Quick warning to Dean supporters

[WilliamPitt]

I love you guys.

I love Dean.

I was re-reading Hunter S. Thompson's 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail' today. I came across the chapter entitled 'Dark Interlude,' when McGovern chose Eagleton for his Vice President...and then it was revealed that Eagleton had been given several shock treatments prior to his tapping by McGovern.

Bear with me here. I am NOT throwing that facile 'Dean = McGovern' thing at you.

In Hunter's words, the Eagleton revelation hit the McGovern campaign like a 'dung bomb.' The campaign bunkered down and tried to figure out what to do. After a couple of days, McGovern made a move that virtually everyone saw as being "purely political" and dropped Eagleton for Shriver.

That's the rub.

McGovern had been running a campaign to that point which its backers, and the public, had percieved as being "different" and "new." When McGovern dropped Eagleton, basically after saying he wouldn't, his backers saw this as a political move and McGovern's campaign lost a lot of steam. That idealized image of his campaign had been lost.

My point, especially to people relatively new to politics who love and work for Dean: I've heard a lot of you wax rhapsodic about how Dean's campaign is "different" and "new." It just occured to me as I read Thompson to throw a warning at you. It is 100% certain that Howard Dean will, at some point, say or do something nthat absolutely reeks of badass ugly old-school politics. This is a guarantee based upon the waters he is currently swimming in. I don't see how it can be avoided.

When that happens, don't freak the way McGovern's people did. Hold the line.

Just my 0.02 cents on a random thought from this morning.

[Egnever]

1. Um ok

Watch out dean will blow himself up!

how is dean any different from any other candidate when it comes to this respect? Any or all of them can torpedo themselves at any time. Thats the way it works.

Sorry but I think this was a dumb post.

Watch out something could happen !!!

You can do better than that.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Sorry but I think this was a dumb response

The major difference I have seen between Dean supporters and supporters for other candidates is the fantastic level of optimism and bright-eyed wonder involved. That is great...but suceptible to getting easily torpedoed if the candidate acts in a manner that contravenes said feelings.

Every time I or someone else speaks of potential Dean pratfalls in the campaign, I am told the rules don't apply because Dean is running a "new" and "different" campaign. Hmm. Wonder why this parable would apply...

[Egnever]

33. I think you buy into the whole koolaid conspiracy

You make the same mistake the rest of the press makes that somehow Dean is hoodwinking his supporters and that they think he is perfect.

I certainly cant speak for all dean supporters but for myself I know dean is not perfect. He is a man like anyone else. However I have listened to him speak many times now. Many many times. I have heard his thought process and i like it. When I chose dean it had nothing to do with him being perfect. It had to do with him being willing to stand up for what he believes is right no matter what the consequences to himself. He gained my loyalty by taking on bush daily and pointing him out for the buffooon he is, He continues to do so. If he all of a sudden laid down and played nice with bush then yes he would lose my suport. As long as he keeps standing up to the junta he has me lock stock and barrel. Till Dean the only one in the race speaking out against bush consistently was Kucinich. Dean by his popularity forced the others to a more agressive stance.

Sory but Dean is leading the others... aside from kucinich are following. I will stick with the leader even though he is not perfect.

We arent looking for perfection we are looking for someone willing to stand up to this criminal administration and call them out for who they are. The powers that be seem more interested in maintaining the status quo than anything aproaching honesty.

Dont hold your breath for dean to lay down for the DLC he has allready faced them once head on and I am sure is not affraid to do so again.

The reason dean gives so many of us hope is because he is giving us the chance to have a candidate beholden to the people and not the power brokers in the party. He is getting elected on our steam not the backs of the party big wig contributers and special interests.
Because of our support he can stand up and speak out. Dean will stop being Dean when we stop pushing him to the top and even then I doubt he will change.

Its long past time to make a change in the way politics is played in washington. Dean is giving us the model to make that change. He will forever have my gratitude for giving us our voice back. And allowing the people to stand up to the corporate backers.

I dont swill Kool aid and follow Dean blindly nor do any of the many people I have spoken to about him.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Good for you

I don't buy into the 'hoodwinking.' If I did, I'd have certainly mentioned it by now. Ignore history at your peril.

[Egnever]

59. I am not ignoring history

I just think Dean supporters are so easily swayed as you think they are. Not to mention the fact that they are pretty well connected to this campaign. I dont see them being too suprised by anything Dean does. Part of the beuty of dean is the level to which people are involved in his campaign. when something hapens with Dean his suporters are generally the first to know. It goes a long way to eliminating the ability of the press to spin him any certain way and have it stick.

Time will tell

He might blow himslf up. I doubt it.

[Upfront]

101. Dang It Will

Wish you would have told me about this before I sent Dean more money today. Kidding. Dean, to me, towers over the rest of them. He was the one who spoke out about the Bush* record, both loudest and best. He continues to do so today. We cannot run from these people any longer. Dean has made a stand, and I back him strongly. Any one of the people running can make a mistake, and so can Dean. Screw it! Give me the man who will fight and fight hard. Dean is proving to be that man.

[diamondsoul]

40. No offense Eg, but this comment sort of threw me a bit-

"Till Dean the only one in the race speaking out against bush consistently was Kucinich."

A good comment except that Dean had already been "in the race" for almost a year by then. So in all reality, the leader as you refer to it was and has been Kucinich. Dean was talking well before Kucinich, just not about the same things, and certainly without the attention he has now.

Sorry, my friend, I know you don't want to argue Kucinich vs. Dean. That remark just sort of took me by surprise, given your staunch support of Dean. I think I ASSumed you knew how long Dean has been running and who said what when.

[Egnever]

46. No problem

And yes your right Dean was allready in the race and allready speaking out and yes not necesarily about the same issues as Denis.

I actually started watching Dean shortly before the IWR. And like many others it was him speaking out against the war at the time that caught my eye and made me take my first look at him.

Prior to that his issues were health care and the budget. The things he was saying then were every bit as revealing of bush on the domestic front as his statements regarding the war.

No I dont want to get into Dean VS kucinich. Bottom line I think they are both leaders. Both strong men willing to stand up for what they believe regardless of the fallout that may ensue. I admre Denis for his courage as much as I admire Dean for his.

Denis just doesnt fit me as snugly as Dean. Were Dean not in the race I probably would stand strongly behind Denis.

Denis is definately a leader please dont take my post as trying to say he isnt or wasnt. In fact Denis remains the only one left in the race at this time I think that has not been molded by Dean. Denis remains the only other candidate running on his own message and not some version of Deans.

That paragrapgh I think will get me a lot of flames but oh well.

