Edwards criticizes Dean for divisive race remark

[DJcairo]

Sorry, copied this from another post but couldn't fine an AP wire link, although it is listed in their top national news this hour.

By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 10, 2003; 10:50 AM


WASHINGTON - Democrat Howard Dean's claim that he is the only white politician who talks about race to white audiences drew criticism Wednesday from one of his presidential rivals. Sen. John Edwards said the entire field discusses racials issues on the campaign trail.

"I think what Howard Dean said last night does a disservice to everyone he stood next to and all the people before us who have raised this issue over and over again in front of all audiences," the North Carolina lawmaker said one day after the nine candidates debated in Baltimore.

Dean, defending himself against criticism that his supporters are mostly white, told the predominantly black debate crowd, "I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences."

Dean was wrong.

Edwards urges racial tolerance in nearly ever speech he gives on the campaign trail, including addresses to white crowds. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut talks about his efforts as a student during the 1960s civil rights movement. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has discussed race and its role in his Vietnam service.

"What he said last night was devisive and devisive is exaactly what we're trying to overcome. He's right about one thing, politicans should talk about civil rights wherever they go. And in the future, I hope he leads by example instead of by attack," Edwards said in a telephone interview.

"Sen. Lieberman marched with Martin Luther King. Sen. Kerry talks about his experience in Vietnam. I grew up in the segregated South. Fighting for civil rights is part of who I am which is why I talked about it in front of every audience and whoever I'm with," he said.

[blm]

1. Dean is the ONLY one who has done anything.

He was great investigating BCCI and IranContra. He was amazing saving the lives of other soldiers. And he was the fIRST to advocate for laws friendly to gays. And the first to advocate for equal treatment for black defendants.

He was awesome fighting those large corporations who contributed to the death of a baby.

His marching as a young adult on the streets against Vietnam and FOR Civil Rights was inspirational to many.

And who can forget his stirring antiwar speeches that rallied millions during the recent antiwar protests?

[JohnKleeb]

22. I could have sworen that man's name is John Kerry

To Kerry :thumbsup: on this

[blm]

28. I was talking about Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich

and Lieberman. They are ALL part of that description.

[whirlygigspin]

103. Nedra Pickler--fart catcher for Gephardt

other notable Pickler blurbs: pimping for Dean
& doing a Monica for Dean

[Cocoa]

2. what did Dean say?

if Edwards is characterizing it right, then yeah that sucks, and I hope someone challenged Dean on it.

btw, are there transcripts available?

[DJcairo]

4. Dean said he is the only one who talks about race in front of whites

[billbuckhead]

5. Dean's not ready for prime time

Just another example of why Rove so desperately wants Dean.

[diamondsoul]

11. He said-

"I'm the only candidate who talks about race in front of white audiences."

He was wrong, and I'm glad Edwards called him on it, that was a really low thing to do.

[PAMod]

3. I think he was referring to the charge that his massive crowds...

are mostly white.

It's something for him to work on, no doubt, but when people say that about his crowds, there is an inference.

I believe he was correcting the inference.

[Nicholas_J]

7. Most of his crowds are white.

I've been comparison counting of television screens.

Edwards and Kerry have the most racially variant crowds surrounding them wherever they go.

[PAMod]

14. Yea, but if Dean's audiences are white and he's talking about race...

that means he talks about race to white audiences.

I think what he meant was its easy to talk about race to an audience of minorities (last night), but it is important to talk about it to everybody, every time. If we want obliterate race as an issue, people of all races must be involved in the dialogue.

But I can see why the other candidates were annoyed by his remark.

[mbali]

30. You don't?

Dean said that he is the only white politician talking about race to white audiences. You think such a statement is ok?

It's one thing for Dean to claim that he's talking about race to white audiences. Good for him. But he suggested that none of the other candidates - indeed no other white politician - is doing that. You don't have a problem with that?

I also have to wonder about a candidate who doesn't know better than to stand up in a public forum and make such a blatant statement that is so easy to check and refute. When he says that he is the ONLY person doing something, all his opponents have to do is come up with ONE other person who is doing the same thing to put a lie to his statement. Fortunately for him, the Democrats didn't jump all over him. But Bush and Rove wouldn't be so nice.

Dean is making it more and more obvious that he's not ready for the big leagues.

[Ediacara]

21. hmmm

Most Americans are white

Most Voters are white

Most Democrats are white

And Nicholas_J has yet another intentionally misleading post, this one making the not-so-subtle accusation that Dean's supporters are racists...

[chimpymustgo]

40. No, Dean told a bold faced lie. He is NOT the only one talking

about race to white audiences. And he damn well knows it. What a liar.

Edwards should have punched him. But he's far too polite.

[Ediacara]

42. he's far too polite

obviously not taking after his followers....

[renie408]

44. Holy Moly!! ROFL!!!

That was really hysterical. Probably not in the way you intended, but a hoot nonetheless.

