each in their own capacity.

    •  great flip-flop (1.50)
      Johnny Smile has full mouth and an empty suit.

      That war you voted for is going real well right now...

  •  Thanks, Kos, for posting this (4.00)
    And I think people were a little too eager to pounce on Edwards for committing the egregious sin of criticizing Dean, instead of learning a little bit more about the situation and the context.  
    •  Seeing this, (4.00)
      and the feature on Olbermann last night taking certain media outlets to task for publishing Kerry's remarks from last Friday out of context as well... this is good.

      We need to see more of this, aggressively publicized.

    •  The Sin (none)
      That Bob Johnson and many others have been hammering on was helping move a discussion about whether Republicans had ever worked a day in their lives (a good discussion for the Dems) and allowing it to become a discussion of whether Howard Dean is really the leader of a unified, competent political party.

      Edwards still fucked that up. But he's doing better today.

      •  Exactly (4.00)
        Democrats, not just Edwards, need to get a lot better at controlling the debate and keeping the focus on the real enemy... the Republicans... and not allowing themselves to get sucked into the RWNM misdirection. I didn't think Edwards comments were all that bad in the first place but the fact that neither he nor Biden (whose comments appear to have been far worse) were able to deflect the "gotcha" and instead take the attack to the enemy.

        "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

        by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the key (none)
          to this was that Republicans in Florida and Ohio didn't have 8 hour waits in line.  Their Secretarys of State saw to that.

          "Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - George Orwell, 1984

          by mkfarkus on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:45:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  LOL (none)
      I was almost one of those people.

      One of the problems of blogging is that you're allowed instant reaction. But I'm slowly learning that it's best not to take news reports at face value.

      That's driven home by the number of times news stories have misquoted me or taken things out of context in the past couple of years.

      •  Don't let Edwards off that easy (none)
        From Fred in Vermont:

        This is the way it was reported by the AP:

        While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." Dean said later his comments did not refer to hard-working Americans, but rather to the failure of Republican leadership to address working-class concerns.
        Responding to Dean's initial remark, Edwards said Dean "is not the spokesman for the party."

        Dean is "a voice. I don't agree with it," Edwards, a former senator and the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, said Saturday at a party fundraising dinner in Nashville, Tenn.

        Sounds like Edwards is backtracking and he is the one misrepresenting what he said.  Good that he's backtracking, bad that he said it in the first place.

    •  committing the egregious sin of criticizing Dean (none)
      And you wonder why people get pissed off around these parts...

      If you can't take five seconds to consider the weight of your words then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to be critical of Dean when he does it...

      Especially when what he said is perfectly understandable when you see the context of what he actually said....

      something Sen. Edwards seems to understand.

      •  OK, maybe I was a little nastier than I had to be (none)
        And I apologize for that, but it does bother me that Howard Dean often seems practically above criticism on this site, while many other Democratic politicians are criticized on a fairly regular basis.  It's not that I don't like Howard Dean--I do like him, very much, and I think he's a damn good choice for DNC chief.  
        •  thanks for that... (none)
          And if you want to see me be critical of Dean sometime start a thread about his campaign in Iowa....


        •  dean above criticism...? (4.00)
          people get angry when dean becomes the topic because he ISNT THE ISSUE...Bush is, and when we allow ourselves to be knocked off message we give the ball  back to team Bush...its time we stopped doing that.

          "Not even Revelations threatens a plague of vengeful yahoos." H. S. Thompson

          by KnotIookin on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:40:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, (none)
            and that's been kind of my point in the past, when I was arguing against excessive dissing of Kerry, the Clintons, etc.  It does apply to Dean as well; nobody should be above criticism here, but ultimately, we should keep our eyes on the prize.  
      •  By the way, I like LOTR a lot too (none)
        Although I haven't seen the movies yet.  
  •  At least he didn't say (none)
    that we should have nominated Dean. That probably would have eliminated any chance of my voting for Edwards in the primary had he said that.

    Yeah? At least YOUR Congressional District has elected a Democrat sometime in the last 124 years. (TN-1)

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:07:23 AM PDT

  •  No! No! Let's kill everybody! (4.00)
    Don't listen to the guy who says that we're all essentially on the same page! Kill everyone! Everyone, I say! You heard him say something about Howard Dean! You heard it plain as day! Don't give up the fight or you're all spineless! Aiieee!
  •  Man, maybe I'm alone here on this but... (4.00)
    I still don't think Dean said anything wrong.
    Bravo to Edwards on the straight talk.
    •  You're not alone... (none)
      and my question is, why do we keep taking the bait?    
      •  Exactly! (none)
        So many Republicans are working class or middle class but believe in the myth of massive upward mobility (I and others call them "pre-rich")to the extent that they are willing to go along with anybody selling that myth.  The stifling of social mobility is being well-documented, the gulf between the haves and have-nots is obviously widening, but someone like Dean says that maybe not everyone has to punch a clock for a living and the people who aspire to be the idle rich freak out!  WTF!?!
    •  The idea was right (4.00)
      the wording was wrong.  He needs to be more target specific when he's lobbing bombs.

      And I'm all for lobbing bombs.

      Dean.  Edwards.  Reid.  Obama.  The Four Horsemen of the GOP Apocalypse.

      •  Hah (none)
        I learned that lesson the hard way Sunday night.
        •  I little... humble... (none)
          ... pie?

          "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

          by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:35:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What Happened Sunday Night? (none)
          Can somebody please post about nine diaries commenting on it so I can get caught up?</inflaming the situation>

          Seriously, yeah, Dean's idea was great, his wording less than deft.  It wasn't the best comment, but it also wasn't half as bad as a whole lot of shit Grover Norquist or Newt Gingrich say and don't take grief over.

      •  In context, (none)
        I think it was clear he was talking about the Republican power structure, not your average Republican on the street.

        "Yeah, so what?"

        by Debby on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It would have been more effective (none)
        and more to the point had he stated that the people Republican elected officials actually represent with their policies have never made an honest living. That might have made the point he was trying to make. I know what he meant, you know what he meant, the average Republican took it as a snub. Why the hell don't we have our equivalent of Frank Luntz?

        Why is it so hot in here, and what am I doing in this handbasket?

        by justme on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:08:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In Context... (none)
      In context, he didn't say anything wrong.

      They are just trying to inflame the average, unthinking Republican, the blue-collar working guy that votes against his own best interest because he's afraid his gay son will be allowed to have a wedding. They have to do all they can to keep that guy in the dark and voting Republican. Otherwise, they are sunk.

    •  Even more ... (none)
      why is this a big deal? I'm the original Dean supporter around here (the ur-Dean guy), and I could care less who attacks him or defends him now. He's not running for anything; his name won't appear on any ballot. He doesn't need any votes, and, frankly, Joe Biden is irrelevant to his success (as is John Edwards).

      He got elected to the DNC to revitalize the grassroots and the state parties. He seems to be doing a bang-up job of that, so far. He's raising good money, and he's impressing the people he needs to impress. The Carvilles and various other consultants ... eh. Whatever. Howard's a big boy, and, in the kind of organizational/small-room politics he's in now, he'd kick Joe Biden's ass. If Biden wants to pick a fight with Howard, well, it's his political funeral. He'd be kissing away all of the state-level support for any abortive presidential run he may be considering.

      Sure, it'd be a helluva lot nicer to use the media time to further the Democratic message, but NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE HEADS OF THESE PARTIES. Every shot Howard Dean takes is one shot that won't do a damn bit of good for the GOP's electoral chances. I'm fine with Howard a)soaking up the efforts of the GOP attack squads while b) revitalizing the Democratic Party across the country. Seems like a good mix to me. And I don't think Dean gives a shit if Laura Ingraham or Rush Limbaugh attack him.

  •  Agreed. (4.00)
    I too commend John Edwards for making this statement.  I wish all of our Dem representatives would fire back when statements like this are taken out of context, distorted, and just plain twisted.

    I understand tact, and political correctness.  However, I think it's far past time that we stop mincing words when responding to press and Republican smears.  No need to use profanity - just say it loud, clear, and plain.  Once.  And stop with the polite phraseology.  A lie is a lie is a lie.  We don't need to call it anything else - it's a lie.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 1600+ dead Americans, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, all on your head. WWJS?

    by Miss Blue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

  •  And then there's Biden (4.00)
    Regrettably, Joe Biden's slamming of Dean is a bit harder to defend.
    •  Regrettably, (none)
      there's a whole lot about Biden that's hard to defend.

      I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

      by agrajag on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:59:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the Difference (none)

      Joe Biden is a US Senator from Delaware who happens to be a member of the Democratic Party. Biden's concerns are primarily related to the personal status and power he wields as a member of those institutions, on behalf of the corporate institutions that incorporate in his home state because it has a regulatory structure that fosters corporate crime and protects corporate criminals from the economic and legal consequences of their actions.

