As the DNC chairman - Dean SUX!

[jillan]

and if you don't believe me, watch Meet the Press.

I was screaming watching Mehlman for his continuous bs -
but I was screaming even louder watching Dean. He does not provide a voice that represents my party. Imo, he is part of the problem why democrats are perceived as not having a unified voice. He is too busy saying things like - that's why I didn't vote for the war, & the dems can say what they want.

I won't say more, I want to hear your feelings.

But, I will give him one high five, and that was during the discussion of Alito.

After watching, I was thinking, maybe Kerry should kick Dean out of this position as well. Kerry would have sent a unified message on tv, just as he is doing thru the DCCC.

[jillan]

1. nobody watched?

I'm curious to see what the Kerrycrats thought, especially after reading a kudos to Dean thread in gdp.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. I didn't

can't stomach the garbage that is put out on Sunday mornings. But I agree Dean has got to stop saying I, he is representing a party, he has to get off his campaign mode talk. He is still grandstanding IMO.

[globalvillage]

4. I'm watching it now.

I just missed the Kerry quote, though. Can you tell me what that was about?

[Mass]

9. Russert try to say once again that Kerry never said that he would

not vote the IWR again.

Dean justly remarked that he thought Kerry had said so. He did not spent a long time on the issue, but it was clearly a lot better than many other people I have seen in the past.

[TayTay]

3. I respectfully disagree. (Mildly.)

I think Gov. Dean is in an untenable position of sorts. He has to speak for a party that isn't quite there yet in terms of having a coherent policy on the Iraq War. The Chairman of the Democratic Party reports to the Democrats who hold high elective office. (He has all those bosses to report to in Congress.)

We aren't at unity yet. Sen. Clinton is not espousing what Sen. Kerry is talking about. Sen. Feingold is not where Sen. Biden is. They have different views and different emerging philosophies about how to bring the Democratic Party back to power. Gov. Dean has to represent Kerry and Clinton and Feingold and Biden. (He works for them all.)

So much of Russert's arguments sound like a 'Waiting for Godot' thing. "When will the Democrats get here? Will they bring cookies? Will they be unified and clear and coherent or will they be, ahm, Democrats? Will they bring chips and dip for the electorate or will it be pot-luck again?" Sigh!

[Mass]

8. I agree with you on that

He did the best he had with the cards he was dealt.

I listened to Schumer and Emmanuel this morning and it was clear they were nowhere close to Kerry or Feingold on Iraq and certainly as far as they could to Kennedy and Boxer.

Except for some basic principles, there is no way to show an unity in the party.

In addition, most of the Republicans are only united because they stick to Bush's agenda. What would be their agenda without him? There is not a single person to define the Democrat agenda, so we hear multiple voices with slightly different tunes.

I actually thought he did great.

[MH1]

15. I respectfully disagree with your disagreement (mildy) ;-)

I did watch the portion of MTP with Mehlman and Dean. Dean may have been okay on other things, but he lost me when he failed to nail Russert on "the Democrats voted for the war." In fact I fantasized about writing a post for GD-P titled, "Russert lobs a softball, Dean whiffs." Dean got all caught up in arguing about the intelligence - which if not our weakest argument, is one very manipulable by the other side. OTOH, why couldn't he argue (correctly and demonstrably) that voting for IWR was NOT a "vote for the war"? If he takes that tack, then Russert could argue (ike so many do here in GD) that "c'mon, everyone knows Bush was going to war!" but of course if Russert says that then he implies Bush was untrustworthy and the Senate never should have trusted the US President. Hmmm.

So, I was pretty disappointed in Dr. Dean today. I think he had a great opening and totally blew it. Later I caught about 5 miutes of Tom Vilsack on another program and I have the beginning of an inkling why Kerry was leaning toward him for DNC chair.

All that said, if our party was halfway organized, then Dean would have made the point about IWR not being a vote for the war, because he would have had it made clear to him ahead of time that this is the party position and he would have his head handed to him if he blew it. So I think it may not be all his fault. Still I wish he were better.

