Point to ponder

Those who are hoping that the Anybody-But-Dean forces can get organized enough to stop the Doctor from getting the nomination should consider this: these are the same group of people who have been so successful at stopping Bush.

More voices

Add yet another voice to the chorus. Jefferson Crowe, a history professor at Cornell University, writes for The American Prospect that "Dean's assertion ... was clumsy -- but on the right track."

So far, this immense historical problem has appeared in Dean's campaign with all the breadth and depth of a set of bullet points in a political-strategy book. The former Vermont governor's challenge now is to flesh out this issue for himself and the nation. Obviously he won't get far trying to court a constituency by calling its members "rednecks" or exercising his tin ear on race before the electorate. Rather than go on apologizing for the Confederate-flag flap, however, he ought to announce a major speech on the issue and walk the nation through this history. He will never have the credibility Bill Clinton had with poor whites or with blacks. But he would also not be the first rich, white politician to bring the nation together around a shared economic vision. A frank confrontation with the recent political history of race and class might just deliver Dean's mythic truck driver, along with the whole of American politics, to a more sincere discussion about equality.

A lot has been made of the fact that Dean is a "white patrician northerner" and thus an unlikely choice to be the standard bearer for this fight. I'm not so sure. Consider the fact that FDR was also a "white patrician northerner". Of course, FDR was a lot more eloquent than Dean, but then FDR never had to put up with 24 hour news channels. I wonder how Roosevelt would have performed on "Rock The Vote"?

Doing it right

Nick Confessore links to Dan Drezner who talks about an appearance by Ken Pollack on CNN. The summary from all this linking is that, regardless of whether you thought it was wise to go into Iraq or not the simple truth is that we are there and that the rest of the world is watching to see what we will do next. Will we really offer an alternative to the autocratic systems of a Hussein and the Islamic republics of Iran? Or will we blow it and leave an even greater mess than what we had before.

There has been reasonable criticism that the Democrats, despite their attacks on the whole Bush program, haven't really offered much in the way of an alternative. As said above, the option of not getting involved is no longer an option and the option of simply pulling out (ala Kucinich) would just make a bad situation worse. So, assuming a Democrat does get into office in 2005, how would he address this problem?

Here's a suggestion: do what Bush promised he was trying to do but do it right.

There's a lot of very valid arguments to be made against the whole PNAC, reverse domino-theory doctrine, not the least of which is that you can't impose Democracy at the point of a gun. But those arguments are now purely academic. Bush has committed us to a grand experiment and we no longer have a choice about whether to get involved. We are in the thick of it.

So, if we are going to do it, let's do it right. It is obvious from the results we have seen so far that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are incompetent when it comes to implement their grand ideas.

The Democrats need to avoid getting into an argument about the wisdom of the whole endeavor (other than to use it as a way of indicating that these guys aren't as bright as they make themselves out to be) and instead need to focus on the essential characteristic of this administration in pretty much everything they do: their manifest incompetence. The Democrats have to convince the American people that they are more competent to see this grand experiment through to a successful conclusion.

How do they do this? Perhaps we could start by comparing the records of Democrats and Republicans on the matter of nation building. I don't know my history well enough to argue this thoroughly, but my impression is that Democrats have a much better record of success on this than Republicans. What's more, the Democrats actually understand the value of nation building whereas the Republicans have almost consistently scoffed at the idea (cue Bush's comments from the 2000 where he was dismissive of the whole idea).

Bush has gotten us into a nation building exercise. Why should we trust it to a guy who has been so against the whole idea in the past?

Recommendations

David Neiwart also pointed to this excellent piece in The Nation by John Nichols ("Needed: A Rural Strategy"). I recommend it as well.

The chorus gets louder

David Neiwert joins the chorus of those saying that Dean was right on substance, wrong on terminology, his opponents were shameless in exploiting it and have hurt Democratic chances in the process.

Paul Krugman weighs in with the pretty much the same assessment.

I hope (and think) that David is wrong that this flap will force Dean to back off completely from his desire to open up a dialog on this issue. Dean's "apology" the other day included promises that he will not back down from talking about this issue despite the fact that it might cause some people some pain. I'm curious to see what he will say about it in the future.