      Though John Edwards has served as a US Senator, he is carefully staking out a position as a party leader who uses his personal wealth and his political powere on behalf of the the disenfranchised lower-middle class.

      Face it, Biden is a plagiarizing pompous corporate shill who blew his shot at any office beyond the Senate years ago.

      Edwards still has a chance to fix his position on Iraq, admit he was duped by the case that Bush made for war, and if he's sufficiently contrite about his past errors as well as intent on insuring that such errors aren't repeated, he has a shot in 2008.

      But if he doesn't admit he was simply wrong to authorize force in Iraq, he can do all the friendly verbal tapdancing he wants, and he'll still see his presidential hopes melt like the proverbial snowball in hell.

      No more war apologists.....Not Kerry, not Biden, not Edwards if he doesn't come up with an explanation

  •  Misses the point (none)
    Just as Howard Dean needs to be careful about what he says, because he knows people are gunning for him, other Democrats need to watch what they say and not give the media the sound bites they are clearly looking for.

     On Markos, Liddy Dole, and what's right

    •  Right (none)
      I think the main problem with his quote is the sweeping generalization.  I'm sure he could have put it in a better way, and perhaps thinks he should have.

      Something like "all the rich republicans can go and vote whenever they want at their polling places which, incidentally, don't have 8 hour lines" or something like that. a little more lengthy, but certainly less...controversial.

      Yeah? At least YOUR Congressional District has elected a Democrat sometime in the last 124 years. (TN-1)

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:14:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (none)
        The country is full of working folks, sitting on their coffee break, parsing the sentence structure of line 62 of Howard Dean's latest speech.

        It's about fucking headlines people! The headline either reinforces a "republicans represent the rich" meme or a "democrats can't get their act together" meme.

        Dean's been making good headline memes for the Dems, willing to wear the hair shirt for the team. Biden, Edwards, etc, need to stay out of his way, like Harry Reid did this morning. That's all.

      •  what sweeping generalization? (none)
        how does "a lot of Republicans" followed by a discussion of "ordinary people" get confused?

        Anyone who reads the box above knows exaclty who Howard Dean is talking about...

        •  Its just that (none)
          "a lot of republicans" makes it sound like there are like, millions of republicans around getting free checks or something.

          I think narrowing the number of people being talked about would have been wise.

          Yeah? At least YOUR Congressional District has elected a Democrat sometime in the last 124 years. (TN-1)

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:52:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No (none)
      I think Dean (and Kos, while I'm at it) need to be more [I]careful[/I], but not because of the media.

      As Kerry demonstrated, no one's perfect, and even when you DO say everything correctly, the media will just spin what you've said until they get what they want.  The only way to limit the damage is to speak with conviction, not mince words.

      What Dean needs to learn is to just keep a cool, professional head.  Raw emotion is good, but honed emotion is even better.

      My taxes support the troops, not a yellow sticker.

      by Dragonchild on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:16:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good for the goose (none)
      The problem with Edwards' walk-back is that he had to have known that the media would do this. Well, maybe he forgot, but this isn't exactly a big surprise that the media would rip something out of context in order to play up two of their favorite narratives: Dems in turmoil, combined with Dean out of control. Dems need to stop criticizing their own in order to curry favor with the Tim Russerts of the world. Just stop.
  •  It's obvious (none)
    that democrats are out to screw Howard any chance they get, but my God he gives them ammo...

    Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.  

    Ridiculous statement.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

    •  Why would Dems (none)
      be out to screw Howard?  He's the Money Guy.

      The MEDIA may be out to screw Howard, but I would say the vast majority of Democrats are not.  John Edwards sure in the hell isn't.

      Dean Rocks.  Edwards Rocks.  They are different men with different experiences and different opinions on some issues...but together, they will bring us victory.  They are immensely talented.  They'll do it if we let them.

      •  Right. (none)
        This latest little "flap" is just more repug-craporate hit-squad media distortion to discredit Dean.
      •  Biden and others (none)
        are jockeying for 2008 presidential run. That's what it's all about. And as I said, Howard who's the best of 'em by far in my opinion, keeps handing em opportunities and the press is more than happy to play along. Why? Because they're scared of Howard. He can be his own worst enemy.

        Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

        by moon in the house of moe on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:42:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, It's so Obvious Democrats... (none)
      ...are out to screw Dean.  That's why he was elected chair of the Green Party by people not elected as the national representatives of the Democratic party.

      Yeah, obvious...

  •  Come on, don't fall into this trap (4.00)
    The Republicans obviously want to spin this as "Democrats attacking working people" and playing defense on a Republican frame is no way to win.

    Instead, you have to turn it around.  The Republicans bring up working class families and that gives you an opening to talk about issues.  "I'm glad you raised that point about hard-working families, $TALKING_HEAD.  Did you know that $N million working families have no health care coverage?" Etc.

    Conservatives protect corporations; Liberals protect individuals.

    by RequestedUsername on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:10:51 AM PDT

  •  Limbaugh - Dems don't work. Did anyone notice? (none)

            Limbaugh on his June 2 radio show:

     ... big opportunities so far mentioned by Howard Dean — pension portability and changes to election laws. ... So portability of pensions. What's the second one? Oh, yeah, Election Day a holiday.  — I don't know why they need to do that.

    Most of their voters don't work anyway, so I don't know how that's going to help them that much.

    •  I don't like that (none)
      I hope Limbaugh's statement never gets equated to Deans.  Dean deserves to be treated seriously.  Limbaugh doesn't.  Dean's statements should be scrutinized.  Limbaugh's statements deserve to be ignored.

      Pay no attention to the hypocrite on the radio.  Comparing the two statements like that tends to equate the two speakers, not a good thing.  Different standards and all.

    •  Limbaugh (none)

         is not a former governor and chairman of a national party. That's the difference.
      •  Please, This is Not a Debate, it's War-- (none)
        Rush is a major Republican voice and what he said was a much stronger accusation--a clear, unambiguous, flat-out lie since he said "most of their voters."

        The last thing in the world that should guide us is the legal standing of one of their major voices compared to one of ours. Their voices are all issued the same major talking points anyways, so they really are all fair game.

        We should have made a huge deal of Rush's line from the instant the media jumped on Dean for his vastly more plausible version of the same idea. A basic tactic of the right is to blur these distinctions and raise outrage over fringe and nonmainstream Democratic voices. We should do it too, because we can do it on the basis of truthfulness, and especially because their type of fringe surrogate reaches millions of voters at a pop.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:57:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Limbaugh (none)
        is a fat, drugged-out, lying piece of shit!

        (My apologies to anyone who may be fat, drugged-out or a piece of shit for comparing you to that human slimeball...)

    •  I saw that one (none)
      I think Limbaugh is becoming more and more irrelevant (the Repugs have to distance themselves for Rush's upcoming prison term).

      Now if Ken Mehlman said that, we should certainly be screaming.

  •  Thing is (none)
    He's right.  A lot of Republicans HAVE never made an honest living in their lives.

    That's not to say all of them, or even most of them.  But lots, there are.

    Perceiving relativity isn't one of America's strong points.

    My taxes support the troops, not a yellow sticker.

    by Dragonchild on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:13:43 AM PDT

  •  We need a time line. (none)
    How did this whole stupid brouhaha get started? We need the names of the people responsible.

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

    by Omar on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:14:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm Glad he's not a Traitor Joe (4.00)
    Betrayal Knows No Bounds

    Judas Iscariot
    Image Hosted by
    Benedict Arnold
    Image Hosted by
    Mata Hari
    Image Hosted by

    Betrayal Knows No Bounds

    Linda Tripp
    Image Hosted by
    Bob Nofacts
    Image Hosted by
    Senator Biden

    Image Hosted by

  •  The GOP Diverted Attention Away from Gitmo (4.00)
    We were suckers here - a diary on this very blog even rated a mention yesterday on CNN.  There was so much more to talk about in politics, but this blog along with many others got sucked into "eating our own" instead of focusing on exactly how sinister the Gitmo revelations really are - how the White House lied the whole week prior to the release of information they knew to be true.

    We were suckered.  

    And oh by the way, based on the Ohio Coingate scandal the Republicans in charge in that great state don't seem to have done an "honest day's work" lately...  Humm - Howard however non-specific was really on point...

    You gotta hand it to the GOP for managing to make issues of torture take a back seat in the debate to political rhetoric.

  •  But, but, I need controversy!!! (none)
    This isn't the kind of news I am used to hearing from places, I want controversy!  Conflict!  Anger, infighting, petty squabbling!  Oh, wait, let me take a quote out of context, I bet I can do it myself:

    So Edwards says: I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either.

    Aha!  Edwards is calling Dean a flip-flopper!  Ah, my controversy addiction has been fulfilled.  Keep that fight going!  Dean vs Edwards!  They hate each other!  Ignore the rest of Edwards statement, he called him a flip-flopper!  Oh snap!  

    Dean, any response?