And on the other hand (starting to sound like an economist now!) maybe I am wrong that Dems should attack the "voted for the war crap". What do you all think?

[karynnj]

16. In addition to not being a vote for war,

Dean could have said "there were 6 months between the vote and the invasion. In that time, Saddam allowed invasive inspections, destroyed missiles that may have not been in complaince and with all this new information, it was far more certain there were no WMD and the inspecters were still in place. Many Democrats urged Bush publicly to let the inspections continue. Only Bush made the decision to invade in March, 2003."

Dean needs to get over the 2004 primaries. He didn't vote for the IWR because he wasn't in Congress. As it didn't happen one will never know. His statements suggest otherwise. But, whatever ... he fostered the distinction to be the anti-war candidate against Kerry. In terms of going to war, in March 2003, he, Kerry and most Democrats wouldn't have invaded. He needs to re-frame the issue and as someone not in Congress and the one who muddied the issue, he is uniquely placed to do this. If he did this it would greatly improve my impression of him.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Maybe if you want

you can write to Dean and tell him your feelings about that. He seems like the type of person who will listen to you and maybe consider what you say and to use it himself. It's worth a try.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. The one thing I like about Dean

is he doesn't answer gossip question's and he doesn't speak for anyone. When Russert asked him about things Kerry and Clinton said he said he won't speak for them but let them speak for themselves. I really respect that about him. He talks about policies of the party and than, from my viewing, he answers question's by his view etc.

[beachmom]

5. I know there are many on this forum who like Dean, so I don't want

to pile on here. But . . . after he was elected DNC chairman, The Economist ran an editorial opining that "it looks like the Democrats will spend a few more years wandering in the wilderness". When I think of Dems who are doing a good job this year, I think of Reid, Schumer, Leahy, M. Warner, heck even Biden and Clinton have had their moments (obviously Kerry's good deeds for the Dems are many). But Dean has done nothing to open the tent and encourage people to want to become Democrats. He is constantly sticking his foot in his mouth. And now I'm more inclined to give my money to Kerry's PAC than the DNC.

But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here, so I'll say no more.

[jillan]

6. I thought about that too, but - this isn't about starting anything between

us other then a discussion.

I wanted Dean to get this job.

Now - I want a strong voice to emerge on sending a unified voice for the dems. If not now - when? The hole that repugs have dug themselves in has forced Dean to be on stage, with the spotlight shining brightly upon him.

I'll shut up now - lol - I'm more interested in everyone elses thoughts.

[TayTay]

7. It's perfectly okay to voice a dissent on Gov Dean

Your dissents are not snarky and are based on real events. This doesn't make you snarky, it makes you well-informed.

Have at it, my dear. We are having 'tea party' like discussions in here without the name calling and such. Discussions that clarify are the whole point of being here. Go for it.

[beachmom]

10. Well, it goes back to that New Yorker article we were discussing

Although I was negative about it if it meant Dems beginning to cave on being pro-choice, I did get the point that we somehow need to get past cultural issues and talk about our bread and butter issues which have broad support. Dean, perhaps unfairly, represents Deaniacs across the land. And the Deaniacs tend to be culturally WAY to the left of most of the country. Dean himself has said some callous things about abortion (which I actually agreed with, but it was very impolitic). I realize that I myself am way left to the country culturally (although I have been accused by my Republican friends of talking liberal and acting conservative, which pretty much is an apt description of Massachusetts I may add -- see their divorce rate, for example). But I look at our governor in Virginia, Mark Warner, who neutralized the cultural issues and did some good works in our state. So that's my problem with Dean. I realize he is more nuanced than this (and some of it is just false and unfair), but his image is of one who is anti-war, anti-military, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, secular, and doesn't have a clue what people in the middle of the country think. Kerry has some of these problems, but he was able to connect with Iowans and show that he was so much more than that. Dean never broke out of that mold. So fairly or unfairly, he is NOT the image we want for Democrats.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. I don't think we're caving on pro-choice

Everyone knows we're the party of being pro-choice. Even people who know little about politics knows that, but I think now the democrats are trying to show we won't invade your privacy like the republicans are doing now days. It used to be the republicans were for privacy but not anymore and I think that is what Dean and the others are trying to say. So many republicans are trying to say that the democrats will choose for you to have an abortion etc. but Dean is saying we're not that way and we're for privacy as we are. That is what we should be focusing on as well.

