Late last night, I happened to catch a CSPAN replay of Saturday's DNC meeting chaired by Dean. It was clear that he is doing the "jelly making" as well as doing a little "tree-shaking." And my impression of Steve Clemons point about shaking things up referred more to politics in general and not the DNC in particular. However, the DNC did need some shaking up.

Over the past 20 years we've seen the Democratic Party on a long slide to obscurity. I don't know if Dean is going to end up being a catalyst to turn that around or if we'll just continue our decline, but it's a cinch to see that he isn't going to go down quietly or without a fight. We've got plenty of Democrats that work hard at tiptoeing around the sins of the GOP. I can't see how it hurts to have at least one bomb-thrower in the party. Especially when there is so much to throw bombs about.

Is Dean a genius with a secret plan to give cover to red state Dems? Maybe so, but my impression is more that what you see with Dean is what you get. (A trait, we are told, ad nauseum, that Bush shares and was largely why he was re-elected.) I think that a lot of Dean's propensity to speak his mind and the truth as he sees it comes from his training as a physician. I've spent most of my work career working with physicians and I have found that the best docs have a tendency to be very blunt when pointing out problems. What's the point of sugarcoating a bad diagnosis that is going to require the patient to change his/her lifestyle? It's more productive to make it crystal clear what is wrong and what must be done to fix it.

And, if the Democratic Party has ever needed the services of a physician, it is now. It's not going to be "comfortable," but, I believe, it's going to be effective. I believe that we will make advances in the next election due to Dean's efforts at expanding, motivating and empowering the grassroots of our Party.

BTW, one of the most impressive (to me) initiatives that Dean talked about at the DNC Saturday was the effort to continue and expand on the Kerry campaign strategy of having lawyers stationed throughout the States to protect against election misdeeds. It sounds like we are going to have a very aggressive stance on efforts by the GOP to disenfranchise or suppress the vote. Finally! It really doesn't matter if, by some magic, we are able to shape a message that appeals to all voters, if we leave a system in place that facilitates election fraud. To this end, in addition to the army of lawyers, Dean is also putting emphasis on electing and re-electing Democratic Secys of State and Attorneys General at the state level. These officials can do a lot to assure a free and fair elections -- or not. In general, I think Dean's emphasis on the state-level organization is long overdue and is going to be among his most fruitful efforts.

Last election the only hot race for a Democratic candidate in my area was between Martin Frost(D) and Pete Sessions(R). I worked like hell on that campaign, going door to door. Let me tell you what I heard from Democrats in a deep red state:

Why should I vote for Frost? He's running commercials saying he's just like Bush.

Frost is Republican-lite. If I want a Republican, I'll vote for the Republican in the race.

Here is what I heard from Republicans in a deep red state:

Frost will say anything to get reelected. He doesn't stand for anything; he doesn't believe in anything.

I do not know why Democrats are so squeamish about Howard Dean. Even my most conservative acquaintances concede grudgingly that Dean stands for something; that he is a man of principle. Now, they think he is a lunatic, but hey, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Nobody respects a coward and in Texas, Democrats are regarded as cowards. The view is that Democrats espouse fake conservative principles to get elected and then "turn liberal."

Look, it is insane to expect to get different results if we keep doing the same things over and over. If we campaign the same way, attack each other the same way, raise money the same way we will keep losing the same way. Howard Dean has different ideas and plans and we should support him and try them out. Hell, it's not like it could get much worse anyway. We've lost all three branches of government. What do we have to lose by trying a different strategy?

Every time I hear someone knock a Dem for making a 'controversial' statement that will be used by the red state gop to demonize the Democratic party, I cringe.

 Who here really thinks that red state gop leaders and candidates will treat us nice and actually debate in a forum of ideas if we self-censor?  Who thinks we should pick candidates on the basis of electibility so that the gop will go easy on them? 

 It's truly ridiculous.  Let's be judged by the truth of our statements and try to judge them the same way.  When Dean says that the gop is a white cristian party, let's whip out the stats that shown their elected state leaders are 98.5 percent white and overwhelmingly cristian.

 If we can back up what we say, we certainly should not fear how the other side responds, as we have no control over it.

You are making ridiculous statements about Dean that have no basis in reality. Upon what are you basing your concerns that Dean doesn't know what his job is? That he is making unprecedented efforts to build the party at the grassroots level? That he is bringing in unprecedented amounts of money in an off year AND most of that money is coming from regular folks in the form of small donations? The fact that the party folks out at the state level love him and say that, not only is he doing a fantastic job, but he is doing a job that past party chairmen have simply not done at all? Seriously, WTF?
The only reason Dean's comments are a story is because the corporate media can get corporate whore Democrats to diss Dean on TV. That is the real problem, not the comments themselves. Republicans attack Democrats in ways every bit as hyperbolic and much less honest than Dean ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It's not a story because they don't get on TV and attack each other.
This whole Dean flap is total bullshit. Corporate whore Dems are trying to kill a party chair who is actively dismantling the goose that is laying their golden eggs. Dean is spreading power out to the people and cutting the fatcats out of the loop. That is the only hope for the party. Dems will never be a majority party again by being the Corporate Whore Jr. Party.
BTW, Terry McAuliffe was on TV all the time. You are behaving like a good soldier for the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party. And for that I say, "You are a dick."