[babzilla]

70. Dean supporters are as cynical as the rest

The example you picked to tell the Dean supporters not to freak out if anything goes wrong doesn't seem to apply to the current political climate.

My experience with Dean supporters does not support your claim that their support could be "easily torpedoed" by some sort of "pratfall" by the candidate. On the contrary it seems to me that they are more of a pragmatic type who realize that the candidate who tries to be all things to all people is setting themselves up for failure from the start.

I'm sure the "fantastic level of optimism" you have seen in the Dean supporters comes in spite of jaded feelings towards the political process. That is what inspires them.

"New and different" in '72 doesn't have a whole lot to do with what "new and different" means now.

Back then it was the generation gap that divided the country, now it is the ideological gap.

One of the most attractive qualities of Dean is that he does not suffer ideologues gladly.

That quality will serve him as well in campaigning as it has served him in governing.

[Mairead]

124. I think your example is very apropos

I'd forgotten that til you brought it up, but I can clearly remember the way McGovern's treatment of Eagleton turned him into a bad joke. People saw it as a complete betrayal of a decent man. Many people had no problem with the shock treatments despite how CREEP tried to spin it. But people had a BIG problem with the betrayal. Supporting someone or something 'one thousand percent' became a catchphrase and people snickered about it in the street. In fact, even today I bet if someone said 'I support him 1000%', there'd be a lot of people who'd get a flashback.

[Vikingking66]

7. It makes sense

It's not that it couldn't happen to other candidates, but insurgent candidates are rather vulnerable to this sort of thing. Dean will need to get the DLC pulling for him, and they won't be exctatic about it. They'll press him to reform himself into a proper moderate, and if they succeed he'll be in trouble. If he resists while keeping them in line, he'll have triumphed where McGovern failed.

Any of the "moderate" candidates, from Lieberman on down to Edwards, wouldn't have the same problem Dean would. Their problem would be making themselves palatable to the Democratic wing of the party without being perceived as flip-floppers. Some of them would find this easier than others, but the Iraq resolution I think would be the Gordian knot.

[MuseRider]

9. I think that

Will was trying to be helpful to those of us who have not played the game before. Purity is rarely found in politicians and with the vast amounts of "love" shown here for Dean and other candidates I think it was a nice post and well intentioned. Not to speak for Will, just my take on it.

[WilliamPitt]

12. No, it was dumb

Point made in post #1.

P.S. Thanks.

[MuseRider]

I guess

some of us are just ill intentioned morans.

[MuseRider]

20. I guess

some of us are just ill intentioned morans.

On Edit SEE! I hit the button twice. A moran in action.

[salin]

17. Especially given

that Dean has been in politics quite awhile - and does know how it is played, suggesting that the moment Will suggests is likely to happen. I think it is a wise piece of insight (and 'lessons learned') to pass on.

Likewise, Will doesn't appear to be suggesting that all of Dean's supporters fall into the 'new to politics' camp. This message is to that contingent, and it does seem that some of the energy that springs behind Dean (and there is clearly an energy) comes from the spark of the newly politically charged/inspired.

If Dean becomes THE candidate - it would be a sad thing for some of that spark/energy to be diminished, as it might take the momentum away and harm the chance of a DEM win against Bush.

[madfloridian]

85. Neither his post nor yours are well-intentioned.

Shame on both of you for being condescending to those of your own party.

It is insulting.

[newsguyatl]

80. i agree...

dean as opposed to...???

that's 3 minutes i'll never get back.


thanks for the advice anyway, errrr, i guess...


but be sure to heed your own advice with kerry (and now clark it appears)

[morstyranni]

115. Your animated gif is cool and all.

But I think the poster makes some good points.

[Vikingking66]

2. I agree

The thing people get wrong about McGovern is that he lost not because he was too liberal, but because the Eagleton fiasco made him look indecisive and unprincipled. On the other hand, if anyone in the national media had warned the McGovern campaign when they asked around about Eagleton, he might well have won.

Lesson for the Dean campaign? Be careful not to fuck up your base when you rally the DLC back into the fold. I think floating the Clark as VP made a lot of sense; he's a moderate Dem with good ties to the Clintons and the DLC, but he's sufficiently anti-war and is very charismatic. If the Dean people pick him - and if it doesn't turn out that he's got skeletons in his closet - then it should be smooth sailing.

[WilliamPitt]

8. "the DLC back into the fold"

Bingo.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. The activist base will have to be "returned to the fold," as well,

if Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman or Clark are the nominee. It's a two-way street. There will be many a jaded eye turned when/if the DLCers reach a hand out to the base after the nomination. We've been down that road before.

[Pepperbelly]

15. not quite ...

McGovern lost because Nixon hammered his ass. I have never been in as deep a despair over the Party and not since then. It wasn't even close and I felt as though we had been thoroughloy repudiated by the country.

Nixon's campaign was a masterpiece. It was ran well and there were no depths to which they would not sink. McGovern was whipped in a big, bad way and while the Shriver thing might have had some effect at the margins, mainly Nixon just got a hell of a lot more votes.

[NNN0LHI]

39. That is the way I remember it at the time it happened PB n/t

[KoKo]

30. Good Caution......plus be VERY careful of VP Choice! Eagleton & Lieberman

and some other ones along the way. Any VP Candidate needs to be gone over carefully to see what's in the closet. Not, for cruel reasons, but so that something doesn't come out and blow our Dem Nominee out of the water once the ticket is set. I never understood why Dan Quayle didn't hurt Poppy.....but everyone said at the time he was such a "dumb bunny" he made Poppy look good. And, it turned out to be true!

BTW. Lieberman was just maybe a " poor choice" for Gore....not that he had any skeleton's in his closet....Not meaning to imply that.

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. strange but that's not the way i remember it

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. 2 cents is about what it's worth.

Eagleton was Perot's Stockton. Barring Dean picking Carrot Top, I don't think there is going to be a problem on this issue. Not to mention, every candidate is subject to the same parable.

Thanks for the warning, though.

[w4rma]

4. This is a lesson for *all* candidates

No candidate is perfect. Thank you.

[wryter2000]

6. Thanks

As a Deanie, I agree 100%. No one's going to get elected without playing politics. And Dean isn't a classic liberal, so let's get over that idea right now. I think he's right on on most things (the same way I felt about Clinton), and I think he has the right combination of ideas and appeal to get elected. At this point, pure idealism isn't as important as bouncing those murderous bastards out of the White House.

[Khephra]

10. I actually think Clark and Kucinich supporters should read this

too. There's a lot of idealism in all three camps.

[w4rma]

16. ...and the Kerry camp (n/t)

[Khephra]

19. I wasn't wanting to give Kerry supporters any advice

Just kidding!

[skewthat]

11. Good Advice.

Thanks for the history.