[whometense]

11. Didn't watch MTP,

but I did watch Fox News Sunday (I know, I know - I'm supposed to leave the dangerous work to Stephanie Miller), and I have to say I am just furious with Bill Richardson. I find him to be so self-absorbed as to be unwatchable, and in addition to that I am hol,ding a grudge against him for blocking the New Mexico recount last year.

He made a whole speech about how we need to elect governors for higher office because they know how to govern. I know this is a popular canard out there, and I apologize to anyone here who is a Bill Richardson fan, but puh-leeze. I think a very large part of what Kerry is up to right now in his activities outside of the senate is engaging with the public directly, and the reason for this is precisely to be in touch with what the peoples' concerns are.

I also caught a glimpse of the recently sainted Mark Warner on one of the shows (?) and found him to be well spoken and intelligent. But he has no foreign policy experience. In these times my vote will definitely go to someone who has a vast amount of foreign policy knowledge. I don't see this as a great time for on-the-job training in that department. In fact, and I'll get off my soapbox in a second, I promise, I want someone exactly like Kerry for the next president - someone who understands how the federal government works (and doesn't). I can see Warner as a VP candidate, but not president.

Oh, and I heard Stephanopoulos stand up (albeit briefly) for Kerry in the roundtable when someone started in on how wonderful the new Edwards message was. Ok, I promise to be quiet now.

[beachmom]

12. I agree with you, Whomtense about the whole governor thing

Our last 2 presidents have been governors and obviously one was WAY worse than the other, but Clinton did blunder a lot, and obviously, he didn't get Osama bin Laden, which maybe he should have worked harder at.

But to defend Warner, he has proven himself to get into a situation where he knew NOTHING (like the cellular phone business), and became immensely successful. So, I'm staying open to him, although he is quite young (50), and I could also see him as a Treasury Secretary in a Dem. administration. But overall, I just think he's a good guy.

[Island Blue]

17. Going even further back than * and Clinton,

both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were also governors, and although I love Carter dearly now, he wasn't a very effective President. (As for Ronald Reagan, he was more successful in accomplishing what he set out to accomplish, but what he accomplished was bad for the country.) This is why I'm always puzzled when people start in on the governors make better presidents mantra.

I am also baffled by the thought process that says Candidate X is "electable" therefore he should be our guy. Well, Richard Nixon, Bush 41 and ** (with a little help) were also "electable" but that doesn't make them good presidents.

As far as Warner is concerned (and this is EXTREMELY superficial) he looks just like a guy I know who is a bit of a doofus so I have kind of a hard time looking at him without thinking about this other person. (Told you it was superficial :) )

[beachmom]

19. The governor argument is more about being elected, not governing

Governors have shown more success getting elected over Senators time and time again. This is because of the long voting records to be attacked as well as the speaking style prevalent in the Senate. I mean, did you guys listen to C-SPAN on Thurs. when Kerry, J. Warner, and others were discussing procedure. It was SOOO jargony. It's hard to get out of the habit of talking that way!

But as far as governance, I guess I would like to see which presidents were senators immediately before becoming president, and how successful were they.

It would be nice if it was senator vs. senator in '08, and then we're guaranteed not to have another inexperienced governor no matter who wins.

[karynnj]

13. Hindsight being 20/20, I wonder how Kerry/Warner would have done

Like Edwards, he is Southern, well-spoken and intelligent and VA was more winnable than NC. Edwards had no great foreign policy experience.