    •  LOL (none)
      The dang trouble is John Edwards and Howard Dean apparently agree on more than they disagree with. LOL.! LOL!!
      The trouble is Edwards and Dean obviously like and respect each other. Darn it all..LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL!

      I figured Edwards would eventually clarify as he is not one to bash fellow Democrats and neither is Dean. I respect those 2 more than some Dems ( think the Joes from the East )...not exactly like the Three Wise Men from the East.

      We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

      by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:30:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, Joe (none)
      How about Edwards and Dean settle this with a good, old-fashioned, scantily-clad pie fight? Would that help you out?
  •  The mistake of trusting the media (none)
    "I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work."

    Turns out that's not what Howard said, though. It was a mistake to respond to that without clarification.

    •  Yes, he shouldn't have responded at all... (none)
      Better to say "no comment at this point" until he'd nailed down what was actually said.

      Also, if Edwards said that Dean is not the spokesman for the party, then his "explanation" doesn't go nearly far enough to address that. If the chair of the DNC is not the party spokesperson, WHO IS???  If he is not the spokeman, then why should anyone listen to him?

      It is totally wrong for him or any Dem to say things like that that undercut Howard's chairmanship. Disagree? Fine. But that's no call to undercut the party.

  •  Go, Johnny, Go! (4.00)
    He's soooo cute when he gets mad!

    Seriously, Edwards has my vote in 2008 if he chooses to run.

  •  Yes, Oregon does have it right (none)
    And I'm glad to hear Dean knows about and recognizes my homestate.  Absentee voting as the default has increased our voter turnout and generally made life easier.  I still vote in Oregon despite living in Rochester, as I follow and know the issues in Oregon better, and it's been a breeze.  If we had Oregon's system nationwide then voter turnout would likely increase 10-20%, voter fraud would diminish (it would still exist but at least there'd be a paper trail), and well, I bet democrats would win a lot more elections.
    •  I agree (none)
      It is so much easier to vote in Oregon than in other places I've lived.  

      Although I've been pretty stable for awhile, previously I moved around a lot.   It was a royal pain finding the polling place at each new location in which I lived and then acquainting myself with the local variability in how voting works - type of ballot, type of machine, etc.

      It's so easy now.  You can take time to read the voters' pamphlet, make informed decisions on your own time, and still have options for dropping off your ballot (mail, ballot drop box at your local library or city hall, or the county's offices).  

      It's very convenient and far more pleasant than my past experience.  The only thing I miss about going to a polling place is seeing my neighbors, some with little kids, waiting in line to do their civic duty.  Oregon's system eliminates that communal experience.

      But I think the benefits are worth it.

    •  Oregon has it right (none)
      Damn straight and if this quote hadn't been
      put on a blog I would have never heard about it.

      Rate your comment up and maybe we should start some dairies
      for the Oregon voting system.

      by Robert Oak on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good for John Edwards (none)
    And he makes a very good point here. Dean was taken out of context (as usual) and reported on in a negative way (as usual). I'm so used to it that I always look for the original quote and full text first. It is always, always, far different then is reported and flamed on.

    Why not Edwards too?

    The quote I saw of Edwards wasn't that bad. It looked worse in context of Biden's comments but still wasn't all that bad except in that Democrats, including Edwards, still don't appear to be prepared to properly respond to the divisive and negative "gotcha" questioning of the RWNM. Democrats need to be better prepared to immediately turn such things around into attacks on the policies and statements of Republicans. Immediately and constantly. Where is the outrage at Cheney's defense of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo? Why isn't every Democratic spokesmen turning every question around into an attack on the administration over the Downing Street Minutes and their illegal and immoral activities at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and the not-so-secret secret CIA "camps" where we are holding "disappeared" people?

    I salute John Edwards for his straightforward response here but I ask that Democratic spokepeople get their acts together, learned to be prepared for such "gothca's" and be prepared to turn everything around into a constant attack on this worst ever administration in the history of the United States.

    "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

    by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:22:22 AM PDT

  •  Chill there Winston (none)
    Have been holding back on it, but man people were calling for blood on here before they knew the facts. I hope there will be some apologies now.
  •  yeah! (none)
    Thank you John Edwards for rejoining the Democratic Party!  ;-)

    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx

    by markymarx on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:25:42 AM PDT

    •  Double standard? (4.00)
      Now, how come if someone criticizes Chairman Dean they're disloyal to the Party when it was almost EXPECTED of all of us to criticize the last Chair?  

      The great thing about being a Democrat is the it's perfectly ok to criticize the leadership -- and doing so does not make you an outsider.

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

      by ThirstyGator on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:38:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah yeah agreed, but (none)
        That's not what I was getting it.  

        Democrats need to make it that clear at all times--that we all stand up for working Americans.  And the Republicans do not.  That's the big picture for ALL democrats, however Dean expressed it.

        Edwards wasn't clear on this points initially, but he is now.  Hence, the snarky comment.

        Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx

        by markymarx on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:01:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I must be the only one (4.00)
    While I wasn't part of the chorus calling for Edwards to apologize I really can't get excited over this development.

    Here is what Edwards said, as reported in the Washington Post:

    Two Democrats Disavow Dean's Jab at GOP

    By Mike Allen and Alan Cooperman
    Monday, June 6, 2005; A06

    Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) distanced themselves over the weekend from remarks by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who is facing criticism for the pace of the party's fundraising.


    Edwards, the party's vice presidential nominee last year, said at an annual party fundraising dinner Saturday in Nashville that he disagreed with Dean's comment. "The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party," Edwards said, according to the Associated Press. "He's a voice. I don't agree with it."


    Edwards commented without knowing what Howard had said. Whatever disagreement he had should have been expressed privately to Howard and not to the AP.  Edwards was manipulated into a gotcha moment and missed an opportunity to support Howard's point without supporting how he said it.  

    This latest posting by Edwards strikes me as a CYA in response to the criticism he got yesterday.

    Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

    by mini mum on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:28:57 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you (2.33)
      Edwards is just covering his ass.  
      •  This is also my take: CYA (none)
        And, his post does nothing to address the "not the spokesperson for the party" comment. Biden's comments were far worse, but that particular one from edwards was the most gauling to me. And, I note that he HASN'T explained away that one at all, not by a long shot. My question to Edwards is: If the Chair of the DNC is not the spokeperson for the party, then who is? Does this party then even HAVE a spokesperson? Does Edwards claim that HE is the spokesperson?

        Phaw. If anyone is, even de facto, the spokesperson for the party, then it is the chair of the DNC. I don't appreciate Edwards trying to undercut Dean's position or influence in this way.

        •  The DNC chair is NOT (4.00)
          the official spokesman for the Democratic Party.  He's the spokesman for the fundraising wing of it.

          If anyone is an official PARTY spokesman its Harry Reid.  At least he's an elected official.

          Did anyone here consider Terry Mac to be the spokesman of the Democratic party?

          Yeah, me neither.

        •  Undercutting Dean (none)
          Any Democrat who publicly undercuts Dean hurts him or herself as well as the entire party.

          What I find particularly irksome is that Dean never publicly badmouthed any Democrat and he probably had plenty of cause to do so.  Yet Biden & Edwards think they can get some traction by dissing Dean.

          It boggles the mind.

          Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

          by mini mum on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:01:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true (none)
            In the primaries by the time we got to Wisconsin Dean came out hard against Kerry the front runner, remember? I don't live in Wisconsin so I'm not sure if he put up attack ads on TV, but I remember a press conference where he vociferously attacked Kerry for taking money from "special interests" and lobbyists.
            •  Consider the circumstances (none)
              That occurred during the primaries when 9 Democrats were trying to distinguish themselves from one another :-)  For Dean, that was very near to the end of his campaign.

              But look at the record since then.  He has been publicly supportive--do you hear him calling Joe Biden "Senator MBNA"?--and any criticism he delivers privately.  He's said as much on talk shows: private conversations stay private.

              Gotta respect that.  Time to push the 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Democrat.

              Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

              by mini mum on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 12:08:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So (none)
                the 11th commandment should read Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Democrat unless absolutely necessary.

                As regards Biden and the bankruptcy bill, I think he should be called out publicly. Remember what MoveOn did to Steny Hoyer over the same legislation? They not only spoke out, I think they actually put out ads ripping him on his support for corporations and particularly their donations at the expense of his middle class constituents.

                •  Agreed on Biden (none)
                  Absolutely, Biden--and other Democrats--should be called out on their votes for that bill.

                  Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

                  by mini mum on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:46:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  He should have used a page from the repugs (none)
          Had it been a republican put on the spot like that he would have said something like, "If that's what he said, and I'm not so sure he did since you can't trust the liberal media to get it right..."
  •  This is how THEY do it! (none)
    Republicans that disagree with their party on ANYTHING are roasted on a spit. That's how they work. They'll never be able to understand that there is such a thing as respectful disagreement. So of course, they have to accuse Edwards of creating a chasm because that's what Karl would do.

    GOP bracelets to go with those Purple Heart bandaids, W. W. K. D. ?

