The Progressive Case for Howard Dean

[newsguyatl]

i hope this isn't a dupe... interesting take, thought some of you might enjoy it...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592

<snip>
I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing him to a crowd of several hundred when he visited Santa Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and, of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views most closely mirror my own.


Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will go to Howard Dean.


Yes, I've read the unfavorable commentaries on Howard Dean by writers whose opinions I greatly respect, like Norman Solomon and Alexander Cockburn. And yes, I know that I disagree with some critical components of Dean's platform. Progressives should be well aware that they're going to disagree on a range of issues with every individual who has a chance at being in the White House two years from now. Our choice is not between Howard Dean and the-even-better-candidate who-has-a-shot-at-winning the-Democratic-nomination and-defeating-George-Bush; that other candidate doesn't exist. Neither Kucinich nor Al Sharpton nor Carol Moseley Braun nor any Green will be President. Progressives should incorporate these realities into their electoral strategy, however disappointing they may be.

<snip>
The goal of progressives in the coming months, then, should be to continue what we're doing now – organizing, developing alternative social, economic, and environmental programs, and working to raise the national profile of our allies in the public sphere – while supporting Howard Dean and helping him win the primary and general elections. We have to keep close in mind what our country and our world will look like if George W. Bush's administration captures another term and can carry out its agenda without being restrained by reelection considerations. In what will likely be the most divisive and bitterly contested presidential election in decades, let's not use our precious energy and resources on candidates with no chance of defeating Bush. Rather, let's make sure to elect a candidate who, like Dean, at least supports publicly financed elections, instant run-off voting, and a constitutional amendment declaring that political contributions are not free speech, so that we directly strike at the structural stultification of our electoral system that forces us to limit our choices in the first place.

[blm]

1. Dupe 3x over.

.

[onehandle]

2. And if Dean doesn't get the nomination.....

Back to the Greens?

[Larkspur]

3. It's a better dupe than certian Dean bashers post 10 times

over. At least this guy debunks the Dean bashers misleading arguments against Dean very well.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Gephardt and Kerry are both more progressive than Dean

So yes, the candidates do exist, and they can beat Bush in the general election, while Dean cannot.

[Nicholas_J]

5. Yup

Every progressive journal and web site has dismissed Dean as a poseur, but my favorite is:

Alexander Cockburn
Creators Syndicate
06.25.03 Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend
Most e-mailed stories


Anybody but Bush? Watch out, Dems!
Let's aim higher than pro-death penalty, pro-drug war Dean


Take Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont. Right now, he's enjoying a boomlet. Across this great land, ambitious Democrats are hopping from foot to foot in an agony of indecision. Kerry, Graham, Dean, Gephardt: Which way to jump? Dean! Clinton without the satyriasis, Carter without the Baptist sanctimony; a simple country doctor (albeit with Dean and Witter armorial bearings) who ran Vermont through the Nineties, and who, somewhere in the mid to late 90s, began to set his compass for the White House. Progressive, but not radical; against the war, but no peacenik.

I'm a realist. I know that anyone hoping to win the Democratic nomination has to achieve acts of political prestidigitation equivalent to, though harder than, guiding a herd of rampaging Gadarene swine through the eye of a needle. No matter that a candidate might have the idealism of William Morris, the conscience of Philip Berrigan, the moral clarity of Robespierre or Ralph Nader, he'd still have to act as ruthless swineherd. I know that. But I'll confess it. The more I look at Dean, the less I like him.

The death penalty? Yes, Dean evolved into a pro-death penalty position just when he was debating a White House run. For heinous crimes like killing kids or cops. Now, with his eye on the primary in South Carolina, he's added "terrorists" to those into whose arms he would stick the needle. Isn't that the posture of Ashcroft or of W. Bush, who signed more death warrants than any other governor in U.S. history? It is, but be reassured by the Dean campaign. In a Dean administration, those consigned to Death Row will know, even as the needle starts pumping the poison into their veins, that President Dean went that last half mile to ensure fairness.

Medical marijuana? Is the Democratic candidate wholly owned by the pharmaceutical companies, the blue-nose lobby? Dean says, "My opposition to medical marijuana is based on science, not based on ideology." Oh, yeah. Dean's opposition is based on 200 percent proof political calculation. He looked in the crystal ball and decided he didn't want to be pilloried by Tim Russert and the other telly-pundits as a friend of the herb, so Gov. Dean headed off a really good medical marijuana law making its way through Vermont's lower house, the same way he headed off a pioneering health initiative in Vermont. Recently, he called Gephardt's health proposal "pie-in-the-sky radical revamping." He was gung-ho for welfare "reform," which he has called an "incredibly positive force." He's a "fiscal conservative," which is kiddy code for serf of capital.


