General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We can do better than Hillary Clinton. [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)He's ex-GOP, and he appeals to the "He saw the light!" crowd.
He had a "hippie" wife who wasn't all lipstick and high fashion. She wore flat, scuffed shoes, her hair was simple and sometimes a bit messy, and she dressed for comfort and didn't talk much. She liked her job and intended to keep it. She was even more different than he was!
And speaking of clothing, Dean did the same thing that most born-very-rich people do--buy very expensive clothes, and wear the living shit out of them; repair, not replace. So he had the frayed collars, the not-very-stylish threads, the earnest New England loafers, etc...but that's the standard uniform of the Bushes, too. It's only the nouveaus and non-New England types (e.g. rMoney--who was a MA carpetbagger and never 'got' the vibe here) who over-spend on clothing and haircuts. Reminds me of Queen Elizabeth, who, as an insult remarked "Ewwww....they have to buy their own FURNITURE!!" (like the only good stuff was passed down in the family)...
But hey, he was blunt, he was edgy and modern, he didn't ignore "the kids" (who didn't really show up for him like they promised), and he had the "independent" wife. He wasn't scripted, too. He had a great personality, and he plainly wasn't stupid. There was a lot to like about Howard Dean.
We obsess over where candidates are on the conservative-to-liberal spectrum, but at the end of the day, it does not really matter. Progress in DC is always incremental, unless the White House is marching in lockstep with both houses of Congress. Otherwise, it's baby steps and gridlock. So long as "our candidate" gives half a shit about kids, the poor, and the elderly, they'll be better than those business-first Republicans.