Why Dean is winning

The Note gives a very good run down of key attributes of the Dean campaign and why it is succeeding. I even agree with where it is critical of Dean (i.e., the comment about not yet having a general election winning message on the economy):

1. Dean will raise more money in the year before the election than anyone else seeking the Democratic nomination, and that historically in the modern era is (with one exception) the iron-clad predictor of who wins in both parties.

2. Beyond money, this year Dean has dominated in message and media, two other fabu things to have.

3. None of the other candidates can overtake Dean in the fourth quarter — they can theoretically do damage to him (although, outside damage with the Chattering Class, we doubt that too), but they can't cripple him. There just aren't enough people paying attention yet.

4. What doesn't kill Howard Dean only makes him stronger.

5. Fair or unfair, the media has not held Dean to the same standards as the other major candidates. Wes Clark's entry into the race sucked up a lot of publicity and took the spotlight off of Dean at the one moment when critical mass was being reached.

6. At the same time, some of Dean's explanations for his alleged inconsistencies and flip flops are actually pretty convincing.

7. Dean's core supporters don't care about Sunday show gaffes and pratfalls, New York Times editorials, or what Terry McAuliffe or the Dingells think.

8. People actually listen to Dean talk at his events.

9. Dean's willingness to cede control to volunteers in the states for planning events and executing political activities is an act of confidence and strength, and has directly resulted in his drawing unprecedentedly large crowds and building genuine grassroots support.

10. Most Washington Democrats who are scared out of their wits about Howard Dean as their nominee have never been to a Dean event and don't have a genuine understanding of WHY he has succeeded this year. (emphasis mine - Chris)

11. Skipping the matching funds is a general election strategy, not a strategy for winning the nomination.

12. Governors do well as presidential candidates, and the members of Congress who are running against Dean still for the most part haven't learned not to talk like they are from Washington ("We CAN get Breaux-Gilchrest out of conference!!!! We can DO it!!!! And then passed by both chambers!!!"). Dean talks like a real person, and voters like that.

13. Dean is no newcomer to national politics; his work on the NGA and DGA (where he recruited ruthlessly) gives him as much applicable experience as almost anyone else running.

14. Howard Dean doesn't have cable TV.

15. Howard Dean has not developed a general-election winning message on the economy — yet.

16. Dean can theoretically win a general election race against President Bush, but not without growing significantly as a candidate and a person, including and especially in his rhetorical and symbolic relationship to faith, family, freedom, and national security.

17. All of the other five major candidates think they can and should be in the end the Dean Alternative, and each has enough hold on key state and national support that they have no incentive or desire to get out of the race and consolidate beyond one of the others. The pro-war candidates in particular are splitting a piece of the pie that is large, but it is still a SPLIT piece.

18. The people who work for DeanforAmerica have FUN, from the interns in Iowa to the senior stuff; the staffs for the other campaigns don't always remember to do that.

I was particularly struck by point #10. I've said for a long time that a lot of Democratic party insiders are too insulated and clueless about what is going on out here in the country. But is it true that they have cut themselves off so much that they haven't even bothered to attend a Dean event and find out why he is striking such a chord with the grassroots? That's simply amazing and yet more evidence that they really don't get it.

Perhaps it is time to invite them to the party?

Google News Democratic Primary Poll for 11/7/2003

		This Week (11/7)			Last Week (11/2)
1	Howard Dean	6380	18.7%	+0.7	2	5630	18.0%
2	John Kerry	5860	17.2%	-1.2	1	5750	18.4%
3	John Edwards	4540	13.3%	+0.7	4	3960	12.6%
4	Wesley Clark	4390	12.9%	-1.1	3	4380	14.0%
5	Joe Lieberman	3690	10.8%	-0.8	5	3620	11.6%
6	Dick Gephardt	3630	10.6%	+1.0	6	3010	9.6%
7	Dennis Kucinich	2370	6.9%	+0.2	7	2110	6.7%
8	Al Sharpton	2070	6.1%	+0.5	8	1730	5.5%
9	Carol Moseley Braun	1220	3.6%	+0.0	9	1130	3.6%

Dean regains the lead from Kerry. Clark continues to fade, settling back into the top of the 2nd tier. Edwards stock is rising. Gephardt and Lieberman continue to coast.

Sorry. To busy to do much more of an in-depth analysis.

The following is a chart of the Google News Media Share over the last few months.