Part of the DNC chair's job is to go out and fire up the grassroots by throwing out a lot of "red meat." All chairs do this. Dean's remarks are only being picked apart because other Dems will go out and repudiate them on TV. That is the real problem. You can disagree with the political wisdom of making this or that specific statement. So can Biden. But he needs to say that to Dean privately - not on TV. If you really give a shit about the success of the Democratic party, I would think you would be more upset with Biden and the rest of the Dean-bashers than at Dean for going out everyday and giving it his all for the party and not being perfect.

on Howard Dean, wrapped in the absurd argument that his historically consistent behavior now, suddenly, may be a clever ruse, betrays the all too common failure of many Democrats --apparently including yourself -- to get your priorities straight.

Why don't you focus your constrernation on the conservative apologists like Ford who, through their utter lack of principle and an unwaivering allegience to their corporate benefactors at the expense of average Americans, do far more damage to the party --and their own prosects-- than Howard Deans worst gaffe.

Slowly people are coming around to the fact that what is harming Jefferson's "party of the people"  is that it no longer represents the interests of "the people." You don't need Thomas Frank to recognize this fact. Merely look at the last 75 years of American history.

Prior to 1992, the Democrat brand could be summed up with one word: populism. Today, the establishment Democrats especially (and to some extent, the party as a whole) have abandoned this most basic foundation at their own peril.

How can the party connect to the not so rich majority when the compromise of serving two masters -- a largely populist electorate (even if they don't know it) and the monied interests that finance their campaigns has them speaking in forked tongues.

Howard Dean's purpose is to show them a way out of that compromise. To demonstrate that  Democrats can safely return to their populist roots through small contributions and alternative methods of fundraising.

And if there is a hidden genuis to his madness, it is in pointing us to the rotten fruit that needs to be plucked from the tree.

Well, I'm not sure where that previous penis-related insult is coming from. I think we can do without that kind of inanity out here.

Mark, I think you make a valuable point here. One unintended consequence of the Dean flap is that it may allow top-notch Democratic candidates in non-blue states to run against the nationally-blue Democratic establishment. But, of course, this means running against their own party, and that, in the long run, won't do anything to regain the confidence of those voters who have abandoned the Democrats or who have otherwise been turned off by what they see, rightly or wrongly, as coastal elitism that disrespects mainstream America.

Look, we're all guilty of it from time to time. What were those people in Kansas thinking? No, we don't understand them well enough, nor do we do enough to reach out to them, to listen to their concerns, and to open up our tent to a multiplicity of voices that will only broaden our appeal.

If Dean's a genius, it's just by accident. I've wanted to give Dean a chance, even though I, too, have never cared for him much. I've long respected his enthusiasm, his passion, his ability to engage young people and to build a campaign by thinking outside the box. But it's true that candidates make bad organizational leaders, largegly because candidates are all about their own campaigns, that is, about themselves. We would thus do well, indeed, to have a DNC chair who isn't jockeying for position in anticipation of a return to politics and who is more interested in building a party that can achieve long-term electoral success than in continuing to stump for personal views that only alienate other Democrats, not to mention moderates, and provide the right with yet more fodder.

As I've already written here and elsewhere, Democrats won't win by ignoring their base, and that includes the Deaniacs and the moveon.org types, but nor will they win if their party chairman is spewing such venomous, and ill-founded, loathing for the Republicans. We may feel such things in our hearts, and think them in our heads, but there must be a filter somewhere between the heart, the head, and the mouth. Otherwise, all we'll continue to do is provide fodder for the Republicans and the right-wing commentariat, and push away moderate voters who want to give us a chance (but who also want us to give them a good reason to vote Democratic).

To me, the problem is that Dean is still more of a candidate than DNC chair. It's like he's still out there on the stump, where it's all about exciting his followers, as he did especially well in late-2003. But being a party chair means being the voice, and public image, of that party, not a candidate. Dean's got to learn that his new post isn't a soapbox. It's called being responsible.

Dear Mark,

From the trenches, 

I think you're right about jellymaking and wrong in your impression of Howard Dean.  Here's some jellymaking examples. 

• Having a 50 state strategy
• Visiting all the states, He'll be in Montana in July, we can't wait.
  
• Giving resources to each state organization, I know for sure it helps our small state organiztion.
  