  •  Video Of Howard Dean In Context (none)
    I thought it would be nice to have the video of Howard Dean in context online.

    Howard Dean Video Link

  •  Glad he came around... (4.00)
    but could it be that he did it in response to our calls and e-mails?  

    I'm not jumping on the Johnny bandwagon quite yet.  He needs to show me he's as supportive of my party leader as my party leader is of ALL Democrats.

    The mistake he made is obvious to anyone who has given a cursory look to anything Lakoff has said or written.  You can't tell me he didn't know better--Isn't he a famed trial lawyer with well-honed debating skills???  He was trying to play to the mushy middle with his criticism of Dean and that's not what I want to see in a leader.

    Why do you care...whether the people running the government have good values? Wouldn't you prefer a bit of competence, if forced to choose?" --Michael Kinsley

    by Susan S on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:32:52 AM PDT

    •  Ummm, (none)
      It could be that not every Democrat is a big fan if Dean.  Even -- gasp! -- here on this site there are some who think Chairman Dean may not be infallible.  

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

      by ThirstyGator on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is one thing to say "I disagree" (none)
        And one would hope that when you do say that, that you know what was actually said first, PARTICULARLY if it is another Dem you are disagreeing with. Otherwise "no comment" is entirely appropriate.

        It is quite another to claim that Dean is not the spokesperson for the party. As DNC chair, fuckin' yeah he is. That doesn't mean Edwards couldn't say, "he doesn't speak for me on this issue". But he didn't leave it at that. He had to go even further and attack Dean's position as well as what he said. Its the undermining of Dean's position that I take issue with Edwards with, not the disagreement itself, per se.

        •  So (none)
          did McAwful speak for you, for Dean, for Edwards in 2003 and 2004?
          Was he THE spokesperson for the Party?
          Was it traitorious to criticize him?

          Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

          by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:27:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  A tidbit to remember.... (none)
      is that in states with open primaries, he got more Republican and Independent votes than Kerry.
      And being from the south could also have a lot to do with it. I am not excusing it but it does serve as a backdrop perhaps. But compare Edwards to Bill Clinton's recent appearance on Larry King Live and then Joe Biden and you will see some marked differences, that is for sure. Those two are more likely to pick out Democratic weaknesses and score some points for the Conservative, hawkish Democrat, GOP lite talking points.

      We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

      by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:45:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dean (3.00)
    As much as I love the guy, he needs to watch his fucking mouth.  He's a very bright guy and I think he can help the party, but not if he keeps saying stupid shit.  Yes, he has been repeatedly taken out of context by the media.  But part of being in politics is knowing how to refine your message so that it can't be turned into something ridiculous.  Because, given the opportunity, the media will do that every time.
  •  Good make up but, (none)
    I am concerned that Edwards instincts in the rush of the moment are to make nice with the Kool Kidz at the expense of the guy expending his life energies to lay the groundwork for pols like Edwards:

    Responding to Dean's initial remark, Edwards said Dean "is not the spokesman for the party."

    Dean is "a voice. I don't agree with it," Edwards,

    When Dean errs Dean errs it's on the side of broadly bashing the Rethuglicans. Which do you think we need right now?

  •  And this changes what? (none)
    A) the first rule of the press is, you are never misquoted. if they didn't get your meaning you weren't clear or you fell into a press trap.

    B) it was a stupid thing to say, even if true in many cases. and I'm not getting how anything changes with the "context."

    C) thou shall NOT criticize a fellow democrat to reporters or the media -- the one thing Reagan believed (vis a vis repugs) that I agree with. Edwards is a dumbass as well here.

    D) We STILL suck at messaging. (sigh)

    •  I think it is time to move on (none)
      Getting stuck in the mud and keeping the brouhaha going is exactly what the GOP wants us to do.
      I agree that Democratic leaders have to be careful what they say to the Media. As the Media will twist and turn it and take it out of context. But there are so many other issues going on that mostly all Democrats agree takes precedence in importance.
      There is the War, Gitmo, Social Security, Healthcare and loads more. While this is going on, it distracts people from other issues of how our country is going to hell in a handbasket. And Bushco loves that.

      We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

      by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:39:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (none)
      He's a smart politician with media savvy. He knows exactly what he's doing and it isn't supporting Howard Dean in any meaningful way.

      Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I torture and a world says, "Kiss me, son of god." ~ They Might Be Giants

      by misscee on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:34:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards is like a little boy (none)
    that got caught.  He caused the flap with his words.  The benefit of the doubt was not extended to Dean, it was assumed that the media were posing a question about it exactly as it happened.

    Now, he's willing to say that he doubts Dean would have phrased it that way.  There was no doubt when he responded, rather idiotically, that the Chairman did not speak for the party.

    I trust Edwards' good heart and decency.  I think he's really sorry but he's also doing the same kind of pandering every pol does.  It seems if we support the panderer, they get deference and a pass, if we don't support the panderer, well, they are panderers with a capital P.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

    by Cathy on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Edwards Clarification is anything but (none)
    Dean said that "a lot of [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives."  

    Edwards said, "I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work. Of course, I didn't think so, and I said that. I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either."

    Excuse me, Mr. Edwards, but your oh-so-eloquent statement about this "flap" does nothing to clarify a perception of a chasm, and is counter-productive in remedying the media's twisting of Mr.Dean's words.  Mr. Dean explicitly said in his original statement that a lot of Republicans hadn't done an honest days work.  The people of our party would tend to agree.  And Mr. Dean was not refering to all Republicans, as the media tried to twist it.  But your statement does not clarify the fact that Mr.Dean was not refering to all Republicans.  In fact, your statement re-enforces this misconception, because you admonish Mr. Dean for using the language that he did, while you are ambiguous in your language as to whether Mr. Dean was refering to all Republicans, or just a lot like he said.  But, again, there was nothing wrong with his language; just a media that twisted it and your continual failure to clarify, which, as an acclaimed lawyer, I'd expect you'd be qualified to do.

    Furthermore, your appeal that the media hasn't covered all your statements about how you agree with Mr. Dean on such-and-such points sounds a lot like the Bush administration whining about the media failing to cover all the good news that's coming out of Iraq.

    I also think it's obvious at your opportunism to promote your sun-shiny political persona.  By the way, it comes off as phony and obnoxious to a lot of us.  We need real leadership.  We really need it.  That's not your brand.

  •  Er.... (none)
    Isn't posting a headline that reads, "Edwards: Dean was right" when Edwards did say he disagreed with Dean on that particular comment the flip side of saying Edwards attacked Dean?  

    Not to put too fine a point on it.....

  •  Edwards doesn't say "Dean was Right" (4.00)
    The headline to this post implies that Edwards specifically says those words, but he doesn't. I think this is significantly misleading, since Edwards actual comments are not so unequivocal as the attributed comment in the heading of the piece.

    Even a headline with the same words but without the quotation marks would be better, since it's certainly possible to summarize Edwards's piece this way.

    Or am I missing the place where Edwards actually says "Dean was right"?

    "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" -- George Bush, May 30, 2003

    by awol on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:54:18 AM PDT

    •  "We Agree" (4.00)
      "Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years.  Hear that? The same thing. For years. Have I ever put it some way that Howard wouldn't agree with?  Probably. And he put it in a way, once, just the other day, that I can't agree with, since I come from a place where hard-working people, who are better served by the agenda and passion of the Democrats, somehow still vote Republican."

      Its almost like having it both ways in a clarification, but I agree with the nuance Edwards is getting at. He should have added something about the corruption and deception of the corporate-controlled GOPmachine that I believe Howard was referring to as well.

      Elizabeth Edwards responded to some kneejerk fighting in comments to his post with her (always welcome and gracious, IMO) thoughts:

      A couple of facts
      by Elizabeth Edwards on 2005-06-07 05:23:41

      It is great that we as Democrats are so passionate. We will need that passion in 2006 and beyond. There are a couple of things that I think need clarifying, however, so that the discussion doesn't run amok.

      First, Howard Dean has stepped back from what he said. He did not mean to say that no Republican ever did a good day's work. So, since Howard doesn't agree with it, I think you can acknowledge that it is fine if John doesn't agree with it either. And that is in addition to the fact that it simply isn't true. I don't agree with their politics but Republicans -- some of whom voted for the Kerry-Edwards ticket -- are not all sitting by the pool opening financial statements. And I will use John McCain (United States Navy) and Charles Grassley (assembly line worker, then farmer) as examples that it is not even true of elected Republicans; I do not agree with them on the issues, but they have put in an honest day's work more than once.

      Second, John did say that Howard was a voice for the party, just that he was not the only voice. There are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry -- and my husband -- out there speaking, too. Terry McAuliffe didn't speak for the whole party. I heard someone say on MSNBC yesterday that the party chair is the voice of the party, citing Haley Barbour. Haley Barbour? Anyone remember anything Haley Barbour said? Listen, we have never been a monolith, thank goodness; it is one of the reasons that I am a Democrat.