It was nice that Stephanopoulos did stick up for Kerry, but moments later didn't mention Kerry as the possible anti-war candidate to the left of Edwards.

What I don't understand (with the IWR) is why the Democrats by and large have not made the point that the war started in March and the vote was about 6 months earlier - Kerry did speak out before Bush attacked. Bush started the war.

[wisteria]

14. I agree with you on Richards and Mark Warner.

I will add that Warner doesn't have any vision or greatness about him as far as I can tell. Oh, and good for Stephanopoulos, I just love how Edward's is praised for and recognized for what Kerry has already said. Obviously, it is the media playing the usual games again. Thank goodness for some truthful people out there who will give credit where credit is due. Edward's, whom I do like, seems to be running with what attention he can gather for a run in 2008. Maybe we should thank Steph. for being truthful and defending Kerry.

[beachmom]

18. Since this is a mildly and respectfully disagreeing thread

I think that Warner DOES have a vision. His campaign will be about competence. It's the competence, stupid! He talks about good governance. And then he ties that to being once again respected in the world. I guess this isn't massively sweeping, but given *'s radical agenda, I think a lot of people will be drawn to such basic and simple goals. I'll never forget how after the Katrina debacle hearing from my German mother-in-law. She said "so here you have a president who can bomb other countries but he can't even save his own people??!!??". So * is not just thought of now as a warmonger. He has also led the world to think, "oh, America, they're not that great. not much better than any third world country really". So I think there will be some resonance with that. However, as I said before, he has no foreign policy experience. That's his big weakness.

[wisteria]

27. Competence is just fine, but it isn't a true vision IMO, shouldn't

we surpass competence and try for greatness? We should have high expectations,this country needs to find and strive to be the best. A country that all people can respect and strive to emulate, IMO.
I do agree our current administration is awful, even at his best, Bush was mediocre.
I'll refrain from expressing to strong a view about Warner in this forum. It's early, perhaps my opinion will change in time. He must have something, I like my Democratic Governor a lot,I have followed his achievements going back to his days as an Assistant DA working with Arlen Specter in Philadelphia, but I wouldn't enthusiastically support his run for President.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. I think that's why it's important

on who his VP choice is and their experience with foreign policey. On Rhandi Rhodes in the first hour she talked about Virgina and told how they were number one in the country with the economy and stuff because he (Warner) did the same thing(s) Clinton did. I think he could definietly use that if he runs.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. One thing I thought weird

is how Edwards didn't have any attacks from the republicans. He mentioned Cheney's daughter being gay but they didn't attack him like they did Kerry. :shrug:

[MonteLukast]

22. Oh, THAT canard.

He made a whole speech about how we need to elect governors for higher office...

My favorite canard! "Senators don't make good Presidents." Unthinking, automatic, completely knee-jerk.

Senators don't make good Presidents? give me a break. Anybody who stays in touch, as Kerry is doing, would make a good President.

Anyone who believes in that canard has a Kennedy fixation that they might want to get an assessment for.

Dean himself thinks governors are better equipped? (Well, he ought to; he is one himself.) I wonder if he's ever met one by the name of Mitt Romney.

... Other than that, I must also dissent with the original poster's opinion of Dean's speech. It was just what we needed to hear from a Democratic Chairman-- his goal was to present an image of party unity, and that he accomplished-- and he hit the bullseye on Alito.

The Senatorial-NonFitness-For-The-Presidency-Meme, SUX.

[MH1]

23. Dean did do well on Alito.

Thanks for remiding me. Also on the "moral values" nonsense, I think he did well.

But I am still torqued about the "voted for the war" crap. If that's the image of party unity that's going to be presented, it really undermines 20-some Senators and a bunch of Congresspeople that voted for the IWR and most emphatically (well except perhaps for Lieberman) did NOT vote for the war. That would be a pretty sucky kind of unity if you ask me.