• He also asked state parties to get together with elected officials to put together documents describing what issues are best to run on for each state. At the DNC meeting in Phoenix in September, they'll be combined, and then things will be subtracted from the platform so it's clear what the 3-4 things are that all Democrats can run on.

Nancy,

We will "use" Terri Schiavo later on. This is a case that Dean said something that could be expressed better. The bottom line is that the GOP USED Schiavo because it thought the issue of "preserving life" etc and appealing to its religious taliban base would proe succesful. Mel Martinez even went on to say that the issue would be a bad one for Sen. Nelson from FL. So, the GOP USED Schiavo and we have to BURN them or we do not DESERVE to be a majority party period. Now, Dean used inproper language in describing this but his attitude is proper. We HAVE to make the Schiavo deal BURN the GOP because it relates to other fights or they WILL come back for more.

CM

I would be curious about the specifics of that poll. Is it is a poll of Democratic voters, most of whom simply vote sometimes and get all of their information from TV? I would suggest that if a poll were restricted to Democrats who have any level of activity at all beyond merely voting, support for Dean would be very high.
Besides, support among the general TV watching public will be low for any Dem who is regularly repudiated by other Dems on TV. I'm sure Joe Lieberman is well liked by the general public. Nobody is criticizing him on TV.

If disagreeing with Howard Dean is our strategy, we are in a lot of trouble. The reason the National Democratic Party is a bad brand in Red States is precisely becasue they are too timid and don't take principled stands. It doesn't matter what your positions are if people don't respect you. Being seen as weak is killing the Democats.

The National Democratic Party needs to change their "brand: image not distance themselves from the party. The fact is most Democratic Positions are very popular, we need to convince voters that we will actually do what we say. Democrats in red states can disagree with National policies that are unpopular in red states such as gun control, but disagreeing with Howard Dean is just plain silly. Dean is not some raving liberal, we should stop allowing the Republicans to portray him that way.

Welcome to the Dean Fire Mark. :-)

I think you encapsulate very well the thinking of those Dems who think it is a good idea to distance themselves from Dean. But I think you inadvertantly hit on the fatal flaw in your argument. You say that the National Democratic Party is seen as a joke in red states so the easiest path to victory for Red State Dems is to run as a contrast to the national party. You say this will be necessary until such time as the National Democratic Party can turn its fortunes around and stop being seen as a joke.

Here's the problem: the distancing of red state Dems from the National Party is one of the primary reasons why the party is seen as a joke. By publicly contrasting themselves with their party, Ford and Warner are simply feeding the perception that the National Party is a joke.

This is doubly stupid because both Ford and Warner have wider national ambitions. They both see possible Presidential races in their future. Yet being their parties nominee means they are the representative of the National Party. In order to achieve their national ambitions they are destroying the very platform upon which they will have to stand some day!

Ford and Warner may be able to achieve limited success for a limited time by distancing themselves from the National Party. But they are undermining their own futures in the process.

The genius of Reagan's 11th commandment was that it blocked Republicans, even blue state Republicans, from undermining their national party for short-term benefit. This strengthened the national party so that, eventually, they could win national office.

Until Democrats adopt their own version of the 11th commandment they will continue to be seen as a joke in the red states and no red state Dem will ever be able to achieve anything beyond limited success in their own backyards.

I leave you with this: consider the burden Warner is placing on himself if he wins the nomination in 2008 and Dean is still the party chair.

Talk about stupid!

"The Republicans make any outrageous remarks that pops into their heads, and they won."

Republicans do.  RNC chairmen don't.

"Lots of DC Dem pundits, employees of the think tanks, and politicians are truly out of touch with the rest of the country."

Sure.  And lots of "netroots" activists are truly out of touch with the rest of the Party.

Whatever.

I couldn't agree more.  It reminds me of the entire judicial filibuster issue.  We make an agreement with Republicans over an issue that boils down to - Republicans don't like an unwritten agreement so they ignore it and do things their way.  Oh, and the agreement is an unwritten agreement that Republicans don't like.  Well, duh!  Hello? 

Republicans will bash because that is what they do best, not facts, not positions, not legislation, but bashing.  In The Art of War there are nine types of ground, these are the last four types.

• Serious - when the army has penetrated deep into hostile territory
• Difficult - when the army traverse mountains, forests, precipitous country or any place where the going is hard
• Encircled - access is constricted, where the way out is tortous or when the enemy can strike a larger one
• Death - ground in which the army survives only if it fights

In the past--a past in which many prominent Democrats seem still to be living--the party could count on majorities in both houses of congress. Sometimes there was a Republican president, and many Democrats in office had little trouble supporting to him. Sometimes the President was a Democrat, and all too often all too many Democratic senators and representatives did not think they had any stake in supporting him. Witness the Carter years and part of the Clinton years. I used some time to look with envy at the parliamentary democracies like Britain, where staying in government depended on party discipline. At the same time, I was sometimes horrified at the level of discipline common in parliamentary parties. Now as we all know--Digby has been making this point--the Republicans, who can count on majorities in both houses, are a party with parliamentary style discipline. The pitiful descendants of liberal Republicanism--figures like Spector and Chafee--are under, and are yielding to, tremendous pressure to the toe the line.

