Time...Inside the Mind of Howard Dean....Summarized...

Well I tried to get the article directly off of the website for your viewing pleasure, but I couldn't get it done...besides this was one of the last things I wanted to do before bed...

Here's the mutha fucking LINK

I read this article at my 's and this is what I picked out as a writer....

they charged him with being an accident waiting to happen (isn't everyone)...they charged him with not being likeable, they charged him with being too liberal, and not electable...

those are some pretty LUDICROUS (sp. check) charges...as if they mattered...

Dean said that he's very much like his wife...methodical but also intuitive as he likes to jump steps ahead and eliminate possibilities...

He once apologized with a hand written letter to a Senator...

The article continues on to discuss Liberals as being the "nurturing parent" and the Conservatives as being from the realm of a "strict father"....but then there is a new kind entitled bi-conceptuals...individuals who have internalized both parents

The article was about the mind of Howard Dean but went ahead to talk about the other Democratic reps...something I would do If I was a republican that didn't want to see Dean make it...

Dean puts's FACTS 1st, and says that Ideology dosen't...

Dean is against tax-dodging corporations...i.e. Enron

Dean is an environmentalist...running a barebones operation...low tech with much of his political movement on the internet...

He admitted to wearing the same suit for the past four days....

sidenote...HIS BIGGEST ISSUES ARE JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY...

he was a doctor by practice...so he has an insiders look to healthcare and social security and the needs of the elderly...

on another SIDENOTE...there have been over 3 million jobs lost during Bush's administration

[Adam D]

Originally posted by ijakar
Well I tried to get the article directly off of the website for your viewing pleasure, but I couldn't get it done...besides this was one of the last things I wanted to do before bed...

Here's the mutha fucking LINK

I read this article at my 's and this is what I picked out as a writer....

they charged him with being an accident waiting to happen (isn't everyone)...they charged him with not being likeable, they charged him with being too liberal, and not electable...

As much as Time gets targeted as a liberal magazine, you would be hard pressed to prove that issue when it comes to talking about politics. All of the articles by their political writers recently that I have read that had a definitive anti-liberal stance. And they aren't all too bright, either. So you should really take that article with a grain of salt.

As far as him being too liberal and not electable, I think there is a stong surge of liberals in this election that will pale the 2000 vote. Dean has captured a lot of them because he has tapped the anger with Bush's policies and his 2000 electorial college win, and his early messages have had more of a liberal policy slant. It's a stance Democrats have not had since the mid-1980's.

BTW, here is an article posted on alternet today about Dean's electability: http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17512

As far as his likability, that's an issue of many facets. Granted, Dean is brash, and that's likely to turn off a lot of swing voters. But if Dean isn't interested in focusing on that voting bloc, it won't be much of an issue. Ultimately, I think his likability is irrelevant because he is the anti-Bush candidate. I had this discussion with a lot of Dean supporters on the alternet.org forum, and we came to the consensus that Dean is neither the anti-war candidate nor the pro-anything candidate, just the anti-Bush candidate. At that level, his target voters are simply those who are angry with Bush, for whatever reason. That means as long as he is less hated than Bush, he'll keep those supporters. A lot of Bush haters don't care who they vote for as long as it isn't Bush, and it's the candidate most likely to get Bush out of office. Whether that's enough to win an election on is debateable.

As far as him being an accident waiting to happen, I tend to agree. If this was 2000 and Dean was running instead of Gore, I don't think he would have had much of a chance. Dean doesn't really stand for much as a policy platform, whatever it is, it is very close to Gore, but with less of a name than Gore had. The strength of Dean's campaign is threefold. One, it's his early anti-war message, which would not be possible if this election was not following a war. Two, it's anti-Bush, which wouldn't be possible if Bush was not president. I'll hold on the third for a moment. Essentially, these two points suggest that in a vacuum test, the idea that you remove external factors and look at Dean as a candidate, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to him. He would likely be the same clumsy, brash candidate that Bill Bradley was in 2000.

The third strength is not directly his doing, but rather his campaign's success in tapping the internet as a means of bringing his message, and his followers to people's homes, with numbers in the millions. He's not alone in doing this, but likely the most successful at it. I could go into the political science arguments about this, but that's a longwinded argument. The short of it is that he's been able to take his campaign to people's homes, which facilitates extending his message to supporters and new potential supporters. It's easier to feel included at an online rally from your home, where it's convenient, than it is to hope your favored candidate comes somewhere within driving range of where you live. In Texas, that's particularly relevant, since we generally do not get much more than nominal Republican attention since Texas always votes Republican (at least since Texas began being a Republican state). That's why you never see a Democratic candidate in Dallas, or many TV ads favoring them.

those are some pretty LUDICROUS (sp. check) charges...as if they mattered...