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15211

This is the best description of Dean by a REAL progressive I have heard. It the most truthful and clear description of Dena writen to date.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Would you still bash Dean if Kerry picked him as a running mate?

I know it'll never happen, I just wonder where you're coming from. I've seen dozens of your posts, and every one of them bashes Dean. Suppose he wasn't a threat to your guy? Would you still be on your crusade?

His stances sound reasonable to me. I guess that makes me a moderate, but I'd also guess that the country will respond better to someone who's not an extremist.

[Bombtrack]

10. of course he's a threat to Kerry, and he's a threat to the party

and I don't think anyone here would disagree that, today, what hurts the dem party hurts america.

[indigo32]

14. Just HOW is he a threat to the party

he's waking it out of a slumber... thats a good thing not a bad thing.

[Bombtrack]

18. "he's walking it out of a slumber"???

just more of that straigt-talk from the Dean campaign

they never fail to regurgitate more meaningless rhetoric, in the absense of any weighty aguments for anything

[indigo32]

19. And yet you still haven't answered my question

how is he a threat to the party?

[Bombtrack]

33. he would cause democrats the worst defeat since 1984

of the whitehouse, congress, governorships and state legislatures

[indigo32]

13. Nick has made it quite clear

he will vote 3rd party if Dean gets the nomination... even though he CLAIMS to have done years of work for the Pary (which in his eyes is only the DLC, never mind the rest of us).

[ThorsteinVeblen]

12. Working for change did a hit piece on Nader when he was running

That magazine is staffed by people living in a fantasy land.

[Bombtrack]

7. Just shows he's attracting people who don't understand politics

or what it takes to change things

and people who don't feel the need to grow the dem parties power

people who buy the Naderite bullshit that ultimatly helps the right

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Don't Think Dean Is More Progressive Than Kerry, Edwards, and Graham

but I do think he is less electable.

I was watching last night's debate and it seemed that Howard Dean had supported every American military action of the last fifteen years except Gulf War 2.

John Kerry favored Gulf War 2 but opposed Gulf War 1. Why doesn't John Kerry get props for opposing Gulf War1.

It's seems that Howard Dean is not the anti war candidate but the anti Gulf War 2 candidate. Like all mainstream politicians he weighs the facts and supports wars that he deems to be in the nation's interest.

If it's just a matter of deciding which wars to pursue and which wars to eschew Howard Dean is not even much different than everybody's boogey man, Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman. Yes. Joe Lieberamn. The only difference between Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman is that Joe Lieberman supported every American military adventure in the last fifteen years and Howard Dean supported every military adventure except Gulf War 2.

Talk about the narcicissm of small differences.

[Bombtrack]

9. right

Dean has gone from a candidate who was my top choice at one time, to my most hated candidate by far

he cares more about his own ego than the dem party's victory and growth

[dajabr]

11. "Why doesn't John Kerry get props for opposing Gulf War1"

Umm, because he supported this one which was based on PNAC ideology and not facts? Why do you suppose a smart man like Kerry would fall for that? Nothing to do with protecting his Presidential run, right?

Dean: Not anti-war, just anti-PNAC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Supporting Gulf War2

and opposing an American Empire are not mutually exclusive.


For clarity's sake I was ambivalent about Gulf War2.

I saw the writing on the wall in October and felt it was futile to oppose it and Hussein wasn't worth going to the ramparts for.

[indigo32]

16. OMG

did you just say that?

It wasn't Hussein we went to the ramparts for...I'm speechless...
it was the people, who gives a frick about Hussein.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Are You Sure The Iraqi People Were Better Off Under Hussein

even Howard Dean was forced to admit they weren't.


Your beef is with the good doctor not with me.


I was ambivalent about the whole war cuz:

Among the reasons I was ambivalent about it was because Hussein was a psychopathic leader and it was futile to oppose it.

[indigo32]

25. I can understand ambivilence

I just get on edge when it is implied that we were fighting FOR Hussein, we heard toooo much of that when it was going on. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning, I'll grant you that. Anyway all I know is I hope life gets better for them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. You Misunderstood My Meaning

In my humble opinion the reasons for and against the war were so ambiguous that I found it hard to align myself with either camp.

I couldn't see myself attending a pro-war or anti-war rally.

Does that make sense.

Can people of good will disagree.


I supported the campaign against Milosevic because he was persecuting the indigenous majority in Kosovo. That campaign split the left.