[_Wayne_]

13. For Dean's sake, I hope he remembers he's running for a political position

And for ours. I don't expect Dean to push all the right buttons with me; politics is dirty business. If he can't win on his current gameplan/strategy, for God's sake make a change. Present circumstances will allow for some political maneuvering without much cost in the end.

McGovern's competition did not have $500 billion budget deficits and an unpopular war chained to his neck. American people believe something is wrong with the country; little by little, they're putting their finger on who is responsible.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Excuse me???

"McGovern's competition did not have $500 billion budget deficits and an unpopular war chained to his neck."

Vietnam, and all associated expenses? This was 1972, remember.

[_Wayne_]

28. Congressional Budget Office has 1972 budget deficit at $15 billion

I concede your point about Vietnam; however, the latest polls indicate a major change in public opinions towards Bush's handling of Iraq. A 20 point shift in just the past few months. I have no polling data from 72 at my fingertips, but I'll surmise there was no shift like this.

And Nixon didn't start Vietnam; many believe he wanted to end it. On the other hand, the War on Iraq is all Bush. Democrats can afford to make a few questionable political maneuvers; there are many in the ABB club, myself included.

[Mairead]

125. Dems can afford to make a few bad moves, but NOT

where the issue is integrity. McGovern displayed a lack of integrity.

[Prodemsouth]

31. Coughed when I saw that too, "unpopular war", at that time Vietnam was

far more unpopular than Iraq is today. McGovern DID lose because he appeared to be too liberal for most Americans. Switching VPs was seen as wacky, not conventional politics, but it had to be done any way. Even if Eagleton, had made it through, story never broke, the outcome would have been the same. As earlier poster noted they (Nixion/creep) were going to do anything to win.

[_Wayne_]

34. Many Americans did not associate problems in Vietnam with Nixon

Hence, my point is valid. Bush IS the War on Iraq. He chose his neocon administration, and he's proud of the war. Listen to Nixon's RNC speech; he wants to end the war, bring the troops home, etc. Bush is saying no such thing. McGovern's competition did not have a similar cross to bear.

[Prodemsouth]

47. Notice I didn't say Americans blamed Nixion for Vietnam. My comment

was on the "unpopular war" It was unpopular when Nixon took office in 68 and became more so by 1972. ALL PLEASE NOTE: The reason why more people reasoned it would be better for Nixion to end the war and not McGovern: People really felt that McGovern was out to "surrender to the commies." Where you and I part company is your reasoning that the Iraq war is unpopular. The Iraq war is not that unpopular just yet, and it could change at any time, in either direction, no media outlet in the US is asking serious questions. This stories here and there could evaporate at any moment if something comes out of Iraq, that the Bushies could use.

[VolcanoJen]

35. Didn't McGovern run on a "Bring 'Em Home" platform?

I don't think the "Guaranteed Annual Income" platform went over well with voters either... or at the least, Nixon's folks did a bang-up job of making sure it didn't.

When I was a mere first-grader, my mother would pin McGovern buttons to me shirt before shooing my out the door, while my father argued relentlessly with her about McGovern leading the nation down a "primrose path." Yes, these are my first political memories, and for better or worse, they are permanently emblazoned in my recollection.

Thanks, mom.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. The Guaranteed Annual Income was actually

Nixon's idea as a substitute for the welfare system. I believe it was originally Milton Friedman's idea, otherwise known as a negative income tax.

Looking at Nixon's policies, you have to conclude that he would be considered way too liberal for the Republican party today.

[dsc]

18. I may not be the typical Dean supporter

but I am in for the long hall. I supported Dean for reasons I have ennunciated on this forum many times. He hasn't, nor do I expect him to, change in regards to those. My thoughts he had a good shot to win if he gets the nomination look better now not worse. The biggest thing he supposedly couldn't do (raise money) seems not to be a problem at all. He hasn't waivered on gay and lesbian rights. He continues to have been right on the war. I don't think an Eagleton thing can happen today due to vetting. I know some people may have different reasons for supporting him and thus different standards for bolting. But rest assured I am in for the long haul. I know what gratitude and steadfastness mean.

[WilliamPitt]

21. It wouldn't be an Eagleton thing

Bit it'll be something. Bank it.

[madfloridian]

22. I think they all will use and have used dirty politics.

I remember Eagleton all too well.

I think you believe, Will, that Dean supporters are perhaps rather naive. Maybe some are in that they need new hope.

Most of us have our eyes wide wide open. I have noticed in our Dean group here that they are so intelligent, mature, and rather jaded. Actually, they are quite critical of him at times.

Please don't make us sound like a bunch of swooning teen-agers. I am a retired teacher with no illusions left about Dean or anyone. Some of the nicest people here are Dean folks, and contrary to what is said, they attack the least often.

[caledesi]

37. mf, thank you. Count me in as one "unnaive" Dean supporter.

[Eloriel]

56. Me too

I'm sitting here feeling just a LITTLE condescended to. Not unusual for this poster, but not any less insulting either.

As a matter of fact, sometimes I'd LOVE to have my naivete back. But it's been gone since at least the Thomas/Hill hearings, and my cynicism is at times absolutely (literally) unbearable since Nov. 2000.

Am I optimistic about Dean? You bet your bippy. Will I be crushed if he doesn't live up to my expectations? Totally. But that doesn't make me naive. It makes me hopeful, for the first time since Nov. 2000. THat alone is quite precious.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

62. I guess that means I wasn't talking to you, then

I'm sitting here wondering about reading skills, but that's not unusual either.



People around here go HUNTING for reasons to get offended. Pathetic.

[NormanConquest]

23. My take on Fear & Loathing '72...

You're basically correct but the nomination of Eagleton--a token establishment nominee--was what initially demorialized McGovern's base a great deal. Up to that point, it had been a very populist movement. Eagleton was perceived by HST as an obeisance to Daley and other Dem powerbrokers--a noble gesture, but ultimately a sellout to the old guard.

McGovern was screwed. To swing voters the dismissal was seen as more politics-as-usual. To Democrats, his refusal to act quickly on the Eagleburger issue came across as indecisiveness, and dropping him was "too little, too late." Nixon made hay out of it.

[Vikingking66]

78. q- What would the effect have been if McG has chosen shriver to begin with

[thebigidea]

24. funny, I was doing the same thing...

and came to the conclusion that most of the candidates are Muskie reincarnated.

Someone get out the ibogaine!

[WilliamPitt]

25. And the boohoo!

[MODemocrat]

26. Will, thanks for this kindly reminder of what can happen

As my Mother always said "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. I truly believe in Howard Dean, and it's so heart warming to see so many on DU who support him. Of course, he is human, so he is bound to say or do something that disappoints us, but I believe they all do that.