(Methodology: All numbers are taken from the hit counts when searching on the Google News Service for news stories containing each candidate's name. Click on each name to rerun the search. You will get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)

The wailing of the donkeys

There's a lot of ripping of sackcloth and putting on of ashes over in the comments section of this Kos post about the SEIU and AFSCME endorsements. Many people who have opposed Dean are now coming to terms with the idea that he might win the nomination and, to a one, they are all going on like it is the worst disaster that has ever been inflicted on the Democratic party.

Way to demonstrate a winning attitude guys! And people wonder why the electorate is turned off by Democrats.

Here's an idea: if it looks like Dean is going to win the nomination, instead of screaming in anguish, why don't you put your considerable talents to work figuring out how to get Dean elected despite your misgivings?

I know if Dean loses to one of the other candidates I will probably be bummed. A natural reaction to having backed the wrong horse. But I won't waste a lot of time bewailing this because I know it won't do any good. I will instead throw myself full force into figuring out how to get the eventual nominee into the White House.

Stop fretting about all the ways Dean might lose and start thinking about the ways Dean might win and then make that happen! (again, assuming he gets the nomination.)

Non-silly sillyness

I guess the non-endorsement endorsement of Dean by the SEIU is pretty much par for the course this electoral season, what with the multitude of non-announcement announcements by President candidates that they were unofficially officially entering the race.

That's just my non-impression impression.

Dean: Union Man III

Here's the official SEIU statement:

Statement of SEIU President Andrew L. Stern Re: SEIU’s Endorsement Decision WASHINGTON, DC – The following is a statement of Andrew L. Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), regarding SEIU's endorsement process:

“Earlier today, the local leaders who comprise SEIU’s International Executive Board came together from across the country to decide whether the union should make an endorsement in the presidential race.

"During this meeting, the Board reviewed a large amount of information: candidate positions, national and local polls and surveys of members and leaders, straw votes conducted by dozens of locals, verbal and written feedback from members. And Howard Dean himself met with us and answered questions from the board.

"We have reached a decision, and we are hopeful that there are other unions who share our members’ excitement for Dr. Dean’s candidacy.

"Our decision is the result of a year-long process that began with – and ends with – our members. And it is because of that process that I know that the decision made here today is the right one.

“Gerald McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, has asked us to wait to announce the decision made here today until AFSCME’s board can meet. Therefore, we will announce our decision on Wed. November 12.

“I look forward to talking with our union brothers and sisters who are still going through their own decision-making process

It's in the bag as far as SEIU is concerned. Stern wouldn't agree to delaying the announcement if he didn't there was a good chance McEntee would get AFSCME to endorse as well.

Democrats: Better Politically Correct-ed than Elected

The Angry Liberal lays it hard on the Democrats for their reaction to the Dean flag flap.

Encouraging Atriosciousness

The Wingnut Debate Dictionary

Read. Learn. Understand.

There will be a test later.

All I want for Christmas is a new president

I was talking with some friends about the prospects for Dean's 4th quarter fundraising numbers. I suspect that Q4 will be better than Q3 but probably not along the same trend line of  previous quarters where we saw a doubling of donations from each quarter. For one thing, Dean is probably reaching the tapped out limits of some of his lower-income supporters. For another thing, its during the holiday season when people have other expenses.

This gave me an idea. Maybe we should start a Dean gift club. Tell your friends to make a donation to the Dean campaign in your name in lieu of giving you a present.

Dean: Union Man Part II

Well, this doesn't help my nerves at all even though indications are that the end result will be even better. From what I am hearing the SEIU has not officially announced an endorsement of Dean today. However, all their internal polling and voting indicates that he is getting the endorsement. So, why are they holding off on announcing it?

Because the 2nd biggest union in the country, the AFSCME asked the SEIU to hold off on the announcement until they meet next week to decide on the same matter.

Why would they do this? I think the answer is pretty clear: SEIU and AFSCME are rival unions and the leadership of the two has not always seen eye-to-eye. If one of them were to announce an endorsement first it might be difficult for the other to endorse the same candidate without coming off looking like a "me to". Also, whoever gets there first will have a greater claim to being a kingmaker in the process.

How to solve this problem? Make a joint announcement! That way both unions get equal billing on the Dean platform and neither side gets to lord it over the other.