      No Democrat should stop saying what he or she believes, regardless of whether it is popular with one crowd or another. John answered the question directly and correctly. And when it was blown up for more than it was, he corrected it here and re-iterated what he believes: that he and Howard stand together for the working people of this country."  

      "You're going to be held accountable, and we have the full force of the Democratic Party behind us on this." --georgia10

      by TaraIst on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 12:06:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Elizabeth Edwards "clarifies" nothing. (none)
        She misquotes Dean just as John Edwards did. She also mischaracterises Dean's "stepback." Not only did Dean not "mean to say" NO Republican ever did a good day's work, he never said it at all.

        What is the problem here? Are these people simply incapable of discovering and acting on the truth?

        Facts! Facts!

        What is the problem?


  •  Proper context (none)
    And what, may I ask, has 'proper context' EVER meant to conservatives?  How does one lie in 'proper context'?  Was anything the Swifties said - ever -  in 'proper context'?  Is Bush claiming that Social Security is just backed up by IOU's 'proper context'?  Was Bush claiming that Gore said he invented the Internet 'proper context'?

    No.  Never.  Not ever.

    The reason that they can't stick to proper context is that they would then have to admit their lies, their deceit and their taking of our country from us.

    •  just a note. re gore invented.. (none)
      The actual recording is on the net from the high school students he spoke to that day. He was misquoted by the NYTimes and the WApost specificly be two reporters who were notified of their error and offered the tape. They declined the offer.

      I once made a joke word macro that changed every third occourance of the word "and" to "not" and gave it to a lawyer friend who requested it. As a practical joke it was funny as hell. It was not funny when he accidentally spread it around his office.... think about it.

      -- If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. * Noam Chomsky --Democracy is the theory that the comm

      by NCrefugee on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:22:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The media has our Democrats well-trained. (none)
    They have an almost Pavlovian response when asked a question about something Howard said.

    They assume the media is right, and almost always take a stand against Dean's statement...even if they don't know what it was.

    We watched the speech, and I have been reading some of the transcript at MyDD in a post there.  We were excited by the speech, we were so happy to see Howard calling out the Republicans on the pension problems.  

    We came away from the C-Span viewing feeling very good about the party, and because of Howard's plans for the party we had hope.

    Barney Franks was first in his criticism before then. Then comes Edwards' remarks, then Biden on Sunday.  We felt like someone pulled the rug out from under us as Democrats.

    Edwards is a fine man, but he made a big mistake in letting the media use him like that.  I don't think he intended it.  I do think Biden intended it, though.

    Howard Dean said absolutely nothing wrong.  The media said he did, and our Democrats heeled.  Edwards did not handle it well.  Dean did nothing wrong.

    From here on the media should not get the privilege of defining what our Democrats say.  We need to stop allowing that.

    "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

    by floridagal on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:56:34 AM PDT

  •  Glad Edwards did this (none)
    For two days I have been blogging about that stupid press conference at the Jackson Day event.  The reporters were horrible and just trying to create the mess that took place.  I believe the guy from AP should be fired or not given a press pass to Democratic Party events anymore.  
    Once more here is my story of the events:
    May I never have to link this story again.
  •  Well since Elizabeth Dole LOL!!! (none)
    Says Kos and Kossacks are  on the phone everyday with Harry Reid and the Democratic Leadership, I guess we all are very busy talking to Harry, Nancy, John Kerry, and so forth. So, I must depart for Lunch with Hillary and Chuck  after I put in my daily call to advise
    the leadership on what to do today...LOL. I guess I should call Howard and John while I am it to tell them to cuss out the Press...LOL>>>LOL>>>>

    We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

    by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

  •  Too little too late.... (none)
    Edwards is trying to deflect the issue.  Certainly he can disagree with Dean.  Certainly he can choose other words to express the same sentiment.

    But he said that Dean does not speak for the party.  Well if the Chairman does not speak for the party, who does?

    He said this to minimize Dean.  Now, after the grassroots uproar, he wants to justify his actions without addressing the real issue.  Edwards (and those like him) will never understand the loyalty that we feel towards Dean.  It goes back to that "what I want to know is" speech in California when Dean gave voice to our collective frustration.  That is a bond that will never bend, and it will be hard to break.

    •  you complete idiot (none)
      read the post.  

      The reporters at the conference misreported the context of the quote.  

      God, are you people so mindlessly devoted to Dean that you can't read!?!?!?

      •  No, you may be the complete idiot.... (none)
        Edwards made multiple comments, including that Dean "does not speak for the Democratic party".  Yes, Edwards said he disagreed with Dean's characterization that many Republicanss never worked an honest day in their lives.  That is ok, he is entitled to disagree.  However, he should not be diminishing Dean by saying that our Chairman does not speak for the party.  Do you ever hear a Republican saying that Ken Mehlman does not speak for their party.

        Yes, I read the diary, and it does not reference everything that Edwards said, that is what I was trying to point out.  So, no, I am not a complete idiot, I have an opinion based on information.  Do you?

        •  Landrew (none)
          Check out the quote in the WaPo from the Monday story.

          His spokeswoman [Dean's], Karen Finney, said: "He is a voice of the party, not the only voice. We have different voices in our party. But we are all committed to rebuilding our party and getting our country back on track."

  •  good but could be better (none)
    I still think Edwards made a mistake here.  Rather than saying "I disagree", he should have said, "I think what Dean was trying to say is that Democrats are the party that values honest work" and then talk about all the things he wants to do for American workers.

    That's the way to deal with Republican talking points.  Turn it into a plus for our side and don't undermine your colleagues.

    A gaffe in Washington is when you tell the truth and people act surprised.

    by hotshotxi on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:00:25 AM PDT

  •  its a good thing (none)
    Hey, I dont think we should sweat this too much. The pouncing on Dems and Dean in particular is becoming white noise these days. But consider what happens -- they pounce on Dean for being harsh, blunt and labeling him as a nasty guy. Been there done that. In the process, his line is everywhere. It's an idea that has a tradition of resonating with people... Republicans are rich twits who couldnt care less about your right to vote. Country-clubbers. "The man." And now its back out there in people's consciousness.

    It's like the Amnesty International thing. All this hand-wringing because the word "gulag" got used. If it hadn't, how much press would it have gotten? Would Biden have said Gitmo prison should be shut down? Of course not. It's harsh language and it put the matter into the papers -- into consciousness.

    I know I'm preaching to the choir on this, but lets not knock blunt, overreaching rhetoric. It works. Look at the rise of the other side if you doubt it.


    by odum on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:00:49 AM PDT

    •  Its a good thing (none)
      if the Dems learn from this mistake and kick ass in the future.

      Dean and Edwards both fucked up, but its an inconsequential fuck-up, and they should use this experience to their advantage.

  •  On MSNBC now n/t (none)

    Why do you care...whether the people running the government have good values? Wouldn't you prefer a bit of competence, if forced to choose?" --Michael Kinsley

    by Susan S on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:03:14 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is smart and sincere -- gee, what a shock! (4.00)
    Anyone who pays the slightest attention to Edwards knows he's not a lightweight. He has good, practical ideas for helping the working class, and he communicates them well. He also has sterling credentials in terms of party loyalty; he's been loyal as all hell to the Democrats, and he was by far the most positive campaigner in the 2004 primaries.

    That's why I was ashamed by the Deaniacs' eagerness to pile on Edwards. Especially by how many of them mouthed the "pretty boy" nonsense they picked up straight from the RNC. Why are Dean's supporters so ready to imagine that their hero is an oppressed outsider, even now that he's party chairman? Why are they ready to spit venom at any Democrat who's even rumored to have expressed the slightest difference with their hero? Don't they know Howard Dean has a new job, and that it's different from campaigning for the Democratic nomination?

    Howard Dean is not running for President anymore. He doesn't have time for that. Instead, he's serving his party. As party chairman, it's ALWAYS going to be Dean's job to take fire for elected Democrats, and he can NEVER ask or expect elected Democrats to cover his own ass. Dean's riding shotgun for the party now, and he WILL take a lot of abuse in the process, just like his predecessor.

    I think Howard Dean understands this, but I don't think his fans do. Please, live up to the example set by your own hero, and stop drawing knives on other Democrats to defend Howard's honor.

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

    by Valentine on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:06:20 AM PDT

    •  Nice Valentine (none)
      Your type of venom is slow working and deadly. To call me a "fan", "hero" worshiper, defender of Howard Dean's "honor" is just the sort of sneering, fork tongued, reptilean snarkery that deserves venom in return. Let's see: Dean got 0000's of us involved for the first time, he kept us in the race after the Party eviscerated him, he speaks truth to power rather than sniffing media crack, he walks the walk. Your tag fits you exactly.  Mine fits me... and lots of others who WILL rally to our version of a Progressive.

      Democrats: The Ass You Save Is Your Own.

      by vetfordean on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:43:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    Repugs framed "liberal."