[proud patriot]

27. I appreciate your insight William

and thanks for the heads up , on this part of the history
of politics . I think he may have done this to a certain
extent when Dean said "he may forego the federal the matching funds"
thingy ...He seems to have weathered that well IMHO.

[Southsideirish]

29. Yor're right - many Deanies are very idealistic - could have hearts broken

I have been though many campaigns and 'have had mine broken many times and, while I am 100% devoted to Howard Dean, I do see very much naivite about politics among many of his youthful supporters.
Old veterans know that sometimes a candidate has to do or say something that might gall him but certain circumstances necessitate his taking a "sh-tty" stand on something. Say you are negotiating a union contract - sometimes you have to give in on an important issue to get them to give on an important issue for you. Sometimes in politics you just have to hold your nose and, if you beleive in the guy, ride it through.
Like the great Harold Washington said - "Politics ain't beanbag" and that means compromises, "going negative" etc -yes, basically whatever it takes to win - that's what our enemies do and that's what we have to do to defeat them.

[deutsey]

49. You're probably right

but many of the "Deanies" in my group have been activists since way before I was born (I was born in 1964, FYI). There are a couple "naive" newcomers, but I'd say the majority are disgruntled Dems and a couple Greens who have been around a while and are tired of the business-as-usual Democrats...

[madfloridian]

73. Same here, Deutsey.

Our group is far from naive. They are very practical in nature. They are nearly all activists, and have been for years.

[kodi]

32. dont mistake the man for the message or menu for the meal

you'll invariably end up disillusioned and hungry.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Eagleton lied, and tried to keep his mental illness a secret!

If there are any parallels is to the Clark campaign, and the efforts by some of the Clark supporters to not deal with Clark's record as NATO commander during the Kosovo war, a war in which civilians were killed, cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions were used, and an incident in Pristina in which the NATO commander recklessly seeked a military confrontation with Russia.

It wasn't Eagleton's mental illness, it was the fact that he kept it a secret from McGovern and the public. Eagleton should have turned down the nomination.

I will point out that at the time many unipolar patients said that Eagleton should have told the truth, and should not have been on the ticket.

[dsc]

106. I agree he should have told McGovern

and given him the choice but it was, and is, none of the public's business. He was by all accounts a normal man in 72 and thus the predjudice outwighed any probative value of that news.

[deutsey]

42. Point taken, although many of us have been around the block

a few times, politically speaking.

[gully]

43. I think we've been through much already in the press and taken $hit

from all sides. I'd say we've weathered it well so far.

I don't expect any bombshells to fall. I actually think Dean supporters are more enlightened about Dean then many others are b/c we've seen so much adversity already.

[realFedUp]

44. considering what a mess GW is and was

and we could actually read books about what a mess
he was then and he still got a lot of votes, I'm
wondering if the bar for a Dem isn't just a bit
unrealistically high considering the competition.
I do understand your point Will and am not arguing
against it.
I do know that the Rover will throw the whole
juggernaut at what candidate wins, but frankly
Bush isn't looking good and if you pushed him,
will likely fall over next year.

[madfloridian]

45. Will, that was really a put-down to us,you know.

You may literally not have meant it that way, but the insinuation of naivete was a little much.
Hell, I have not been in a cheering mob since Elvis came to our town.

Hope I took that wrong.

[Egnever]

48. It came accross the same way to me

Maybe I am being over sensitive though *shrug*

[w4rma]

50. Me also (n/t)

[WilliamPitt]

60. It wasn't a put-down

There ARE lots of people new to politics involved with Dean. That, according to Dean supporters, is oone of his main strangths. I ran a whole huge thread about this a few weeks ago, and got dozens of responses saying I was right.

Be offended, but understand your crew.

[babzilla]

77. in that case

my crew thanks you for the love, no condescension taken.

speaking of dozens, your crew is so east coast they think that warning people that they are naive won't be taken as condescending. Snap.

be offended, but understand my crew, those that have read fear & loathing and don't find a Dean parable in it.

But I love, I love, feel the west coast love, I don't put down, I warn others.

[PAMod]

51. The first presidential decision any candidate makes is choosing his...

#2.

The Eagleton thing occurred because McGovern waited until the convention to select his running mate - his campaign stayed up late into the night and telephoned people until they got Eagleton on the hook. This is according to accounts by Teddy White and Pierre Salinger.

The heavy hitters already had said no (Kennedy, Muskie), several more were vetoed by campaign staff in the room (the mayor of Boston, the president of Notre Dame - sorry I'm doing this in my basement and can't remember the names) and the one they could all agree on, Sargent Shriver, was in Paris (I think) and couldn't be contacted in time.

So they settled for Senator Thomas Eagleton.

Anyway, they took little time to vet Eagleton, and when the shock treatment thing broke, they were screwed if they kept him and screwed if they dumped him. I'll tell you this, they would have lost MA & DC too if they had kept him on the ticket (people still don't really understand mental illness - it was a lot worse then.)

So again, the McGovern thing just doesn't ring true. There just isn't any real parallel, no matter how you look at it. It would be nice if DEMOCRATS would stop saying it. Period.

BTW, not to worry, many of you may have noticed that the VP selection process is a little more professional since 1972 (though the Quayle selection in '88 may belie that thought.)

[mitchum]

52. I worry that many Dean supporters are going to freak when...

he makes the inevitable overtures to the center (I don't know why since that is where he governed from)

[PAMod]

53. At least the lefties here on DU will be prepared

They've been beaten over the head with it for months now!

No matter how far center Dean goes in the General Election, he'll still be the progressive candidate in this race, with Bush sitting on the prism right next to Ghengis Khan.

[madfloridian]

69. He is already there. He does not pretend to be liberal.

For heavens'sake. Please stop making us all sound like a bunch of idiots. I resent it very much.

[mitchum]

79. Haven't you noticed the number of Dean supporters...

on this board who INSIST that he is the candidate of the left? I don't make them sound like idiots.

[Egnever]

91. nope missed them

please point me to one of those posts

[madfloridian]

93. Mitchum, please post one of those posts you mentioned.

[CMT]

109. no I haven't noticed it

and most Dean supporters I know understand him to be a mainstream democrat who was against a stupid and ill advised war which some other candidates running for president voted to give Bush authority to wage. That is one big reason why we support him along with the way he has challenged Bush in almost every area and run one of the most innovative campaigns I have ever seen--truly making his supporters feel part of the process.

[dsc]

111. You have already been asked once

and I ask you again. Please cite some of those posts.