Now this wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a very good chance Dean will get the AFSCME endorsement next week. So all in all things are looking very good for Dean right now.

Also, if this happens, Dean will have demonstrated an extraordinary ability to form coalitions. As far as I know, no presidential candidate has ever received a joint endorsement from these two powerful unions. That Dean can get them to put down their rivalries and join him together on the same stage is a major indication of his actual ability to govern.

Still, a part of me can't help but wish this were all over.

Update: Melanie in comments correctly points out that SEIU and AFSCME are not "rivals" in the sense that they organize the same groups of workers. By "rivals" I was referring to the desire of both unions to be kingmakers in this election which has lead some to speculate that they would not endorse the same candidate. By holding a joint endorsement they have neatly solved this problem and I'm sure Dean has had something to with that. That is what I was referring to when I said that this demonstrates Dean's ability to build coalitions.

Winning the southern heart

Debra McCorkle, a southern liberal, offers some helpful advise to Howard Dean on how to win the hearts of southerners. She understands what Dean is trying to do but thinks he is demonstrating a typical northern ham-handed manner in doing it.

I refuse to believe that the South really belongs to the Republicans. I just tend to think that the conservatives mix the stuff that concerns the citizenry with a heaping spoonful of Dixie Crystal sugar. They sweeten that iced tea while a candidate from Vermont sticks a glass of Lipton Instant in our faces with two cubes of ice and a packet of Sweet and Low and tells us to drink it. It's just not the same, Howard.

Now this is the kind of criticism I, a Dean supporter, can appreciate. It doesn't drop to John Edwards level of mocking disdain at Dean's attempts to open a dialog. She actually seems charmed by Dean's desire even if she is unimpressed with his delivery.

Telling the painful truth

Dean gave a speech this afternoon at Cooper Union in New York. The primary purpose of the speech was to talk about the question of whether the campaign should opt-out of the matching funds system. However, Dean made a last minute addition to the speech in which he addressed the confederate flag flap:

"We're at a space today that's rich in our nation's history, a place where citizens have gathered for more than a century to debate the great issues of the day. From this platform and from this very podium Abraham Lincoln spoke nearly 150 years ago as a presidential candidate and when Lincoln came here, he did not shy away from talking about the greatest threat that our republic faced at that time which is the terrible institution of human slavery. I will not shy away today either.

"The issue of the confederate flag has become an issue in this presidential race. Let me make this clear. I believe that we have one flag in this country, the flag of the United States of America. I believe that the flag of the Confederate States of America is a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery, which Lincoln denounced from here over 150 years ago. And I do not condone the use of the flag of the Confederate States of America. I do believe that this country needs to engage in a serious discussion about race, and that everyone must participate in that discussion. I started this discussion in a clumsy way.

"This discussion will be painful, and I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African-American or southern white voters in the beginning of this discussion. But we need to have this discussion in an honest open way.

"In 1968 the Republican Party embarked on a strategy to divide white people from black people in the south just as they were divided when Abraham Lincoln stood at this podium 150 years ago. That is intolerable. Ending that is what this campaign is all about.

"I am determined to find a way to bring white Americans and black Americans--as Dr. King said--to the same table of common brotherhood. As I said, we have started in a difficult way, but there is no way to escape the pain of this discussion. To think that racism was banished from the face of this country--even after the success of the civil rights movement is wrong.

"Today in America, you have a better chance of being called back for a job interview if you're white with a criminal record than you do if you're black with a clean record--never having been arrested or convicted. Institutional racism exists in this country not because institutions are run by bigots or racists, but because of our unconscious bias towards hiring people just like ourselves. I am determined we will overcome this. I am also determined that we will not leave anyone behind in this discussion--no matter what their color, no matter where they live.

"I understand Senator Edward's concern last night that we not have people from the north telling people from the south how to run their states--but we all need to understand that we are in this together and that it will be a difficult and painful discussion, and feelings will be hurt. And what we must do is that people of good will must stay at the table.