One result of this discipline is that the Republicans have defined themselves in the public mind, another is that they have, through there organs in the media, defined the Democrats. Readers of TPMCafe know all about how, and how dishonestly, this has been done. The point is there is less and less room for Democrats to run for office by distinguishing themselves from the party. If they don't identify themselves with the Democratic party, their opponents will identify them with Democratic party, defined in terms of their choosing.

All of which is by way of echoing the sentiments of many who posted in response to Ed Kilgore's original post. By all means, prominent Democrats should have a word in Dean's ear in private if they disagree with the way he's doing things, but they should stand shoulder to shoulder with Dean and each other in public. If the awful Republican domination under which we and the rest of the world now suffer ever ends, it will not be because a few Democrats have succeeded in convincing their constituents that they have nothing to do with the party. Rather, it will be because growing public dissatisfaction with the majority party turns into support for the opposition party, a party which has succeeded, as every opposition party must, in presenting itself to the electorate as an alternative.

Over the weekend, I canvassed 21 of my Democratic friends. We are all life-long Democrats, and we all live in Red States. We, to a person, stayed in the Democratic Party when most of our fellow Democrats were going over to the Republican Party during the civil rights movement and the post-Vietnam years. Except for two, we have all served in the military, and about half of us have combat experience. Seven of us have actually dodged bullets for our country. All of us have supported the civil rights movement, and several of us marched for civil rights here in the South during the 1960s and 1970s, when it was dangerous to do so. During our lifetimes, we have supported the New Deal, the New Fontier, and the Great Society initiatives started by Democrats. WE have worked to elect Democrats, and we have contributed time and money. We all think Reagan was a disaster, and that George W. Bush is out to dismantle our democracy. We have been proud to call ourselves Democrats until now.

Of the 21 I called over the weekend, not one is happy with Howard Dean as Chairman of the DNC. None of us feel he can represent the party well. He certainly doesn't represent us. We don't like his tactics, and we don't like his introduction of racism and religious bigotry as tools for gaining a majority. We've all worked against such tactics for decades here in the South. We don't see Dean as a genius at all. We see him for the self-serving failed candidate he is (and a candidate is not what we need as DNC Chairman). We all are basicly withdrawing from Democratic politics online since the Dean faction dominates on these blogs (but not across the nation among grassroots Democrats, as the primaries pointed out ... remember Iowa?) but we are actively seeking to network with other Democrats who feel as we do about Dean, and who want to "Take Back the Party" and keep the Dean faction from taking over and becoming the Democratic Party in te public mind. The Dean cancer has entered the bloodstream of the party, so it may be too late to stop him from consolidating power. If so, we do know one thing. We 21 cannot be Dean Democrats, just like we can never be Republicans, and pretty much for the same basic reasons. As for the good doctor, we'd like a second opinion, and another voice to represent us.

"The people at Dailykos aren't seeing the total picture on Dean. Many comments there questioning Dean are censored. They disappear."

Shhhh...  Don't tell them that.

The dittoheads like their echo chamber.  That's why they hang out there.

I don't think you are an asshole, and I apologize for the generalization.
I appreciate your lifelong hard work as a Democrat. Let me tell you a little bit about where I'm coming from. You can bet that there are quite a few more Democrats who fit my profile.
I have always been an independent, because I thought the Democratic Party was merely one wing of a two-winged big business party. Both parties represented the economic interests of millionaires and billionaires while pandering to different segments of the general public on cultural issues.
Dean converted me. He showed how the Democratic Party could represent the interests of working Americans if working Americans take over the party from the bottom up. And as DNC chair, he's making it happen.
Now realize: Republicans have been using the type of rhetoric Dean is using for years and kicking our ass. Studies have shown that the type of over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric from the right-wing dominated talk radio has two effects: For conservatives, it fires them up and gets them to engage more in politics. For those on the left, it makes them apathetic and less engaged. Do you honestly think that Republicans would be urging Democrats to dump Dean if he were bad for Democrats?
Come on! It's time for Dems to start biting the hand that won't stop punching us in the face.
p.s. How many of your Republican friends and relatives listen to Rush Limbaugh and nod in agreement as he relentlessly villifies people like you? They might not like what Dean says, but I bet they have more respect for him than they do for most other Dems.

"We all are basicly withdrawing from Democratic politics online since the Dean faction dominates on these blogs (but not across the nation among grassroots Democrats, as the primaries pointed out ... remember Iowa?)"