[Malikshah]

54. Seeing the Forest for the trees...

OK Mr. Pitt:

We've agreed on many issues, you agreed with my analysis of Dean supporters akin to being in love a few weeks ago. I admire your ability and fortitude over the years in promoting discussion of issues.

I must ask, however, why have you taken it upon yourself to chide, warn, explain things to Dean supporters. At its best it is arrogance (whether it was intended or not--it comes across like that when you take all the threads into consideration) and at worst it is an inaccurate understanding of the movement.

The internet is a creation of the 90's (for all intents and purposes). This is the first election cycle that has made a clear use of the internet. I have been in contact with supporters from around the globe on a regular basis, discussing issues of the campaign, problems with the current regime, and the political process over all. We educate ourselves and each other. We excite, irritate, support, and detract -- all at the same time.

The new technology has allowed us to do this and in a relatively organized fashion. Over the last two months, efforts have been made by those in the movement to reach out beyond the internet--to go forth and proclaim our support for a candidate in myriad ways.

We have suffered the labeling by others, the attacks by others. We have responded in kind. We have reproached and been reproached--and yet the movement grows. Yes, like Gilbert said of one of his operettas--it's an ugly misshapen brat...but the movement is what it is--the minds, hearts, and dreams of a close to half a million people in what capacity or another.

This has not been done before in this fashion. When have supporters been able to contact the campaign and voice their opinions and suggestions--some of which are incorporated into the campaign?

We are fighting an uphill battle with the baggage of "expert opinion" weighing us down--and yet we continue.

Now--according to the experts--we are imploding, we're struggling to find our voice, we're destined for failure due to Dean being a ______ (fill in the blank with any punditocratic phraseology du jour) and yet we continue.

Are we being given our due? No. We're being advised, warned, lectured to--and when we respond--we're accused of being rabid (Deaniacs, Deanuts, Deanimators, etc) In other words, we're marginalized in the worst kind of cynical fashion. How dare we do something different? How dare we zig when everyone says we should zag. Then we're supposed to zag--we have the audacity to zog.

The point is-- we're still figuring this out. We're still seeing what works--and using whatever means possible to support and work with the candidate we have chosen. Why? Because for the last few years many of us woke up and realized that we DID NOT have to listen to the pundits, "experts," and the like anymore who will tell us to sit down, shut up, and listen to what we're told if we know what's good for us.

We're paying the price for being uppity as I speak. The DNC/DLC annointed one has joined the race--when the last one had proven to be a non-starter. More time and effort have been spent to bring the Dean Movement under control--to categorize it, to label it and the man--to define it. For in defining something--you, in a way, own it-- you control what it was, is, and could yet become.

Would not many people's efforts be better spent, focusing in on their own candidates? Working with their campaigns in as united a fashion as possible. Then-we can all let the chips fall where they may in the coming months. This would allow each of the candidates to spend more of their time pointing out the problems of the current regime.

All the recent focus is on the Iraq war. Others that need to be focused upon: 9/11, Econcomy, Education, Health-care, Blackboxvoting, Republican attacks on the Democratic process, etc.

I know, Mr. Pitt, that this forum is meant to open up discussion of issues--but adding fuel to the fire in such a way comes across, at times, as condescending.

With all respect--I know that that was not your intent. But as much as you want to warn us Dean supporters-- I would provide you with some unsolicited advice-- sit back--ponder what you're doing, why you're doing it in the context of the last 11 years. Our country has changed it's trajectory since the rise of Bill Clinton. 8 years of attacks is unprecedented in our history--we are now reaping the costs of said attacks and find our country in its lowest position in world affairs since we became a power.

They all say 9/11 changed the world. I beg to differ-- the world had already changed prior to that point. 9/11 just woke us up to these changes.

All the best to all,

Malikshah

[WilliamPitt]

61. Oh for Christ's sake

From my post #60:

There ARE lots of people new to politics involved with Dean. That, according to Dean supporters, is oone of his main strangths. I ran a whole huge thread about this a few weeks ago, and got dozens of responses saying I was right.

Be offended, but understand your crew.

P.S. Get a grip.

[Malikshah]

64. Uh....

Actually, if you read my post without feeling the slings and arrows that some may have been throwing at you, I was not ripping into you in such a way that your response would warrant.

"Get a grip"-- speaks volumes to me, as well. It would seem that my response, as reasoned as I tried to make it, was taken as some personal attack on you.

That sort of flip response on your part, I think is a bit too much.

Sorry to have offended your sensibilities. It's part of the problem with techno-conversations. People can read into someone's post all sorts of emotional outbursts that were not there to begin with.

I was hoping to open up a larger discussion of the issues of 1) the uniqueness of the Dean movement and 2) the sort of responses it has engendered.

Guess I'll just have to hope for that some other time.

As before, thank you for your efforts on behalf of the US. Your speeches are quite interesting and enlightening.

All the best,

malikshah

[WilliamPitt]

65. Apologies

Too many slings for so small a subject. Sorry.

[VelmaD]

66. You are certainly right about one thing...

the problem with "techno-conversations". The lack of body language and tone clues and facial expressions to read all combine to make it difficult to truly communicate with one another over the net. It's so easy to project our own emotions and biases onto the people we talk to on the net.

I think we all need a reminder about this from time to time. That we aren't really talking to each other in the same way as if we were sitting next to one another.

Might be a good idea to always remember to stop and take a deep breath and always assume good intentions on the other person's part before responding out of emotion. (Note: this is not me saying I manage this trick - only that I try to try.)

Just some thoughts.

Darth Velma

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

72. That post

was even more condescending than your original post.

[Malikshah]

75. C'mon--

The apologies abounded on both sides already.

I've laid it to rest and have moved on--to what I have no idea---

The fact that the campaign has recently begun a 5 million in 10 days funding drive is a bit daunting...press won't pick up on it, I suppose, unless we fail in the endeavor. It's a major risk-- 500,000 a day for 10 days...

In the end--it will be newsworthy either way-- the spinmeisters will have their way with us. It is the movement's task to stay on message and not to react to the media, but rather to delineate the message.


Visibility, even-handedness, taking the high road (per the recent attacks on Clark by the Gep/Kerry teams while Dean's folks were diplomatic) are all things we have to do. It is afterall our movement--Dean has let this be known on any number of occasions.
Idealistic falderall? Could be--but the proof is in the pudding in the long haul.

[Egnever]

67. Very nice post

Well said. Thank you for that

[Ellen Forradalom]

55. Thanks Will

I too have noticed in the Blog for America threads that certain bright-eyed wonder which you mention, and I am also concerned. I do think the cheery political newbies who put their whole heart and soul into Dean are setting themselves up for easy disillusionment, and I am not sure what to do to help prevent it.