"If we are ever to vanquish the scourge of racism left over from 400 hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow, only 40 or 50 years ago [did] the Civil Rights Movement begin to see relief from that. We can't think it is over; we must have the dialogue Bill Clinton promised us; we must continue that dialogue, and we must all be at the table. Many of the people in the African American community have supported what I have said in the past few days, because they understand. Some have not, so I say, to those, I deeply regret the pain I have may caused. Many of our white supporters have understood, but to those who do not, I regret the pain that I have caused. I will tell you, there is no easy way to do this. There will be pain as we discuss it; we must face it together--hand-in-hand, as Dr. King and Abraham Lincoln asked us to do.

"Because this is about taking back our country and when white people and brown people and black people vote together in this country, that's when we get social justice in America."

I read this statement tonight at the meetup I host and it came off sounding even better when read out loud. The call for healing is there along with the acknowledgement that before there can be healing there sometimes has to be pain. This gets back to my previous points about Dean's doctor-like approach to these issues. Simply put, this country is in such bad shape that it doesn't do us any good to have leaders who are unwilling to say the uncomfortable things we don't want to hear but that we need to hear.

We can handle the truth.

More opinions

John Scalzi also comes down on the "Dean was right, if clumsy, in what he said about the flag and may actually be demonstrating political genius in making these comments" side.

The genius of Howard Dean

Tristero says it better.

Still waiting

I'd like to expand on my previous challenge: please name a prominent Democratic leader who was offended by Dean's confederate flag comments who is not (1) running for President or (2) already a declared supporter of one of Dean's opponents.

There appears to be a lot of "this will destroy Dean's chances in <some community>" comments out there, but I have yet to see any great cry of outrage coming from those communities that backs up that fear. In fact, I have seen a multitude of posts of support in various blogs from the very people that are supposed to be offended by Dean's statements.

Could it be that people are just assuming that this will hurt Dean because that is what prolonged exposure to political discussion groups has ingrained in their brains?

Please show me that this will hurt Dean outside the afraid-of-their-own-shadows constituency?

Update: I've heard a rumor that Bill Richardson has expressed offense at Dean's comment, but I haven't found a link for this yet.

Update 2: This is the most I've been able to find on Richardson's view:

"Governor Dean was trying to reach out to disenfranchised voters in the South, but he needs to be more careful," said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. "I don't think this is serious, but it has put a little bit of a dent in his front-runner status."

Taking Chances

Chris Suellentrop discussed the confederate flag issue yesterday on Slate.

Recovering their appeal to white working-class voters is something of an obsession among Democratic Party politicians, and the Dean campaign rightly points out that the Confederate-flag comment is something that their candidate says all the time, and that he never received any criticism for it in the past. During tonight's debate in Boston, the campaign issued a press release pointing to C-SPAN footage from the February 2003 winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee that was attended by every candidate except John Kerry. There, Dean said, "White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance, either, and their kids need better schools, too." The campaign says he was received with a standing ovation, "even bringing Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe to his feet," and they say you can see it on C-SPAN here, right before the 2:09:00 mark.

That said, Dean handled tonight's kerfuffle over the Confederate flag poorly, and he did so in a way that raises a worrisome question about his candidacy. Why is he so obstinate about admitting that he was wrong? Earlier in the campaign, when Dean was confronted with changes in his positions on trade, on Social Security, and on Medicare, his first instinct was to deny that he had held the earlier position. Surely it would have been far easier to just say, hey, I made a mistake.

What is interesting about this article is that Suellentrop seems to be advancing two apparently contradictory sentiments:

1. Howard Dean is right to bring up the issue of winning back the votes of rural white southerners.
2. Howard Dean can't admit when he is wrong.

So which is it Chris? Why paint a picture of Dean as arrogant for not admitting when he is wrong when you as much as suggest that he wasn't wrong in the first place?

This demonstrates, once again, the obsession in some circles with "getting the message right" rather than "getting the message out". The idea being that if you can't express a thought perfectly and in a way that won't garner controversy then you shouldn't bring it up at all in the first place.

Sorry, but I think part of the Democrats problem in recent years is that they have been so keen to not offend people that they end up never saying anything compelling at all. You have to be willing to put your foot in it if you are going to go out there and express an honest opinion. And observers are going to have to cut them some slack if they really do want politicians to engage in more than just carefully processed, pre-packaged talking points.