Don't withdraw, Dan.  Stay and fight.

The Dean fanatics are Bully Boys.  They come in and scream and try to drown out other voices, but there are far fewer of them than it first seems among the tumult.

But you have to continue making your voice heard.  

The folks who run this fine cafe are not the cynical opportunists who run dKos, so as this place evolves, I'm confident they will find ways to maintain a civil space for the real voices of the Party to be heard.

And don't forget that like all bullies, the Bully Boys' achilles heel is that they tend to not be particularly bright.  When the shouting dies down, they don't have much to say.  And the blogosphere belongs to those who can think.

Hey CDR Adama, please stop peteying petey.  Seriously.
"To petey: v., to give unfair ratings designed to drag down the comments of those you simply disagree with."
You are just rating down anything petey writes, just like he was doing for a little while to those he disagreed with, on the basis of nothing but disagreement.  He's been doing it to me too, though he's modified his strategy a little bit.  I disagree with much of what he says, i think he's misguided and often shows poor judgment.  But there's no way you can say this comment deserves a 2.  In fact, he's right and it is a valuable insight, though it is characteristically incomplete and pitched for polemical purposes.  For a more complete assessment that shares petey's insight, see this article from Paul Waldman:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050614/spanking_the_chairman.p
hp

The next Dem who wins will do so by running against Washington Dems, with a message "they just don't get it. The same title and message will work against the Republicans, adding the word Corrupt of course.

Because for a Dem to win he or she will have to create an atmosphere around him or her of change for the better, of cleaning the place up. If they don't campaign on that, they don't give the electorate a reason to change out the clowns currently in power.

Even the insiders will run that way--Kerry knocking gays recently in Lousiana recently wasn't really his message; he was really saying that Washington pols don't get it. He will have a very hard time pulling it off. And so will Biden. Knocking Dean will only make it harder.

To see how it's done right, we'll need to wait for Bill Clinton to weigh in. I expect we'll see a masterful embrace of Dean that also manages to sideline him. With Bill, you never see the elbows.

Now, I'm no "Deaniac," but here's a guy who talks unlike every other Democrat out there, who tells it like it is, and has the guts to call the Republican Party out for what they are.

What's not to like?

I'm just amazed at how many people here have fallen into repeating the Fox News frames about Dean. He's called a religious bigot, an extremist, offensive. Someone throws out unattributed "polls" that put him at 27%...

Maybe you should spend a little more time actually listening to what he says, rather than repeating Republican talking points about him.

We're fighting the Republicans, folks, not Howard Dean.

Hey CDR Adama, please stop peteying petey.  Seriously. ...  You are just rating down anything petey writes..."

I believe that is the explicit intention.  His stated mission in life is to see that people like me "are never going to see a 4+ average on a comment they post again."

The content of my posts is irrelevant.

Here are three reasons Howard Dean is not a good person to have as Chairman of DNC right now ...

1. Howard Dean doesn't represent the grassroots of the Democratic Party. Recent polls give him 27% approval among Democrats, and, in the only polls that count, the primaries, Dean's message and style were rejected by every Democratic electorate except Vermont. When I called the DNC today to get the actual numbers of people voting in the primaries, no one there could give me those figures. Seems the DNC doesn't pay attention to Democratic voters, they just do their own thing independently, and that's how we ended up with Dean as DNC Chairman. It's a Bush-like fiction to say that Dean got in because most Democrats wanted him. All the evidence says otherwise.

2. Dean cannot talk to the American people with any credibility on military matters and national security. This was his big problem in the primaries (Dean himself said he had a national security hole in his resume), and 30+ primary defeats and the vote of the DNC have not changed a thing in that regard. This inability to speak with credibility on national security by the most visible Democrat, coming at a time when the public is now beginning to admit that the Iraq war was not worth the cost and when the Bush administration's own credibility is now beginning to be undermined by the memos coming from London, is a real handicap to the Democratic Party. Dean simply can't use the best message we have to undermine public allegiance to Bush and the Republican Party without his own lack of credentials becoming a bigger issue.

3. Dean doesn't seem to see how wrong it is to use race and religion as issues on which to attract party members (and a good number of our Dean Democrats don't seem to mind, either). Yes, Republicans have used both, but that isn't what the Democratic Party stands for, and yet Dean, on more than one occasion, has played to the crowd with a thinly veiled race card, and now has added the use of religious classification as a way to divide people. If we are to remain the party of tolerance, we cannot allow our party to be so represented. In fairness to DR. DEan, I don't think he is a racist or religious bigot, I just think he doesn't understandthe hsitory of the civil rights movement and the nuances of religion enough not to put his foot in his mouth when he talks about either.

Those are just three reasons I believe Dean is not the person to be DNC Chairman, and certainly not the best person to assume the most visible role of spokesperson for the party for the next two years.