    Dean is going to frame "Republican." And so is Edwards, Clark, etc...

    All you knee-jerk dinosaur Democrats need to pop Joe Biden's teet out of your mouths and STFU because you're getting in the way of our NEW, progressive Democratic party -- the one we're creating because we keep getting stomped every election. Remember?

    The one that is no longer afraid or ashamed to TELL THE COLD HARD TRUTH and stand by it....Republican, media spin, and Democratic dinosaurs be damned.

    •  Rich Republicans (none)
      There's a frame.  This is about rich people bilking the poor.

      The working guy and gal don't want to be ripped off by Rich Republicans, who are ruining our economy and emptying the coffers of the U.S. Treasury.

      What they are doing isn't conservative and it isn't fiscally responsible.

      •  Republican corruption (none)
        will, I hope, be a part of this new frame.

        "The diesel engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture of the countries which use it." R. Diesel, 1911

        by nuttymango on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:46:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dean's statement should be politically effective (none)
    Everybody knows that Republicans are on the average much richer SOBs.  So we say, "those Republicans don't work an honest day's living."  Some poor sap's dickhead boss in the midwest is likely a Republican.  Goddam sure the guy who owns the company is.  And even if the hard worker is a Republican, he whos that he does a hard days work.  He might ask himself, "what am I doing playing on the same team with the rich guys who don't know what a hard day's work is."  Let's ride this stereotype for what it's worth.
  •  I notice alot of people don't know how to (none)
     move on. The focus here shouldn't be he said, he said, it should be that they say they agree, and this continues unity. Which is the ONLY thing that should concern you here. If it isn't, and this is really about ego, and whether your man won a silly back and forth discussion that should not be taken place in public about style over substance, then you will continue to see the Democrats lose. We are the minority party. Buck up, stop fuckking around will silly squabbles over form, and keep your eyes on the prize
  •  Edwards Still has a Problem (none)
    His campaign PR/AD. team was a guy out of chicago named David Axlerod (I think Obama used him too, but not sure).

    And this PR idiot gave an interview to NBC saying bad mouthing Dean.

    Now Edwards, and myself - as I contributed to his campaign, paid Axlerod a lot of money in the last two years...Edwards will probably use him again... Edwards should control this guy, and keep him from attacking our own and giving the Goopers a victory..let him spend his time attacking DrugRush for all the anti-Democratic statements.

    •  David Axelrod (none)
      was Obama's campaign manager and intimately involved with many other campaigns to a much greater degree than Edwards.He was one of three different media consultants used by Edwards. He was fired before Iowa I believe. So Edwards should take responsibility for this random consultant? Riiight.

      Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

      by BrianVA on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here we go again (none)
    High-profile Democrats feeling they need to backtrack, soften their comments, and be on the defensive for the sake of the Republican-frenzied media whores.  Sigh.

    I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:20 AM PDT

  •  What I read (none)
    "Dean was wrong.  I don't like what he said or how he said it."

    I think Edwards still has some work to do.

    •  I read this too (none)
      in what Edwards said.

      What Democrats need to say is that Howard Dean is right and that they all hold the same values.

      Democratic leaders need to understand that we, the people, want candor and strength from our leaders.

      We want our leaders to be willing to fight for us and our values.

  •  Who do Buden and Edwards speak for? (1.00)
    Let'e see ...

    Biden ... major credir card companies and an illegal and immoral stay the course war he voted for!

    Edwards ... North Carolinians?  A one term FORMER senator who can't even deliver hos own state!

    You've got to be kidding me, right?  Rank and file Democrates give a shit what these assholes say about the only Democrat with the guts to stand up to the Republicans and Republian Lite (DLC) Democarts.

    Fuck both of them!

    rok for dean

    •  Good point but.... (none)
      Edwards finished second to Kerry in the primaries. OK he only won 2 states and one state, NC, was won long after his campaign was over. But he did finish second in Iowa which totally shocked all of us.
      He should not be underestimated but of course, neither should Dean, Kerry, etc. I think Biden and even Bill Clinton and of course Joe Lieberman are more prone to cut down Democrats while praising Republicans more often and without apology ..more so than Edwards ever has.

      We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

      by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:12:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Power of Blogs (none)
    This is old hat to a kossack crowd, but look at how Edwards can answer an unfair media frame immediately, on his blog, and then it gets disseminated through the blogosphere. Very canny of him to have a blog in the first place (and you know Mrs. Edwards has something to do with that, hi Elizabeth!).

    I was just at a writers' conference in NYC, speaking on literary blogs - I was surprised at how few of the people I met there even knew what a blog is, and these were under 35 y.o.s, not just old fogies.

    I've been out of contact with the blogosphere for 5 or 6 days; now I see the power of blogging with fresh eyes. Edwards is using his blog to keep his finger on the pulse but also to face down the propaganda machine. Bravo.

  •  Even within the context (none)
    and taking into account it was a joke, that comment Dean made WAS unfair... not really a big deal, but unfair. I doubt there is a particularly higher percentage of non-wealthy Democratic lawmakers then Republican. Unfortunatly that is part of the politics game- connections and money. Again, this really isn't a big deal either way, but Edwards is right to disagree with hat statement. Like or hate Delay, he wasn't born rich, even if he is now.
    •  your comments shows zero understanding (none)
      on the symbolic nature of politics. You are being very literal in how you reading this.
      •  oh? (none)
        define what you mean by "the symbolic nature of politics"... or do you just mean that all comments made by politicians should be analyzed into something much broader then their prima facie appearance? Even then, where is my misreading? Edwards clearly stated that it was not his intention to "symbolize" any split within the Democratic leader... or is there something supposedly "symbolic" in Dean's comments? Your comment shows "zero understanding" of how to appropriately articulate your complaint.
        •  i meant (none)
          that when dean says that republicans are not for the working class it need not be analyzed for whether it is true of all Republicans no more than people who make sweeping statements about democrats really are worried about whether it is true for all. He is making a symbolic point. The reason that Edwards says he agrees is because despite the difference in language, he agrees with Dean. His two americas speech is pretty much the same argument said differently. Sadly, people here cant handle stylistic differences. which is what this silliness on both side is really about, style, not substance. That's a discussion of political symbolism. So breaking down whether his commoment is accurate of Republicans outside of the leadership is irrelevant to creating the branding that we want of the Republican leadership- that they don't care about workers. Anyone pontificating or parsing his words or those of Edwards is so far off the mark its hard to even get them back on the same page. That page should be unity- because at the end of the day- we are talking stylistic differences- not substantive ones.
          •  It is not being over-analytic... (none)
            You should reread the Dean quote more closely- he did not say "all Republicans are not for the working class", what Dean said is that Republicans have never worked an honest day in their lives. What Edwards said is that he did not agree with that statement. There is nothing symbolic here... unless stating something, as a fact, untruly because it makes a point about your philosophic sommitment, is ok in your book. That would be like the Republicans saying "the economy has improved since Bush entered office" because what they symbolically mean is that they have a stronger committment to buisness. It is absurd. Now, Dean was probably joking, but Edwards is right to disagree. Misstating facts is not "stylistic", it is supercilious hyperbole.
        •  Incidentally (none)
          The irony is that the polls (for what it is worth) says that most people agree that the prez and Republicans dont give a shit about the working class. I have conservative friends, who unfortunately are a day late, dollar short, who have come around to this view as well as they watch take over of the christo-conservatives, the debates about SS etc. None of them like Dean, but that's not because of parsing of words as you are doing- its because of over all perception generated of him.

          WHich is more a strategy that we as Democrats mostly allow by playing into the game of being on the defensive about everything we say. I have tried a thought experiment with my conservative leaning friends. I don't back down from something I say and never get defensive. I just take a yeah, and? approach when they start to attack. WHile I am saying it I also keep hammering away at what I know is their real underlying concerns (the symbolism) and find that is extremely sucessful.

  •  The other Howie.... (none)
    Howard Kuntz is right on it... like flies attracted  to ...
  •  Sen Edwards blog (none)
    Sen Edwards received a lot of flak from his remark on his blog.

    find your local dem group link:

    by timber on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

    •  Yes (none)
      His own supporters went after him and were not pleased. I am impressed that his supporters are brutally honest with him and talk openly about his strengths and weaknesses. I do think he learned to be very careful with the media or at least I hope so.  He and Howard Dean are on the same page 99 pct of the time if you read both of their speeches. But the media likes to think there is a big fight within the Democratic party. Whereas, the big fight is within the Republican party and that was seen during the Filibuster compromise.

      We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

      by wishingwell on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:15:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So would I be considered paranoid (none)
    if I suggest that maybe these issues are misrepresented to sow dissension and divide us...

    It really could not be that simple?????????