Can people of good will disagree

[indigo32]

32. Yes of course

:) I know we're on the same side of a number of issues.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

27. ha ha - I would be offended if I was born yesterday

Don't act all shocked, you're not fooling anyone. Do you know anything about the Hussein regime in Iraq, it's history, and the USA's relationship with it? Being anti-war is fine. In politics, it's important to remember that militaries exist, dictators exist, and people get killed.

"it was the people, who gives a frick about Hussein. "

Do you think that the Iraqi people will be better off with four more years of Bush as US president? Can you honestly say to me that the Hussein was in any way the legimitmate government of Iraq?

There are plenty of reasons to oppose war in general, and the war in Iraq in particular. I say it's important to keep our eyes wide open and not suffer any delusions about how the world works. I remember when Bush I and Clinton attacked Iraq. Letting the Republicans win the rhetorical fight against us over the war issue is going to cost us all in the end. You'd do better by the Iraqi people by making sure some rich unemployed guy with a lot of time on his hands doesn't blow the election for us because a faction of comfortable Democrats who don't like soldiers and war think America will be mad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

That being said, I'd vote for Gephardt over John Forbes-Kerry any day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. It's Funny

The Dems are supposed to be the anti-war party but they were Clinton's amen section when he used force against Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, and Kosovo.


So much of this is just political posturing and gamesmanship.

Don't hate the playa

Hate the game.

[indigo32]

31. Oh please

since you decided to jump in here...yes I've been around here a while and I do know a quite a bit about Iraq, Hussein, and our history with them. You jump to conclusion after conclusion.
My reaction had NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether the Iraqi people will be better off without him. Yes I imagine they will, hopefully we can figure out sooner, rather then later how to help them accomplish that. I think it was done for all the wrong reason, and sets a terrible precident however.
"being anti war is fine. In politics, it's important to remember that militaries exist, dictators exist, and people get killed"
No shit. Don't lecture me. If you realize dictators exist... then maybe you should realize that there are a few more out there that we installed and patently ignore instead of bombing.
Finally your whole tirade is because you ASSUME I've set up a litmus test on this issue. WRONG.
I was upset because I had to listen to soo much bullshit about anti-war protestors protesters being PRO Hussein... when that wasn't what it was about at all. Of course Demsincebirth has clarified his/her meaning.

[Bombtrack]

17. so it's not worth it to defeat Bush?

you wouldn't mind losing an election based on an issue which already happened and you can't change?

I'm not anti-war by the way, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the argument that it would somehow be wrong to support a progressive and electable candidate like Kerry or Edwards facing Bush, just because you disagreeD(notice the past tense) on the war

[dajabr]

20. Who said I would not support them?

I just happen to think that Dean is the best choice, and the most electable at this point.

[Bombtrack]

34. yeah, based on your wishful thinking

nobody in the realm of electoral politics whether professionally, academically, or in the media who's reached any success and with half a brain thinks he would even come close to getting 70 electoral votes, never mind 270.

[dajabr]

35. Dean

In a landslide...

Reagan Democrats = Dean Republicans

You do the math...

[Larkspur]

36. Why doesn't John Kerry get props for opposing Gulf War1?

Because Saddam was invading Kuwait and Kuwait and her allies were begging for our help to stop him.

The 1991 vote was a given, unless you were a pure pacifist, which Kerry is not. John Kerry screwed up both his Iraq War votes. He based his votes on ideology not facts.

[wheresthemind]

21. the Dean Defence Force

is harrassing all of the MN campaign with this e-mail....

They make me go from not supporting Dean, to not liking Dean!

[indigo32]

23. I get pro Kucinich mail all the time on the MN list I'm part of

AND I get requests for money from the Kerry campaign when I've never been near their web site. Such is life.

[wheresthemind]

28. could you forward it to me next time you get some...

thats EXTREMELY inappropriate and against everything we are for on the Kucinich campaign. I can see if any of them are on our campaign and if they are I will take action.

[email protected]

Please let me know, I don't want to be a hypocrite!

[CWebster]

22. Oh look, an article about a progressive supporting Dean

has turned into a Dean-bashing thread....with the usual handful of suspects.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Where Did I Bash Dean

I'm just higlighting the differences.

[Ein]

37. Has the same pitch, I won't buy.

"Our choice is not between Howard Dean and the-even-better-candidate who-has-a-shot-at-winning the-Democratic-nomination and-defeating-George-Bush; that other candidate doesn't exist. Neither Kucinich nor Al Sharpton nor Carol Moseley Braun nor any Green will be President. Progressives should incorporate these realities into their electoral strategy, however disappointing they may be."

Is it some kind of cult? Dean is the only one who can win, ever, ever evereverevereverever. CONCEDE ON YOUR VIEWS, PUNY MORTAL, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!