I'm an involved Deanie and accept that this is a campaign that marries the passion of activist politics with the discipline of an electoral campaign. It's a volatile mix that could blow up in our faces or blast Bush from the White House, depending on how we handle it.

[LizW]

57. Ouch, my butt hurts from falling off the turnip truck

yesterday.

Oh, I'm just kidding, Will. Your advice is well taken. No candidate is going to run the perfect campaign for liberals in this day and age. There is going to be something that may disappoint some of us. But hell's bells, it's not like we haven't been disappointed before and survived. I was royally pissed the day Bill Clinton signed "welfare reform". And the day he said "I didn't have sex with that woman..." I said, "See? See? He didn't do it!"

Duh. I was so naive.

But that's life. People do not always conform perfectly to our notions of what they should be. Sometimes they out and out lie. We keep the big picture in mind and get on with it.

So, what do you think it's going to be? I like RUMMYisFROSTED's idea about Dean picking CarrotTop as VP. That would be very offputting.

I'm thinking I might have a hard time if Dean adopts a "southern strategy" and holds a big rally at Bob Jones University where he announces that he's led his wife and children to Jesus.

Yep. That would be bad.

[zeemike]

68. Who said

The DU forum could not have substantive discussions?
I see a lot of good stuff here, thing that need to be said, whether they prove true or not.

[WaterDog]

58. As a Dean supporter and a political

newbie, I'd say thanks for the thought. I think most of Dean's supporters know that he's not ultra liberal, but rather moderate. For me, the attraction is partly because he is moderate and I think he can win. Therefore, I'm behind him even when he has to do some political maneuvering to win.

I think the main idealism of the campaign is that Dean's money is coming from small donors. We know he can't be completely free from special interests, but if he gets elected, he will be very beholden to people like me. Therefore he really can't go against our interests and expect to win or later be reelected. Otherwise, we are for the most part behind him in what he needs to do to be a winner. That's the way I see it anyway.

[mlawson]

63. I think Nixon was unbeatable in 1972.

McGovern never had a chance, although at that time I persuaded myself that he did. The result was a violent shock on election night.

But I do not think that any Dem could have beaten Nixon that year, regardless of the VP. I HOPE that Dumbo is in a very different situation next year!!

[madfloridian]

71. Dean Dean he's our man. If he can't win, no one can! Hooray!

[thinkahead]

74. Just a note, Will, on the McGovern Meme

my apologies if this sounds condescending - BUT

You are only helping to sow the seeds of doubt, and you know it. This thread is disguised as an attempt to warn idealistic new Dean supporters. There are idealists associated with all campaigns, Will - and you are only reinforcing the Dean meme the RNC is pushing (he is somehow another McGovern). I don't think you do this out of malice, but rather because Dean is not your candidate of choice. I figured that out when you threw the tantrum the other day when Clark was getting so much flak.

And that's fine.

There's are a thousand reasons Dean is not another McGovern - and it is the DLC that should back off from this as they are being brought back "into the fold". Dean is a centrist. We all know it. He has the vision, the strength and the political courage to pull this off. He already has the base - which is remarkable considering his centrists positions. The last thing he needs are supposed centrists reinforcing this BS McGovern crap either through blatant attacks or sly innuendo.

[WilliamPitt]

82. Actually

It was a thought that popped into my head after passing through the book, and so I posted it in about a minute. The volume of nonsense that has come from this - not including your post, but Clark is not my candidate, either, so your concept of motive is wrong - has been pretty amazing. I saw a quick historical parallel, and it's there whether the GOP has memed on it or not.

[Rose Siding]

76. We have weathered something of the kind!

The matching funds flap was a nod to the less "new" and "different" side of Dean's politics. It seems as though that's being looked at carefully and most all are willing to trust the candidate's decision.

That you are concerned and going out of your way to encourage that we "hold the line" is intriguing. Are you a latent Dean supporter? A nascent Dean supporter? A COVERT Dean supporter?

[madfloridian]

81. Or a Kerry supporter?

[WilliamPitt]

83. I support all the candidates

Every single one.

[watercolors]

99. I'm putting every single candidates

bumber sticker on my car that i can find! Why not?

[SlutBunwalla]

84. They already freak out. Here's one example:

In the interest of disclosure: I am an active Kucinich volunteer (and donor, and have a Kucinich sticker on my car), and I'm also intrigued by Clark and Edwards.

While I absolutely recognize what a great grassroots movement has buoyed Dean along, I also see borderline cultish devotion to the man. Here's one example among many--when Josh Marshall wrote a piece in his blog about Dean's various statements on Iraq, showing that taken out of context it appeared to be a waffle, when in fact all it really was, was a complex set of answers to a complex situation, the Dean people came after him like a pack of rabid dogs. He purpose in showing the series of Dean statements wasn't an attack on Dean, it was to show how it's equally unfair to take Clark out of context, as was done last week. It simply used him as an example of how one could take comments out of context, and how unfair that is--not just to the candidates, but to anybody trying to follow the campaigns.

He posted one of apparently many emails he received on the subject today, and just take a gander at the vitriol and paranoia:

"From:
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:54:04 EDT
Subject: destroying dean
To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10693
If you have time, wander over to Billmon and see what's being said about your attempts to torpedo Dean. I think it's sickening that you are determined to stamp out an exciting and potentially successful grass roots effort to choose our nominee. A lot of us are tired of the arrogance of the DNC, DLC and Josh Marshalls who are convinced that they know what is best for us. (Your track record isn't that impressive!) If you succeed in using dirty tricks to topple Dean, I will not be voting in 04, and I know a lot of other Democrats who will join me in sitting it out. Watch the hubris, it could be your undoing! Susan P."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Dean supporters (and, to be fair, loyal supporters of any other dem candidates)--you have got to stop acting as if there's some big conspiracy against Dean, and stop trying to insist the man walks on water. These are all politicians of varying caliber, they all make blunders, and they all, at some point, equivocate. Learn to deal a little more rationally with criticism of your candidate, especially if you're someone who loves to dish out the same to other candidates. The hypocrisy coming from ALL camps on DU the past week has been nauseating.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

87. Or, we can stop laying on our backs

and letting things happen to us. The neat thing about Dean is that he defines his own campaign, not the media. The DDF has taken this to a different plane, and is perhaps a bit too fervent in their pursuit, but it's a worthy pursuit despite that. They are out there not letting Dean get smeared. Do you want a candidate who takes their smears lying down? Dean doesn't, and neither do his supporters. While I understand that the DDF can come off a bit pitbull-ish, they are easily doing more good than harm. Not to mention how cool it is that this is just Dean volunteers, nothing that is authorized nor controlled by the Dean campaign. Power to the people!!

edit: grammar

[SlutBunwalla]

88. Wow....

Way to miss my point.