  •  At The End of The Day (none)
    this is still a good wake-up for Howard. His positives are almost unlimited but he absolutely must avoid over-exuberant language which will form the basis of an uncomplimentary sound bite. He could have put forward virtually the same message by saying that "many Republicans during the Bush presidency appear to be able to afford much more leisure time - certainly a day off work to vote". Our supporters are the common folks, the little people ....... and then break into a John Edwards.

    Dean is great - excellent instincts. With a little better vetting of remarks he could become virtually attack-proof.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:26:45 AM PDT

    •  Aw, c'mon (none)
      There's not a grain of truth to be found to support anything like what you're saying.  The fact of the matter is that Dean was taking a cheap, populist shot:  they're rich and lazy, and yet they make you stand in line, the bastards!  Whether the language is Dean's or yours, the message is the same.

      50% of the electorate is not rich, slothful, lazy, and manipulative.  Virtually nobody who wasn't on a campaign took the day off work specifically for the election.  The premise is a lie, and you know it.

      You want to make an argument for reform of electoral process?  Fine.  But don't do it through smear and castigation.  Argue the merits.

      •  The Merits (none)
        are this. His scream was troublesome as was this very intemperate remark. He won't get a bajillion chances to behave like a thinking adult.

        Republicans don't work for a living? This kind of off-the-cuff snide is pure poison for Democrats.

        Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

        by dpc on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 01:16:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah (none)
    But Dean was right about more than that. He was right that the RNC Republicans have probably never done a real days work in their life -- sure, there are many good, generous, hardworking people who vote Republican, but they're a totally different group than the Republican leadership. They're still the same fat cats they've been for the past 100 years.

    If th' meek ever do inherit th' earth some one'll git it away from 'em before they have it an hour

    by NorthStarDemocrat on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:33:06 AM PDT

    •  No way (none)
      I disagree. The RNC Republicans have been working very hard every single day for the past 4+ years to fuck up our country.

      You know who were NOT hard workers?  The DNC and Kerry campaign staffers during the Swift Boat attacks, and other crap during the recent campaign, convention, etc.

      While Rove and his posse worked day and night VERY HARD to destroy and distort and manipulate, the Democrats failed to show up on news talk shows to fight back properly or to tell it like it is with enough passion.

      Remember all that talk from Bush about "hard work"?

      I believe it.  But boy did it pay off for them.

      And now we suffer.

      I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

      by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:40:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  come on now, (none)
      being factually incorrect by assuming stereotypical extremes lowers us to, well, the level of the administration, in regards to truth. Republicans might vote almost strictly in the interest of the wealthy and big buisness, but without any good statistical evidence, it is quite a stretch to say that there are more "idle rich" on the Republican side then the Democratic side. Even Delay did work at one time.
      •  yea (none)
        People that own their own business tend to work very hard.  And overall, MOST successful people (who did not inherit their wealth) had to work very hard at some point to get to where they are.

        Speaking of the idle rich - millionaires worth over $10 million dollars, or the "super rich" voted more for Kerry than Bush in the election so trying to extrapolate some political advantage from that is a slippery slope for Democrats.

        I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

        by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:54:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (none)
          Of course, most don't want to realize it, but ultra-uber-superNazi Tom Delay worked for years running a small extermination business, a member of the very middle class that the Democrats were extolling and promising to help in 2004.  But we're not really talking about reality, are we?  Rather, we engage in a fictional land of stereotypes, where sleazy, inaccurate jibes are just written off as "generally accurate."  Which is all fine and dandy, so long as the target of your slander is a group you're ok with vilifying.
  •  This is really what Democrats want to defend? (none)
    If this is exactly what Dean said:
    You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever, and get home and then have a -- still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?  Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.  (Light applause.) But for ordinary working people, who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they got to get home to those kids, the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong.
    then really, what is there to defend?  He is clearly saying that Dems are the 'honest working people' and that Repubs are not.  Let's be honest, that is a silly, nasty comment painted with a too-broad brush.  Dean deserves to be spanked for it.
    And throw into the mix the fact that most of the messed up precincts in FLA were administered by Dems, not Repubs, and it gets even more silly.
    Is this really the type of commentary Dems should be proud of or defending?
    •  Hear hear! (none)
      If the Democrats are to remain (too generous?) the party of reason, debate, and factual accuracy; this is a necessary discussion to have.
    •  I can't remember (none)
      the last time I heard a Republican apologize about painting liberals with a broad brush.

      Remember Bush himself constantly mocking Massachussetts liberals?  That's about a few million people.

      Or how about that commercial about sushi-eating, latte-drinking, Volvo driving, Northeastern liberals?  I eat sushi and I am offended!

      How about wind surfers?  How about Hollywood types?  I live in L.A. I am offended.

      How about gays?
      How about Democrats "scaring old people"?

      I've heard broad-brush comments on all those fronts coming front prominent Republican leadership in the past year.  Not once did they apologize or get defensive about it.

      The only time was Trent Lott and his comments relating to Strom Thurmond.

      Alan Keyes called his OWN DAUGHTER a selfish hedonist because she was a lesbian.  He never apologized to the millions of lesbians he just broad-brushed with that gem.

      What I am saying is that this is why the Republicans are winning the media game.  They are shameless and make no apologies.  They get their way with the media by being that way because they are expected not to "behave" or be fair.  So they are not called on it as severely.

      Having said all that I agree what Dean said was illogical and disrespectful to many hard working people who happen to be Republicans.

      But once he said it, move on and don't apologize.
      Admitting mistakes is so last century.

      Have you noticed that Rumsfeld is still Secretary of Defense?  Have you noticed we're still in Iraq?

      Have you noticed that they have never admitted to any mistakes or apologized to anyone?

      Are they still in power? Yes.

      I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

      by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:50:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Foolish optimism? (none)
        Well, Dean's joke isn't an important enough statement to bother with, by itself. Waste of time to appoligize, really. But this discussion is about something broader... and is largely dealing with Edward's response to Dean's statement. Why is reason not working? I would like a simple answer like the "media dumbing down" of America, or our growing uninterest in objective knowledge (damn you Derrida!). Ideally it is merely a pendulum, and the Enlightenment will be back soon. Maybe it is just my foolish optimism. Either way, we shouldn't lower ourselves to republican standards.
        •  Our cynical culture (none)
          A pendulum, perhaps.  We seem to be going through what I'd call a cultural/social depression at the moment.  9/11 and the consequences of our reactions to those events have caused massive ripples that are still being felt today.

          Honesty is increasingly and respect are increasingly rare and de-valued commodities it seems to me.  Not just at the governmental level but throughout our population and across generations.

          Could it also have something to do with the Internet?  I feel like the Internet is having some effect on our relations as human beings.

          I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

          by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:12:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Though this might seem ironic, given the forum... (none)
            Honestly, the internet does bother me, in relation to facts and information. We do not need objective news, we can get liberal or conservative news. There is no broad fact checking... especially in blogs. I could post that "Bush and Delay eat babies", and if the other liberal critics of Bush care to go along with the assertion, a rumor forms and escalates. Truth is not valued when you van sequester yourself from dissenting opinions. Hence the importance in a commitment to an epistemologically responsible and truly deliberate democracy. Nothing is less democratic then the "shouting heads" analysis shows. What to do? oh, i'm depressed now...
            •  I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE INTERNET (none)
              what do you make of that JWS? I really do.

              It is one of the most significant invention in human history, but somehow I feel we could have managed without it and lived happy lives just the same.

              Anyway, don't be depressed - just LOG OFF =)

              I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

              by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:35:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, the Internet... (none)
                The internet was created for quick and efficient sharing of information between government agencies and universities... Then the commercial sector got hold of it... The sad part is- information sharing is good, but without refereeing said information- without standards- it is just a mess of rumours and misinformation. Not to mention the ability for individuals to stop interacting with dissent. Television is the same way... with 1000s of channels, designer stations exist for all to only hear information they choose to hear. I hate to see what this might lead to down the road.
      •  How do you want to be seen? (none)
        I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican apologize about painting liberals with a broad brush.
        But really diplomatic, so what?  Do you want to be defined by who and what you are, or in comparison to something else you consider odious?

        Having said all that I agree what Dean said was illogical and disrespectful to many hard working people who happen to be Republicans.
        But I think it is more than that.
        It makes Dean sound every bit as silly (and not for the first time) as a Coulter or other extreme partisan.  If the goal is to win the battle of ideas, is this the face you want to put forward, and more, should so many on this board really be excusing it just because they like the (D) after his name?

        •  As Democrats (none)
          we knew what we were getting with Dean.

          I am not a supporter of Howard Dean and never have been.  Yes, a minority opinion on this website for sure...

          But now we've got who we've got.  This won't be the last dumb comment he makes.

          You really can't change someone's personality at such a late stage in life.  If he does try, he will come across as phony and lacking in geniune passion.  Case in point -- John Kerry's timid campaign, the majority of which was spent being on the defensive.

          My point is that next time let's let the Republicans attack Dean for his comments, lets not do their work in the media for them.