Humiliation as a strategy for defeating racism

The question of Dean and the confederate flag continues to get a lot of play over on Digby's blog. He links to a Temple of Democracy post that I'd also like to quote here:

It is not a new observation that the racial division between white and black working people in the former Confederate states has worked against them and enabled various elites to dominate both of them. Hinton Helper realized that the plantation system oppressed white non-elites before the Civil War. One of the fears of the plantation class before the Civil War was that blacks and whites would work together. You can read about this in "Towards a Patriarchal Republic: The Secession of Georgia," by Michael P. Johnson.

There were attempts for black-white alliances during Reconstruction, in the 1890s with Populism, and Mahon in North Carolina, and other times in the history of the South, and this has been an ongoing hope continuing to this day. However, it has been defeated, again, and again, and again.  The trump card that the elites have played over and over is white nationalism. The convincing of white working people, farmers, that their interest lies in a common white identity rather than the common economic interest they hold with African Americans in the South. You can't defeat white nationalism by giving into it. You can't appeal to it and expect to defeat it. You also can't expect to beat the established interests in using it. They can always beat your appeal to it. You can't build an alliance on top of it. The established interests will bust it up with a stronger appeal to white nationalism than you will be willing to make.

To have a movement of ordinary people, black and white, against established anti-democratic interests, you need to defeat white nationalism. FDR thought he could build a progressive future by side stepping the issues. We now witness a party with its strength centered in the former Confederate states demolishing FDRs legacy one step at a time.

I agree completely that you won't get poor whites and blacks to work with each other until you defeat the concept of white nationalism. The question that is: how you defeat the concept of white nationalism?

The old approach to this problem seems to come down to a simple act of humiliation: make the rural white southerners feel ashamed for waving "an obvious symbol of racism". The thinking being that, once they admit they are wrong, they will be awakened into the new, more enlightened reality that is racial equality and mutual cooperation between the races.

Where have I heard this before? Oh, I know, it sounds eerily similar to the "transformative defeat" doctrine that the PNAC crowd has been espousing as a solution to the Iraq problem.

It is ironic that the Democrats are as blind to the drawbacks of this approach when it comes to dealing with rural white southerners as the Republicans are when it comes to dealing with downtrodden Iraqis.

This approach fails to acknowledge a simple basic fact: human beings can be incredibly pig headed. They will continue to do something that is against their best interest, especially when they have some "do gooder" shouting in their face about how they are "bad bad people" for doing what they are doing.

The basic problem is that this approach isn't working! Dean is offering an alternative. We are obviously at loggerheads over what is essentially nothing more than a stupid piece of cloth. So why not just redefine the problem in order to sidestep the whole issue? Stop worrying about the confederate flag and start talking with the people who are waving it. Don't scold them for it. Ask them what they are getting out of doing it?

If we are really going to defeat white nationalism then we need to attack it directly. Attacking the confederate flag is pointless and counter-productive. Once the Democrats show that they are willing to listen to the problems of rural white southerners without insisting that they put down their battle flags then, maybe then, those people will start to listen to what the Democrats have to say.

The Democratic party is fat

Howard Dean is a doctor by training. As such, a doctor cannot afford to let the feelings of his patient get in the way of telling them something that they need to hear. If he is treating a patient his is grossly obese, he can't let the fact that saying so might hurt their feelings get in the way of telling them that they need to lose weight.

The Democratic party has lots of problems right now, but many of those problems are exacerbated by the fact that many people within the party don't want to talk about those problems. The confederate flag flap is a prime example of this.

Regardless of whether Dean could have chosen a slightly different way to approach this issue, Doctor Dean was correct in highlighting a problem that the Democratic party has. That problem is that continued insistence that rural white southerners do penance for a racist past before they will be allowed to participate in the discussion of where the Democratic party should go. The flag is not the issue, it has simply become the symbol for that issue. As long as Democrats insist on getting upset about the flag, as long as they continue to look down their noses at people who put flag decals on their pickup trucks, they will continue to lose.

It is the height of irony that John Edwards yelled at Dean about stereotyping southerners because it was the stereotype that Dean was directly attacking in his comment. The stereotype is not that all southerners drive around in pickup trucks with confederate flags on their bumpers. The stereotype is that those who do should be an embarrassment to anyone who associates with them.

Dean is not a perfect spokesmen on this issue. He is not the great speaker that we had in a Kennedy or a Clinton (or, if what I have seen holds true, Wesley Clark). But he confronts the issues that more erudite politicians are afraid to confront because, as a Doctor, he knows he does no service to the people he is serving if he tries to appease their sensitivities.