They are opinions, like every other political opinion of every other candidate out there.

Dean said that he's very much like his wife...methodical but also intuitive as he likes to jump steps ahead and eliminate possibilities...

He once apologized with a hand written letter to a Senator...

Sometimes that risks making grave errors.

The article continues on to discuss Liberals as being the "nurturing parent" and the Conservatives as being from the realm of a "strict father"....but then there is a new kind entitled bi-conceptuals...individuals who have internalized both parents

The article was about the mind of Howard Dean but went ahead to talk about the other Democratic reps...something I would do If I was a republican that didn't want to see Dean make it...

What's being discussed here is the New Democrat (I guess "Clinton Democrats" has replaced that phrase) that is moderately liberal and moderately right-wing, meaning they are liberal on some social issues (although Clinton was pretty conservative at times) and very pro-business (for Clinton see NAFTA, TANF reforms, etc.). That's not exactly new, it's a 15+ year old idea. It's become the official party stance of the Democratic Party, and since Dean isn't playing that game (yet) the party leadership is angry with him. It demonstrated a shift towards pro-business policy instead of pro-labor (although the Democratic Party still courts labor) as the party used to be. It's led to more campaign contributions from businesses, but it's also alienated a lot of people from the party.

I'm sure the discussion of other candidates was to make a comparision, especially since a lot of Republicans are hoping for a Dean nomination.

Dean puts's FACTS 1st, and says that Ideology dosen't...

That's debateable, regardless of what he says. He puts his anti-Bush ideas first, sometimes by making comments that aren't verifiable, something people are angry with Bush about making, but his supporters seem to have the same amnesia to his comments that Bush supporters have about Bush's.

Dean is against tax-dodging corporations...i.e. Enron

Possibly, but he's still pro-business.

Dean is an environmentalist...running a barebones operation...low tech with much of his political movement on the internet...

He's more of an environmentalist than Bush is, but that's not hard to accomplish. I don't think he's really all that much of an environmentalist though.

He admitted to wearing the same suit for the past four days....

He doesn't know how to take a suit to the dry cleaner's?

sidenote...HIS BIGGEST ISSUES ARE JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY...

Really? I seldom hear that from him. He's yet to provide much in the way of a stimulus platform or a job growth/security policy. That means he can spout all the rhetoric he wants, but without much in the way of actual policy initiatives, it doesn't matter what he says. I believe Dean will inevitably win the nomination, so I hope he comes up with a policy platform on this soon. Personally I think he could win on less of an anti-Bush stance and more of a labor platform, but I don't see that happening.

I looked on his website in all applicable areas, and all I found of specific policy initiatives was repealing Bush tax cuts and union protections. I'm in favor of all of that, but that alone will not revive the weak job market.

he was a doctor by practice...so he has an insiders look to healthcare and social security and the needs of the elderly...

That's not saying much then. As governor of Vermont he repeatedly tried to cut health care benefits from the state to the elderly, the poor, and the young. If that's the result of an insider's look, let us never have an insider making health care policy.

On another SIDENOTE...there have been over 3 million jobs lost during Bush's administration

But what is Dean going to do about it?

as far as "Too liberal" my understanding of Dean is that he has campaigned on his record of a balanced budget in Vermont - which points to fiscal "conservatism" - his pleas and comments so far may have appealed to the far left or democratic wing of the Democratic party but his behavior has been much more of a centrist Dem. This should be helpful for him closer to November.

It is usually good sense to run to the left if your a Dem (or right if a Rep,) to get the nomination and then back towards the middle to get elected. I don't see Dean as doing anything out of keeping with this technique.

"Not likeable" of all the Dem nominees he comes across as quite likeable. Kerry comes off as an ass (his heroic war record aside) who smacks of privilege - this guy can finance his campaign on his own - how can a guy who could buy GW out many times over reall be a common man. Kucinich is an idiot. Gephart gives good face but is such a Washingting guy, ditto Edwards and the rest really don't matter. But Dean, he connects. People listen to him and while they may think he sometimes goes off half-cocked they believe him. The trust he's telling you what he thinks - even if he may need to rethink later.....and that's much more tolerable than prepackaged BS.....anyway - that's kinda how I see him.

"Electable" as Kucinich said, "I'm electable if you vote for me" and I think Dean has about as good a chance as Kucinich. It is hard to beat an incumbant. It is harder to beat one with large numbers of troops deployed overseas. Excluding LBJ who didn't seek reelection I don't think we've changed horses midstream in our history - though I may be wrong.

Barring a horrible downturn in Iraq and the economy GW will be difficult to beat and I think it likely that the republicans will pick up a few house and senate seats.

It will be a very interesting November to be sure.