PS--Who will be the first Deaniac to rate this one down, CDR Adama, or is there someone else quicker on the mouse? ;)

Then prepare to keep on losing,

Nancy, Dear Nancy.

Explain away Dean's use of race and religion as a divisive political tool. I was raised in the South of the 1950s and have lived here since, and I can recognize a race card when I see it played, especially when played so clumsily by an amateur such as Howard Dean. Actually, it's a reverse race card, but still a race card. The fact that he couples it with a type of religious bigotry does not make it any more palatable. As I said, I don't think Dean is a racist or religious bigot in his heart of hearts, but that doesn't excuse him from acting that way. To me, that kind of conduct on behalf of the Democratic Party is simply not acceptable. All Democrats should be objecting, and loudly.

You wrote ... "Name one other organization in America that would get away with 98% of it's membership being white?"

I was going to answer the State of Vermont ... but it is only 96.2% white. Will that do?

I don't see any barracades or fences keeping anyone out that want to go there, do you?
 
Only either the truly desperate or the truely clueless would attempt to claim that a state that has elected Bernie Sanders over and over again is the most racist.

I was the one quoting the poll numbers, so here's a citation.  This is from The American Prospect, a left-leaning mag, and the author is one who has been friendly toward Dean. 

Dean was so tarnished by the race -- and by the dawning realization, even among the party’s most liberal stalwarts, that the nation has become more conservative than it once was -- that today only 27 percent of Democrats, according to a Wall Street Journal poll, look upon him positively. That’s a sharp drop from the already low 48 percent who saw him positively one year ago.

Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Garance Franke-Ruta, "Bedside Manager", The American Prospect Online, Feb 1, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

If you don't trust the WSJ, show me another poll.  I don't think you're going to see anything different.  There's a USA Today poll from about the same time showing only two out of more than 400 Democrats volunteered Dean as their first choice for presidency. 

Some will try to tell you that Dean's rise to the chairmanship is a triumph for the grass roots, but the poll shows clearly that he is not at all liked by the Democratic party grass roots, the base, the party faithful, or whatever other term you like to use. 

It was the party officials on the DNC who put him in, with the full knowledge that they were installing somebody that the voters did not like.  

One of Dr. Dean's stated goals is to build the Democratic party at the grass roots.  A major challenge for him will be to reach out to that 73% of Democratic voters that do not view him favorably.  I'm not in favor of having him step down, but he's got his work cut out for him here.  He has a lot of bridges to rebuild. 

I saw the headline about Dean's Sister Souljah, and I said, great! And then I read further and said, well maybe it's not so great.  I was picturing Howard Dean as Bill Clinton, not as the Sister.  People say that Dean has "guts" because he goes before partisan crowds and tell them exactly what they want to hear.   Where I come from, that's called "pandering" or "demagoguery."

Yes, I have listened to him. 

When the good doctor starts telling the left-wingers what they DON"T want to hear, the way Bill Clinton did to Sister Souljah, then maybe we can start talking about his guts.  

And the blogosphere belongs to those who can think.

Have you perused which blogs have the highest traffic?  Thought so, and that fact tends to discount your unsubstantiated claims about party support for Dean.  Face it petey(at least your using your real name here), you are bitter and this fact warps your sensibilities. 

I had a good laugh about you lamenting about troll ratings, given your own propensity for such tactics- dating back to the good ole kos days.  Your a joke, always have been, always will be. 

The blogosphere does belong to those who think, which is a testament to why you can't effectively engage in this media.  Petey, when most people here that name do they think intellectual visionary?  Im afraid its other things not so kind, and don't rationalize yourself with some martydom over Dean.  Lots of people don't like Dean, many of them make valid points, you do not fall into that category.  Your a fucking asshole, its that transparently obvious.  I look forward to the troll ratings, and have already dished out some to you as a prelude. 

Take care, this site is the loser because of your presence.

ccobb,

"To see how it's done right, we'll need to wait for Bill Clinton to weigh in. I expect we'll see a masterful embrace of Dean that also manages to sideline him. With Bill, you never see the elbows"

Masterful

CM,

You are in that saying that the issue of  privacy, that the Democrats will keep the government out of private family matters, is one that we should stand for.

The American public already knows that the Republicans were way out of line with Terri Shavio. They burned themselves.

We, the Democrats. don't use a family's tragedy. We are better than that. 

Since we are all concerned about quotes being used out of context, I will post the relevant portion of the LA Times article.

"Warner — who is thought to have presidential potential because of his bipartisan accomplishments as a governor in the South — said that his party's positioning on social issues had left rural and small-town voters with a "sense of some Democrats' belittling their lives, their culture and their values."

He said he experienced that sentiment during a trip to California, where he felt that some people were condescending because he came from Virginia.