[frank frankly]

89. Good point

"Hold the line."

That's good advice.

The politics haven't really begun yet...I think the primaries will be messy, but that the people will rally afterwards for the winner.

[neuvocat]

90. I thought Bush was the only one who made equivocations.

So if a campaign is called "different and new" then its likely to be the same as another campaign that had to do damage control when its original choice for VP had shock treatments.

On top of all that you take someone's quotes completely out of context right after you say that you wouldn't. Absolutely hysterical.

[Fridays Child]

92. Practice not batting an eyelash.

Thank you, Will. Nobody ever got blindsided who saw it coming.

[sistersofmercy]

94. I believe we are in for "surprises" from all the candidates,

good and not so good.

[seventhson]

95. Jeez Will, My awestruck admiration for you just went up 1000%

I thought you were married to Kerry (although you said you weren't)

You gave serious props to Dennis Kucinich a few weeks back and I admired that.

And NOW you give damn good advice to Dean - a man I thought you were probably dead set against.

My biggest fear is that you are going to start saying wonderful and flowery things about that fascist Clark.

Then my respect level will drop back to ALMOST ZERO.

i HAVE BEEN AWAY FOR A SPELL HERE.

what is will's take on clark?

[w4rma]

96. It is my understanding that Will likes Clark, too.

Clark is nothing anywhere close to being a fascist, IMHO. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Clark is anything but honorable.

Let's get back to debating instead of flaming, please.

[seventhson]

98. Well, I tend to believe that Clark is a Fascist

but he could prove me wrong.

I am still inclined to vote for Clark over the OTHER main fascist in the race if it comes to that: shrub.

Some people believe Clark is a war criminal. I tend to agree with them.

Bush et all PLANNED the wars that Clark was involved in so he was their water carrier. THAT does not make his responsibility as serious as his bosses. He WAS after all, just followng orders more or less.

But I am not flaming.

I intend to harangue and dish the honest dirt on Kerry and Clark until they are defeated in the primaries.

Then I will most likley get in line behind them if eitherrt of them wins. I won't like it but I will vote Dem on election day unless something dramatic changes.

I do NOT WANT to vote for Kerry or Clark EVER EVER EVER.

So I will continue to call both of them as I see them: unfit to serve as my president.

Are they fitter than Bush?

Hell yes.

They probably are way better. But I do not trust them enough to vote for them except if they are up against Bush.


Pitt's opinion matters to me because he supports the main DLC guy right now (Kerry). Since Clark is DLC's candidate understudy, it seems, I wondered if Will would talk him up too and ignore the war crime stuff etc.. or help clear the air on the Clark issues.

That's all.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

97. One Big Difference?

"I love you guys.
I love Dean.
I was re-reading Hunter S. Thompson's 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail' today. I came across the chapter entitled 'Dark Interlude,' when McGovern chose Eagleton for his Vice President...and then it was revealed that Eagleton had been given several shock treatments prior to his tapping by McGovern."

General Clark has not had no electric shock treatment.

[aquart]

100. Oh, dear. I agree.

Those who have early favorites in this race (I lean to Dean, but haven't fallen quite over)are vehement and passionate supporters. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a little like a crush as opposed to true love. Long haul love will deal with many many unforgiveable acts and forgive them. A crush might shrivel with the disillusion.

Pitt is right. It will happen. It HAS to happen. And we have no idea where the clay foot moment will come from. But it will.

From then on, it's what WE do that matters. And we must be particularly vigilant for engineered clay feet. No one here is so naive as to believe Bush operatives aren't combing thru the histories of the Democratic candidates, looking for the weaknesses, the secret sins, all those moments that Bush, for instance, has never been called to account for, that most of us get away with. And they will make it seem like the worst sin on the planet.

But even if it isn't engineered, if Dean or one of the others falls face first into a dung heap of his own piling, we can't afford to be starry-eyed. We are out to retrieve our government from fascists, and it will be messy and incomplete because we will never simply shoot them in the streets.

Thus we must be careful with the clay feet. They are there. In every one of them, mortal clay.

Whoever we get, he will be a man and not a demigod, an ambitious man with an above average ego, who is NOT a savior, but may help to save us.

[Old and In the Way]

102. Good advice as always, Mr. Pitt.

As a new voter in a national election in '72 and canvasser for McGovern in Mass, I remember how that fiasco was quite depressing for the "true believers". It didn't effect my support, but it was a letdown, nonetheless.

And while I am an ABB type at the moment, I have the same read on the the Dean constituency. He has a powerful bunch of believers that are committed to his campaign. I hope that their expectations of his infallibility to hard political reality will not disappoint and/or discourage their support when comprimises are made during his campaign.

On FALCT'72, if I remember, there was a passage about Hunter meeting with Nixon privately. He was told he could discuss anything, as long as it was about football. I recall that Hunter concludes that Nixon was as well versed on that topic as he was on the Grateful Dead.

[KaraokeKarlton]

103. Not going to be a problem

I mentioned this to you before, but either you missed it, didn't understand it or simply don't believe it, but...this isn't the same "liberal base" of voters in Dean's camp. The new base isn't hung up on the ideology and purity like the typical base often has been. Barring some horrible, horrible scandal (not going to happen with Dean)his backers are staying put. The primary base in this upcoming election looks pretty much just like the general election voters. This is why Dean is definitely electable and why him behaving like a politician to win isn't going to phase his supporters. The devotion and loyalty to Dean is rock solid.

[WilliamPitt]

104. Good answer, and good enough

I am AMAZED that this thread turned into a fight. AMAZED.

[madfloridian]

110. Will, you were condescending. That is why it turned that way.

It was especially rough coming from someone who is getting name recognition now. If you did not realize how it sounded, then you need to think about it.

I also notice there are lots and lots of fairly new folks who appeared not too long ago to start Clark's candidacy here. Yes,that is what they did. I believe some of them were new and very young.

Perhaps they need to be called to task as well, for there will be some painful things about Clark's corporate connections coming out. They need to be prepared and not be disillusioned.....does that hold for them as well?

Several of us here have communicating on some of these things, trying to decide whether it is worth getting attacked viciously to point out some connections. There is a fine line between honestly questioning a candidate's board memberships, and other positions, and just putting it out to hurt.

You are pretty much respected here, and I have ordered your books, received the truthout mailings, and been impressed.

Tonight you were insulting to Dean candidates with your implication that we could not handle the truth. That is why it turned into a fight.