The Democratic party is fat. The Democratic party doesn't want to hear about it. They better start listening before it is to late.

One request

Could someone point me to a single negative comment against Dean on the flag issue from a prominent African American who is not named Al Sharpton?

I ask because I keep seeing a lot of people saying this will hurt Dean in the black community but I have yet to actually see any evidence of this.

Stop playing games

I agree with the Left Coaster's take on the whole confederate flag flap:

And I will say it once, and then let it go. I think that what Howard Dean said about appealing for Southern voters who have pickup trucks and confederate flags in their cars was fine. I think it was pandering for the rest of the candidates to then jump in and bash Dean by playing for the “I’d rather get the NAACP vote than the NRA vote” line like Kerry did. But Kerry wasn’t alone; they all did it over the weekend. No matter what Zell Miller thinks about the Democrats and the South, what Dean was trying to say was entirely plausible. The imagery to some is regrettable justifiably so, but it speaks volumes about the state of the campaign that the only thing people may remember about the campaign over the weekend was the comments in response to Dean’s original comment. For God’s sake guys, stop swinging at every ball in the dirt from Dean. Start leading with your own vision and coherent attacks against Bush and what you would do differently. But if your own campaign is defined as responding to whatever Dean says, then Dean has already won and you are irrelevant.

This goes back to what I said in my previous post. If people have problems with the specific positions that Dean has taken then please, by all means criticize them. But when you criticize him based on some amorphous concept like "electability" or if you deliberately distort his statements in order to play to wedge politics then you are doing nothing but shoring up the stereotype of Democrats as having no opinions of their own, always negative, and quite willing to pander to baser instincts to win elections.

I respect Zell Miller's and Joe Lieberman's disagreements with Dean on Iraq even if I don't agree with them because I can tell that they represent their true opinions. (I disrespect Miller, on the other hand, for endorsing the opposition and actively campaigning against his fellow Democrats. That's simply not acceptable.) I can understand people's concerns about Dean's "electability" (I've had them myself), but please don't let it be the deciding factor in your electoral decision because, again, it will just play into the stereotype of Democrats being afraid of their own shadow.

Stop playing games. Try to win on your ideas. And if Dean beats you on that battleground, maybe, just maybe, its because his ideas are more popular and may actually make him more electable.

That's all I'm saying.

Democrats are losers

Here's what bugs me about the criticism I hear from Democrats about Howard Dean: they all appear to be based on a defensive strategy. Every one of Dean's critics is worried about his apparent weaknesses on some issue. They think the Democrats need another candidate who won't have to waste their time defending those issues.

The problems with this position are manifold, but they come down to two things: (1) there is no perfect candidate who cannot be attacked on a multitude of issues and (2) playing defense all the time makes you look weak.

Dean is not perfect, but none of the current candidates are any more perfect. Dean can be attacked on his stance on the war? Clark and the other candidates are all coming around to Dean's point of view. Dean at least has the advantage of saying he was there first and thus he can argue that he was smart enough to figure out the problem before all the other geniuses and he was brave enough to make this stand clear and unequivocal when it wasn't very popular.

Dean can be attack on civil unions? All of the major candidates support this to some extent and thus all of them can be smeared with the same brush. Dean at least has the advantage of actually putting his political future on the line for the issue and can thus score points for political bravery (and yes, that does count for something).

Dean can be attacked on taxes? Hate to break it to you folks but being a Democrat means you will always be attacked on taxes. Trying to finesse the issue simply doesn't work. The Democrats, to win on this, have to change the assumptions of the debate and the "let's rollback some but not all" simply appears politically calculated and thus cowardly.

Dean is something this country hasn't seen in quite some time: an unapologetic Democrat who doesn't play defense but instead takes the fight to the opposition and confronts them on their failures and their weaknesses. He does it with Democrats as well as Republicans. The leadership may squawk about the attacks, but maybe its about time someone slap them around a little in order to wake them out of their stupor.