          That doesn't mean you approve of what he said but it also does not fuel the fire.

          That is what Republicans do, you see.  They do get attacked by us for things they say and do but you don't see them piling on their own guys in the media and helping our cause.

          It is evident to anyone that was Dean said makes no sense and is factually incorrect.  It does not require Biden or Edwards to go out there and confirm it.

          I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

          by diplomatic on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:26:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  agreed (none)
            It is evident to anyone that was Dean said makes no sense and is factually incorrect.  It does not require Biden or Edwards to go out there and confirm it.
            I agree entirely, and perhaps I have misread it, but this thread seems way too supportive of Dean's comments.
    •  No, I don't.. (4.00)
      Dean was wrong to say

      Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives


      I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..


      "We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms."


      "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."


      "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." --

      and I've saved the best for last

      "We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a swarm of political controversy.

      If Ken Melman said these things this community would be up in arms about it and rightly so. Dean has many qualities I like, but I won't defend this. The context matters little, these quotes can and will be used against all democrats because Dean now represents the party.

      Troll rate me if you like, but I think the knee jerk defense of Dean is a mistake.

    •  Yes, this is not only what we should defend (none)
      we should be promoting it loud and strong.

      Dean was talking about election reform and the fact that in Ohio and elsewhere a lot of Republicans don't give a shit whether voters have to wait in line 8 or 10 hours to cast their ballots. What he was saying was spot on.

      To a lot of Republicans, the travails of Dems who work for a living, having to figure out how to put in a full day, wrangle the kids and then (somehow) find time to stand in line for several more hours to vote is funny hawhawhaw. They yuk it up every day in the hate media. They think it is hilarious. Why should they care, they don't have this problem, and one of the reasons is that a lot of them cannot and do not empathise with people who face these kinds of challenges.

        Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.

      Right on! He should hit them again. Harder.

      Check out what Dean really said and the context he was saying it in.

  •  So if only we are factually correct... (none)
    and nice to Republicans, they will like us and vote for us???  Is that what some of you are saying?  Give me a f**king break.

    Dean (unintentionally) threw out a comment that would have been a great opportunity for Biden and Edwards to slam the Republicans for not representing the interests of the working people of this country and they blew it.

    The Republican noise machine is revving up to suggest that Dems are calling for the ouster of Dean as chairman.  I think it's more proof that they are terrified of him and the way he is re-building the grassroots of the party.  

    Why do you care...whether the people running the government have good values? Wouldn't you prefer a bit of competence, if forced to choose?" --Michael Kinsley

    by Susan S on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:52:19 AM PDT

  •  I am all for Edwards, what a pity that (none)
    he was shackled to someone as wishy-washy as Kerry in the last election.
    Imagine if it had been a Dean-Edwards ticket instead, with an avowed anti-war stand. They would probably have lost anyhow, but now they would be gloating.

    By the way, Bushco really loves poor people and he loves them so much that he wants them to multiply a hundred-fold: an inexhaustible supply of cannon-fodder...

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

  •  Electability? Doesn't matter (3.33)
    The bloggers here are missing a BIG point.  It doesn't matter who the Dems put up, unless the mechanics of the elections are changed, the Democratic party will NEVER will another national election.  Don't believe me?  Look on John Conyer's website and scroll down the page under the 2004 election.  Read in detail what happened in Ohio.  Go back and review the debacle in Florida in 2000, and look at the election Max Clelland lost in 2002.  

    HAVA should have been spelled HaHa.  No paper trail?  No reliance on exit polls?  Who are you kidding here.  Electability doesn't count if the counters are in bed with the countees.  It is more about accountability, and we don't have that in the current system.  Take a look and see if you can do something about it:

  •  Context (none)
    Looks a bit different in its proper context.

    No it doesn't.

  •  He's right. They're both right (none)
    Dean's comment is true.  A LOT of Republicans (especially those in power) have not done a HONEST Day's work in their lives.

    Edwards is right to ask him to tone down the rhetoric, because that's his job.  Edwards is one of the few Democrats who can successfully attack on issues alone.  Unlike Gore and Kerry he can make a clear compelling policy point (much of the time) in a few words.

    Dean is fine as a more flippant speaker.   He says what he feels.  That sells.  

    If people in Washington (both sides of the aisle) and the press weren't so afraid of the truth, this would not be an issue.

    1984: Orwell wrote a cautionary tale. George Bush mistook it for a manifesto.

    by mungley on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 11:52:11 AM PDT

  •  Controversy? (none)
    Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.

    Exactly true. Living off of corporate returns IS living off of other people's work because the people who work at the company are the ones doing what's necessary to earn the returns. Same with inheritances.

    And we're supposed to give such parasites special tax privileges? You have absolutely got to be kidding me.

    It would be great if this were incorporated into every talking point about GOPers and economic issues. It serves as a good answer to the constant idiotic refrains about Democrats, welfare, and pregnant Black teenage girls (or the new fad, illegal immigrants).

    Democrats.  Get off the George Lakoff "nurturant family" frame and get on the "kick ass" frame.  We need to act like the resistance.  We are not the party of the nurturant family.  We are brothers and sisters in arms who don't need Daddy or Mommy.
    My advice.  Answer everything with  "yes".  That's the tactic I used while working for John Edwards before he suspended his campaign.  I'll post it as a diary.  In short, no matter what they throw at you, Answer it with "Yes".  
    If Howard was talking about the people in the White House, then, Hell, Yes, they haven't put in an "honest" day's work ever.  The emphasis should be on "honest".  The fixing of the facts to support their agenda for the invasion of the war is just one more example of people who got their positions because of who they know not what they know.  So what do we have now?  An incompetent bunch who would have learned a lot had they done any kind of spade work.

    There are only two kinds of Montanans, those who love Montana and those who want to use Montana.

    by MontanaMaven on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 12:06:23 PM PDT

  •  Nice to hear Dean recognize Oregon's (none)
    the advantages of our vote-by-mail system.


    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 12:18:55 PM PDT

  •  Where's the Beef? Dean has it. (none)
    Where's the beef? was a question asked about candidates in the past .  Dean leads - agree or not you know where he stands.  Bush claims the same mantle for the GOP.  Voters like that.

    Kerry and Edwards came up light on the beef scale. I don't expect any improvement.  That is all you can expect from Washington insiders serving as legislators in Congress.  Find an executive type who can give the Republicans hell on the war and the dual deficits in trade and the budget.

  •  Live or Memorex (none)
    If all Dean accomplishes during his run as DNC chair is to make actual statements out of convictions he actually holds, I will admire him more for anything Biden, Edwards, or Ken "Howdy Doody" Mehlman ever did or do during their entire mortal lives.
    •  UGH (none)
      It's not conviction.  It was an off-the-cuff stupid thing to say which he later backed off from.

      Can some of you Deanies recognize reality?

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards is a pretty, but spineless, suit. (none)
    I really like his populist rhetoric and his presentation, but I believe he voted for the Patriot Act and tax cuts for the rich. Also, say what he will after the fact, when he's in damage control mode, but I watched him on camera backing away from Dean. I would like to see the whole clip again. I believe he not only said that Dean was not the leader or spokesman of the party (or something to that effect) but I believe he said that Dean did not speak for him, that the remarks weren't helpful and the like. Notice how Edwards' damage control post is all about getting back on message, because the charge is basically true.

    Edwards just straight up flunks the backbone test. That's why I thought it was bizarre that at a progressive conference (Take Back America) that somebody who voted for the war for political reasons, IMO, would get the TomPaine award. That cognitive dissonance was heightened by Adrianna Huffington's speech in the morning (with Edwards "award" coming in the afternoon) in which she articulated a litmus test. She'll support no one for president who supports the war. Therefore Edwards is out, in her book. There are so many reasons that vote kills Edwards it would be hard to articulate them all in one sitting.

    George Lakoff was asked the same general question and answered correctly and effectively and spoke with both his diaphragm and his spine. "He was taken out of context," Lakoff said. He went on to talk about how counter to the American dream the repeal of the estate is. There are many Republicans who have never had to work a day in their lives. Often they are called trust fund babies and I have known some. Lakoff answered the question and attacked in a way that makes sense to working class families. Edwards chickened out, again.

    Leaders must have backbone. Who deserves more support from his party, an outspoken chair like Dean or a corrupt scumbag like Tom Delay? Who gets more-- Tom Delay. The former one-term senator from North Carolina is part of the problem rather than the solution. Edwards is total ****.

    •  Down with the Purgers (none)
      1.  Dean is not the leader of all Democrats.  Read the entire thread and clue in.

      2.  Dean's comment was obviously wrong.  "Lots of Republicans" work.  It is a typical bonehead comment and should be repudiated.

      3.  "Supports the war."  It was a vote months before the war.  If you don't know Edwards discussion and votes on the issue, then  you just aren't listening.

      4.  Edwards obviously "supports" Dean, but blind and total support?  Are you really for a Stalinist model of a political party?

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site