" 'You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have?' " Warner said in characterizing the attitude he encountered. "I came out saying, 'That's why America hates Democrats.' "

No, but it's part of it. Is it tactful? No, but wake me when you get to the part that isn't true.

Look, it's high time someone started giving it back to the reptiles. They've got the msm totally cowed if not on the payroll, so good for Dean.

I'm a Vermonter. He was my Governor for 12 years and my Lt Gov before that, so I'm well aware of Dean. He governed as a moderate. He is a moderate. Ask Bernie Sanders. Ask the Progs and the Liberal Dems. They did nothing but bitch about his closeness to the business community throughout the 90s. Of course, the business community claimed he was too liberal. He just won't take any crap from either side.

In any event, while it's true that he has to be more tactful in his approach, it's also true that the reptiles are gonna bitch about anyone in his position. It's also less than helpful when people buy into the lame ass reptilian/lazy ass msm characterizations of what he says as opposed to what he actually does say.

He's talked about the issues you've mentioned. He's done it at length. You're not helpin' matters when you buy into some bogus "I have a scream" reptilian characterization of what he says and/or cling to some marquis of queensbury malarkey about how "your party" should conduct themselves while another slew of right wing scumbag judges gets confirmed to the Federal Bench.

We've done it your way. We're 0 for the millenium. The reptiles are always gonna bring a knife to a fist fight. At minimum.

It's long past time someone gave 'em a dose of their own.

Give 'em Hell, Howie!

Really?

One word. Edfookingillespie.

Give me some specifics, pal. Give me some actual Dean quotes on the subjects of race and religion and not some bogus, outta context reptilian mischaracterizations of what he said or lazy ass msm "on balance" BS about what amounts to what reptiles are saying about what Dean supposedly said and Joe Biden's response to it.

Can ya do that, pal?

That's what I thought.

I live in Vermont, shmendrik. I've lived here for 35 years.  I've forgotten more about Howard Dean than you'll ever know, so spare me your utterly superficial analysis and opinions on Dean and the "racist" nature and composition of Vermonters, schmuck. 

Dan, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on who the chairman of the party is. I don't remember a lot of controversy over whether past chairmen were loved by the grass roots or not. Don't think it was ever an issue. Maybe Dean is a special case. Regardless, the chairman is not the standard bearer of the party and will not be setting the political agenda. I actually think that being chairman may impede Dean from becoming a candidate (that seems to be your real fear) more than it would facilitate it.

As to the "reverse race card" comment. I agree that his remark could be taken that way and, noting that it was mostly republican senators who dodged the lynching resolution, maybe it was justified since it appears the GOP has a significant, active racist element. Regardless, I doubt you'll hear Dean repeat it, since he got smacked around for it by all big dogs.

You and your buddies need to chill out.

Dean's comment was not racist or bigoted. Nor was it contrary to "core principles" of the party. If we stipulate that you are correct and he intended it as a "reverse race card," the point was to indicate that the GOP was the party of racists and bigots -- a charge that is easily substantiated. I don't think he necessarily intended it that way, but calling racists "racists" is not racist. It's a service to the community, especially when they are sailing under a false flag. His words can also be taken at face value and are certainly accurate as stated. He clearly was not saying "white christians are bad and we don't want them in the Democratic Party because of their pale piety." Now, that would be racist and bigoted.

I think your letting your rabid dislike for Dean overwhelm your judgement.

And I think your rabid support for the good Doctor is clouding your ability to call it as it is.

"And if there is a hidden genuis to his madness, it is in pointing us to the rotten fruit that needs to be plucked from the tree."

My sentiments exactly. I'm so weary of spineless so-called Democrats leading us further into the wilderness. I believe our long-term success will come as a result of Dean's work at the grass roots level. The man has inspired a huge base of formerly apathetic folks who are now dedicated activists working at the grass roots level and making a difference.
I was thinking wouldn't it be nice to have Al Gore speaking for the dems on the pundit programs? I've listened to his speeches and he's spot on! We need to get Biden and Joementum off the air waves. It's pathetic that our party isn't riding high in the polls when the public is so dissatisfied with everything the Bush administration and Republican party is doing to our country. The time is ripe for us to change the political landscape of this country and we can start with your suggestion to begin plucking the rotten fruit from the tree.

jbou,

Harold Ford is not in the Congress.  

I figured that comment was coming. My support for Dean is contingent on how well he does what he has said he would do in terms of building the Party. I'm not now, nor ever have been a "Deaniac." But, as I've written already at some length, I do like how he does what he's doing if for no reason than that he is rattling the republicans like no one has done for some time. Apparently, he's given you the vapors as well.

You are the one reading hidden meanings in Dean's statement. As southerners, you and I are probably a little more attuned to "race cards," reverse and otherwise, than a Vermonter like Dean, who seems a little clueless about race issues sometimes. And I, too, recognized the "code" as soon as I heard it. But I don't think Dean meant it as a race card. I don't think he even realized that his statement could be seen as "code." I think he probably meant what he said, the GOP is not a diverse party and as evidence he pointed to the obvious, it's over 80% white and christian.