As for governors vs Senators - I think they were talking about presidential candidates rather than presidents. The (perceived?) problem with senators is that they have to make so many twisted votes because of the twisted way that the senate works, and then it is very easy for the opposition to claim just because the senator voted for a particular bill that contained a particular item, they were specifically supporting that item - never mind the other three thousand pages of items in the same bill.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think that is the argument, and there is some substance there that needs to be addressed when a Senator does run. But I think someone as supremely qualified as a John Kerry can overcome that, if he gets fair treatment from the media. (Oh well.)

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Me personally

am tainted of Richardson. He does have some things in politics that are of use to the party but I feel iffy vibes with him personally. :shrug: I think Warner could be a good presidential canidate. Clinton didn't have any foreign policey either and he won twice. I think with the right VP Warner could do very well (I would like either Feingold or Clark).

[BlueIris]

20. Okay, I know I'm asking for it, because I don't plan to elaborate, but

I despise Howard Dean. Most of the reason I think we should dump him as chairman is my extreme dislike for his positions. I don't believe they're representative of the Party, the left or anything remotely resembling progressivism, especially on the subject of issues of choice. Putting a man like Dean in charge at this time will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders the DNC has ever made. Thankfully, I think it's repairable, but only if he goes. Want a better reason? The lack of money coming in. Yes, I know, many people are claiming that this problem isn't endemic to Dean and won't improve with a different person at the helm but--come on. It may not be the biggest problem he's caused, but it's not nothing either. I don't care if it makes us look disorganized (a charge that is mostly RW-generated media myth, anyhow). This isn't working. The answer to a crisis like this is a change, not more of the same.

[karynnj]

21. I don't despise Dean, but I think he is too prone to troubling statements

If the 3 fuctions of DNC head are: to build and maintain the local parties, to be a spokesman, and to raise money - he is doing well on one, somewhat poorly on the next and possibly poorly on fund raising. Unless he was willing to say he wanted to step down, forcing him out could create absolute havoc for next year.

He has been working on the local parties - so I expect many people involved are Deaniacs. In my area several are - the question is: the local parties are made up of people who have been there forever, Dean people and other new people who voluteered spontaneously or who were encouraged by Kerry or others. How many of the Deaniacs will leave, where will they go and who would they blame this time?

[ginnyinWI]

24. my take on Dean

I don't know if another chair would have done better or not, to be honest. It might be true that he can't yet represent a unified voice for all Dems, or choses not to. He did say that next year they would be rolling out a lot of policy statements.

One thing not mentioned by anyone yet, I don't think: he repeated several times some version of the statement that "Democrats tell the truth". I saw this as a very good thing: give the people one, simple idea to chew on, and pound it home over and over. And honest is one thing the other side is certainly not being seen as right now. I thought that was a good move. A nice appetizer to what I hope is a smorgasbord of Democratic ideas coming up next year.

[karynnj]

25. Hadn't thought about it but you're right - he says that a lot, as Kerry

did last year. Last year, there may not have been enough people who knew who was lying - but that's not a problem this year. So, if Republicans lie/Democrats tell the truth is pushed, We don't even need to say the first part. It's obvious.

[rox63]

26. I didn't see MTP

But I do have some opinions about Dean. I like the job he's been doing so far. I like his emphasis on rebuilding the local parties, and on working on the grassroots organizing. AS for fundraising, he's doing fairly well. He just hasn't caught up to the Republicans yet. Outside of the 2004 election year, the Dems have been behind the GOP in fundraising for a long time. They have a lot of ground to make up.

Dean does have the annoying habit of occasionally sticking his foot in his mouth. So he does have to work on that. But overall, I think he's doing ok. I think his 50-state strategy is right on the mark.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. I think he does pretty well

He's only been chairman for a few months and is still getting used to things I think. He's getting more comfortable with interviews and being infront of cameras. I like Dean pretty well and am glad he's our chairman. :) Sometimes he doesn't answer like I would like him to but I wouldn't replace him.