Instead of sitting around worrying about how some aspect of Dean's policies stances will make him unelectable maybe Democrats should think more about how to make those positions positive. For that is the real problem here: negativity. The Dems are all about how things won't work. They are all about how they will fail yet again. Every time I see a prominent Dem say, in public, that Bush will be hard to beat I just want to slap them silly and tell them to shut the f*ck up. Democrats don't lose because of their stands on a particular issue. They lose because they act like losers! If they would just spend their time and energy thinking of ways to make their issues winners instead of just looking for winning issues than maybe they might actually start winning.

Or could it be that Democrats have gotten so used to losing that they don't know how to play the game any other way?

Giving Dean a wedgie

The latest round of desperation attacks against Dean are over the confederate flag (read the official statement on this from the campaign here).

Back at the Winter DNC conference Howard Dean got up before a crowd of Democrats and said the following:

"I intend to talk about race in this election in the south because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. And I'm going to bring us together, because you know what? White folks in the south who drive pickups trucks with confederate flags decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools too.

The Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman and Sharpton campaigns are all now suggesting by their criticism that Dean wants to appeal to racists. The fact that they are reacting this way demonstrates clearly why they have lost the votes of working-class Americans in the South. They've lost touch with the people and are focused only on the symbols.

The Republicans use those symbols to keep natural allies divided, but it is the Democrats, by their insistence on purity over those symbols, that gives the Republicans the wedge they need to make that division. The attacks on Dean over this issue are clearly political pandering because they know precisely what Dean was talking about when he made these comments (Sharpton expressed faux surprise that Dean made them when they have been a standard part of Dean's stump speech for months). Thus, not only have they lost site of the place of symbols, they are going for votes through a calculated method of dividing voters on a wedge issue.

In other words, they are acting like Republicans (again), but they just aren't very good at it.

Dean is right. Why should the Democrats concede any demographic to the Republicans just because of a symbol? Why should we demand that white southerners take down their decals before we will accept them into the fold? Is it any wonder that they vote against their own self-interest by siding with the Republicans? Wouldn't you do the same if the only other option was to join with people who automatically look down on you as racist bubbas?

The Clark and Edwards, southerners themselves, would buy into this garbage just proves how out of touch they are.

(Dennis over on Republicans for Dean has a good response to this shit. I recommend it.)

What I've been trying to say

New York Times letter to the editor (11/02/03)

This whole "issue" of electability versus Democratic Party values is completely phony ("In the Candidacies of Clark and Dean, Democrats Confront the Issue of Electability," news article, Oct. 30).

No one ever gets elected because of his electability. People get elected because they stand for something the voters want. The reason the Democratic Party is out of power is its gutless, poll-watching, unprincipled attempts to simulate the statistical center of the American public's diverse and conflicting views.

Voters recognize and despise this manipulative strategy. Pushing for an "electable" candidate is more of the same, and if registered Democrats fall for this scam, they will land the party out in the street once again.

JERRY CAYFORD, Brunswick, Md., Oct. 31, 2003

Thanks Jerry.

Google News Democratic Primary Poll for 11/02/2003

		This Week (11/2)			Last Week (10/24)
1	John Kerry	5750	18.4%	+2.9	3	5120	15.5%
2	Howard Dean	5630	18.0%	-1.0	1	6280	19.0%
3	Wesley Clark	4380	14.0%	-3.4	2	5730	17.3%
4	John Edwards	3960	12.6%	+0.8	4	3900	11.8%
5	Joe Lieberman	3620	11.6%	+1.4	5	3340	10.1%
6	Dick Gephardt	3010	9.6%	-0.3	6	3260	9.9%
7	Dennis Kucinich	2110	6.7%	-0.2	7	2280	6.9%
8	Al Sharpton	1730	5.5%	-0.6	8	2010	6.1%
9	Carol Moseley Braun	1130	3.6%	+0.2	9	1120	3.4%

Whoa! I don't know what has resulted in the sudden dramatic rise in Kerry's media share. It might be the increased attacks by him on Dean, but Gephardt has been making similar attacks and his share continues to drop (this despite the fact that many people believe Gephardt has a better chance of defeating Dean than Kerry does). Wesley Clark's assault on Dean continues to fade as well.

So Dean continues to be the #1 story. It remains to be seen who will win the battle for #2.

The following is a chart of the Google News Media Share over the last few months.

(Methodology: All numbers are taken from the hit counts when searching on the Google News Service for news stories containing each candidate's name. Click on each name to rerun the search. You will get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)