What I don't get is why you think it was so heinous. Not why you think what you thought he said or what some might interpret him to have said was so heinous. But his actual words. The problem is that, without imbuing his words with imagined meanings, they're pretty innocuous and you come off as overly outraged. I can understand feeling his choice of words was poor, but your outrage is out of proportion. Unless, of course, you're actually a white, christian, racist, republican. In that event, I understand, and delight, in your outrage.

Absolutely serious.

Here's what Dean said (exact quote the transcript) ... "And they all--you know, it's pretty much a white Christian party."

Now take that and make a few substitutions, such as the word "black" for "white" and "Jewish" for "Christian" ... oh, what the heck, I'll do it for you ...

Suppose Howard Dean had said ... "And they all--you know, it's pretty much a black Jewish party." ... and imagine that it was said to stir up the passions of a gathering of the Democratic faithful somewhere.

Using race and religion as political rhetoric to stir up partisan passions is demagoguery, no matter how much you want to gloss over it because your hero is doing it.

For those who need a refresher ...
demagoguery (n) - impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace (WordNet 2.0 © 2003 Princeton University)

It seems to some here that because the target of the appeal to passion was whites and Christians, that somehow it is okay. I don't see it that way. Any appeal to prejudices based on any race or any religion is unacceptable.

Such a thing should not happen in the name of the Democratic Party, imo.

For the few of you that made it this far: <ick> do you have any Pepto?

Would someone please explain to me why political blogs bring out the worst in people? Look again at some of the late-afternoon comments in this thread. This is hours later - I'm writing four hours later than two posts ago, so they must've just all logged off in disgust at the same time. I won't call anyone out, because everyone deserves to be called out. What a mess.

I was just rating comments for awhile, but this arguing has gotten too nasty and too personal and it needs to stop. So...stop. Your anonymity doesn't write you a blank check to offend.

You may not like what one particular individual is saying, and feel a need to let them 'have it'. But remember: many people are reading along and when you get extreme, condescending, or offensive, you end up dragging me (any possibly thousands of non-commenting readers) into an wretchedly ineffectual emotional exchange no one came here for. The thread becomes effectively ruined. Don't believe me? Um, tell me again how many people commented since late afternoon, despite front-page placement? (one, as of 11:00 CST)

If I wanted angry screaming heads, I'd watch Hannity.
 

So, have a sense of ethics. As a rule, you shouldn't elevate the argument to a personal level; if everyone did it, this blog would be full of worthless pissing matches. Mark Schmitt, whether you like his ideas or not, is extremely good at maintaining a respectful posture while forcefully expressing his opinion. That's one reason why he's big-league in the blogosphere - whether I agree with him or not, I still like his persona. There's a proper ethic for blog comments too, and when it's observed a comment thread can be wonderful to read. Reading this thread was painful.

You don't speak much of anything but nonsense, danimal, if you think that Dean pointing out the obvious - that the reptiles are a largely white Christian party with little or no regard or use for anyone who isn't a white Christian - is in any way comparable to the strom thurmonds and lester maddoxes of years gone by. To attempt to equate the two is patently ridiculous.

By your own admission, most of the people you know left the Democratic Party for the reptiles in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam.

Gee, stop the fookin' presses. You're not exactly smashin' any stereotypes there, shmendrik.

Many white Southerners hated integration and hippie protesters. Wow! Who'da thunk it? The reptiles opened their arms and said "Give me your rednecks, your white trash, your klansman yearnin' to lynch free" and the confederacy went reptile.

No fookin' kiddin', shmendrik. Nixon devised the southern strategy in '68 and the reptiles've been runnin' the same plays ever since.

Look at a map for Christ's sake. If the reptiles don't sweep the confederacy, they don't have a prayer of winnin' the Presidency. Just 'cause they make a big show of goin' to church on Sunday don't make 'em any less bigoted. If anything, it just makes 'em bigger frauds.

The fact that you and your friends don't wanna face it don't make it any less true, pal. Dean's just pointin' out the obvious.

Now why don't you explain away how Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council bought David Duke's old klan mailing list a few years back? Tell me how dialin' racists for dollars in the name of the Lord and good Christian family values is a good thing.

Why don't you save yourself some typing and just post threads from freerepublic.com and little green footballs as your responses here?

If you're going to just use right wing talking points, might as well use the rest of the Swift Boat techniques as well.

What's this, is the American Prospect too "right-wing" for you? 

Or do you just unthinkingly label anything that is critical of Dean as "right wing."    

It's the Weekly Standard that's Faux-spew. I don't know how I confused the American Prospect and the Weekly Standard, but I did.

Feel free to begin bashing now.