[WilliamPitt]

112. If that is the case

then I apologize. Sincerely was not intended that way. The fuel in Dean's fire has been the blazing power of his campaigners...and a lot of them are new to the game, and will admit this. Scan the thread, and you'll see the responses. I think it would be a disaster if Dean won through to the nomination, but had to do things that burst the idealism of the people he has brought in who have not been around politics before. That would be a mess. This was just a word from someone with scars.

Maybe its because I'm so fucking cynical about national campaigns. If Kerry came out against Irish Catholics I'd say, "What a dick. Kerry in '04!" My bad, I guess.

[madfloridian]

113. Thanks, appreciated. More like enthusiasm than idealism.

Our Dean group here has some fascinating people, and they are far from idealists. It is good to have a candidate we believe in, but we see his warts as well.

[KaraokeKarlton]

117. I don't think Dean supporters are really idealists

That would certainly apply to Kucinich supporters, though, as many of them admit. Dean supporters are more "sick of the shit and not going to take it anymore". Frankly, I think if Dean had to resort to damn near anything, his supporters would still rally behind him and defend him to the end. It's a revolution, and we are one hell of a determined group of people who are pissed off at how things are and fueled by the hope that we can make it better if we dig in, stay the course and fight tooth and nail.

[no name no slogan]

121. "Idealism" vs. "Politics as Usual"

I don't think the good Mr. Pitt meant the post as one regarding "naive idealism" as so many people seem to have taken it.

Although most of the DU posters are not political newbies and know EXACTLY where Dean stands, there are still a number of supporters in his (and every other candidate's) camp who are naive and/or overly idealistic about their candidate, and project their own desires for what s/he should be onto the candidate, instead of seeing her/him as s/he really is. I've seen them in every campaign I've ever worked for (even for Dukakis in '88, believe it or not! ).

There are a lot of people getting involved in various campaigns this year with candidates who aren't perceived as "politics as usual" (Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton). THESE are the people who are going to be disappointed when they see their candidate make an "overtly political" move, or do something that appears like "politics as usual", as is more likely than not in politics.

Does that mean deflating expectations? Not necessarily. However, it does involve acknowledging reality, and the fact that these 10 people are not gods or saviours but are just human.

(AND PS: As a Kucinich supporter, I'd agree that there are a lot of dreamers and idealists on board with us. However, there are a lot of realists too (like myself), who have helped elect people like Kucinich to high office before, and know that it CAN be done. )

[KaraokeKarlton]

116. I don't think he was condascending

I think Will is just a convenient outlet for the frustration many Dean supporters feel after reading all those lovely Dean bashing threads started by his fellow Kerry supporters. Unfortunately, I've seen many instances where people who make honest posts either asking about Dean or pointing out a valid concern have gotten lambasted needlessly. I don't think I've ever seen Will be unfair to any of the candidates. I have seen him get really frustrated with the posters here for the petty squabbling, but everyone's entitled to a rant now and again.

[KaraokeKarlton]

114. Ha, this is nothing

You should have seen the mob of angry women who went ballistic when I used the word "b*tch" in a thread title. (Keep in mind that I am a woman) I learned that I am a sexist misogynist self loathing woman who is also a sociopath simply because I don't find the word offensive. Go figure.

I don't always agree with you, but I think you have interesting things to say. I saw your picture and since you're almost as cute as me, how can I be mean to you?

[Shanty Oilish]

107. I say we freak now.

I remember the McGovern stumble a bit differently. I was 21 at the time. Dropping Eagleton didn't look like smelly politics as usual. (Remember the reference---we had NIXON to compare him against.)
Rather, it looked like McGovern didn't know what he was doing in the first place. And since we believed that McGovern was a high-minded type, we regarded the dump of Eagleton as someone else's idea, meaning McGovern wasn't altogether his own man. He looked weak and irresolute and amateurish. Nixon was bad but he was a pro in what we all conceded was a dirty enterprise (politics).
Note (not to you Pitt, but to anyone who might misread me): this is not to say McGovern was actually amateurish, etc., or that politics is actually dirty. I'm simply relating the perceptions of my generation at the time.
Three decades later, I do see the specter of '72 when I see Dean. He has less experience than McGovern and he's already displaying quite enough irresolution and terminal spontaneity. If Kerry's right and he's imploding, I say better now than later.

[REP]

108. Second-Hand Memories

I bet your recollections of the McGovern campaign are about the same as mine, as we we were born around the same time. In other words, you aren't relying on anything other than second-hand memories to issue this dire warning.

You are taking Thompson's account of the McGovern campaign as the holy writ on what happened. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't. Eagleton isn't usually given the burden of the entire blame.

You harp on the Dean campaign bringing in those new to participating in political campaigns. What you overlook is that many, many of these people were old enough to vote for McGovern and many more may be political neophytes but are far from naive. McGovern's campaign had a large following of draft-age voters. Dean may as well, but it is a little foolish to think that even the young are as naive as they were in '72.

[kodi]

118. of first hand democracy, dean is just doing it again, & some remember

that's all.

the experience many of us have is of hopes dashed (i too ringing door bells for rfk and mcgovern) and the reflection is that while personal activism is great, it might not alone be able to accomplish what we want.

but it does not mean that we demean others who are politically active, because many of us are. it means that we also recognize, from past experience, that the focus in politics has to be about the melding of the issues of concern to us with the landscape and battlefield we fight on for our positions and policies.

some call this pragmatism, other call it selling out, and still others call it wisdom learned from experience.

actually i hope dean lights a fire all over the country to get people active politically, especially at getting people involved in their communities, at the local level. it's the best way to yield a sustained, organic progressive society, ( the Bottom Up Way) and it is the logical extention of dean's campaign and it has nothing to do with dean, the person. it has everything to do with his message.

what will pitt has said is for people not to mistake the man for the message he carries to us, that he is only a man, and can only do so much, and that we ourselves have to do the rest.

and frankly some here appear, from the visceral things posted, to be imbued with a cult of personality. its not a moral crime, its just a flaw experience overcomes.

hold true to the philosophy that has produced in one their progressive posture towards the world and have faith in that more than in any man.

so read this, posted to the wash post. this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44798-20...

[populistmom]

119. I'd like to think Dean's supporters (including myself) aren't so naive

But sadly, there probably some that are. I support Dean at the present because to me he's the most electable candidate that most closely matches my views. Is it 100%? No, but you can't get 100%. Life is not black and white or simple. The only simple thing is *Bush has to be stopped.

[CWebster]

120. pitt' usual underhanded smear

Dean has already shifted his views somewhat and taken the heat - on the question of policy on Israel, for example. Guess we are still here.

[WilliamPitt]

122. Um

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'll give you a shiny penny if you can find any other 'underhanded smears' I've offered.

[Skittles]

123. I'm guessing you are too young to remember the Eagleton incident

it was shameful