[chimpymustgo]

45. Twas funny, no?

Still waiting for Dean to apologize. On CNN yesterday, Dean just dodged the question when Wolfie asked about it.

Maybe what he meant was he's the only white politician who has an all white audience to talk to about race???

That's it!

[Ediacara]

47. well

1) I did want him to respond to the question

2) he didn't dodge it however, he finished answering the question Wolf had previously asked, and then cut him off from.

[chimpymustgo]

49. "Dean's campaign refused to back away from his remark." WP 9/11

Dean's Remark on Race Issue Challenged


Edwards, generally the most collegial of the major Democratic presidential candidates, lashed out yesterday at Dean for suggesting that he's the only white candidate talking to white voters about the race issue on the campaign trail.

At Tuesday night's debate in Maryland, the former Vermont governor said he was "the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences." That statement turns out to be wildly inaccurate, and Edwards, who was born in South Carolina and considers the South his base, didn't take kindly to it.

"Governor Dean's statement was divisive," Edwards said. "And divisive is exactly what we're trying to overcome. His statement does a disservice to everyone he stood next to and all the people before us who have raised this issue over and over again in front of all audiences."

Edwards went on to defend not only himself, but also other white candidates. "Senator Lieberman marched with Martin Luther King. Senator Kerry talks about his experience in Vietnam. I grew up in the segregated South. Fighting for civil rights is part of who I am. I talk about it in front of every audience I'm with."

Dean's campaign refused to back away from his remark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57661-2003Sep10.html

[Ediacara]

52. any actual statement?

Dean's campaign refused to back away from his remark.

is all the news article says, and is the last line in the article. Is there anything that anyone with the campaign actually said about the issue, or just a blanket statement from the WP based aparently on nothing that made any news elsewhere.

[renie408]

58. An honest question

I have noticed this response here a couple of times. Seriously, I am really asking here, are you saying that it is wrong to cite an article unless it has direct quotes? Are you saying that the author of the article is lying? Cause I am all about that. I do believe that things like "Dean's campaign refused to back away from his remark" could be attributed to something as simple as the reporter asking someone about it and them saying "No comment." BUT...it could also be that their campaign is doing the same thing that some of the supporters here are doing, trying to gloss the comment over.

[Ediacara]

63. well

some are trying to paint the comment as a delibrate lie by Sata... I mean Dean.

The statement in question (by the WP) is useless in trying to get to the bottom of what the Dean campaign is saying because a million and one things can be read into the statement. Like you said, it could be "no comment" transformed, or it could be a gloss.

Because there are no quotes from ANYONE but Edwards, I am loathe to put much weight in that single sentance.

EDIT: to clarify which statement

[chimpymustgo]

66. Dean, when asked by Wolfie yesterday, ducked and dodged.

He did not address the fact that he had lied about being the only white candidate to talk about race.

[Ediacara]

67. like I said before

he did not "duck and dodge," he finished answering the previous question. Wolfie did not persue the question further and asked him something else.

[renie408]

69. Come on, man

you are splitting hairs and you know it. That sounds like Dean trying to get off on a technicality.

[Ediacara]

73. I didn't say he was trying to get off on a technicality

and I want him to answer the question, but to say he is a big fat liar who dodged the question is just plain wrong.

[renie408]

75. I agree with that

But is it safe to say that it looks like the subject is currently being avoided? Perhaps they are either hoping it dies a natural death or maybe they are spinning the thing like mad, but they sure ain't exactly stepping up to the plate on it.

[chimpymustgo]

76. From the so-called "straight shooter". Pulleeze.

nt

[renie408]

77. Which nicely highlights

why using the 'straight shooter' image can be a double edged sword.

[Ediacara]

78. well I haven't seen any spin

other than a single sentance without quote from the WP.

I have seen Edwards' guys try to spin it, but nothing from Dean.

I would expect he will respond soon, but might be delaying comments because of 9-11.

[chimpymustgo]

79. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Dean shoots from the lip whenever he

feels like it.

He had a golden opportunity yesterday, when asked by Wolf Blitzer, to clear up his "mis-statement". He chose not to.

[Ediacara]

80. there you go again....

did you watch a different WB than I did?

[renie408]

82. This is sincere advice

One of the reasons that Edwards is a powerful candidate is that he remains sincere and above being petty. Let's us, as his supporters, try not to sound that way. One of the fine arts to discussion is knowing when to back off. I am not saying that I am always great at it, but there is a time to take your foot off the other guy's neck. One of the things that has turned me off on other candidates is, frankly, that I find some of their supporters obnoxious. Let's try to sell the message, make the point, but not beat a dead horse. \

**edit: I screwed up. This was for Chimpy.**

[helleborient]

87. Yep, and the Howard "Brush" Dean namecalling...

On the part of another Edwards supporter on DU turns me off...but I try to remember that person is not the candidate.

I found it quite impressive that Dennis Kucinich didn't even want his followers to refer to Bush as "Chimpy"...a real strike in favor of civility, if you ask me.

I supported Paul Simon's (Senator from Illinois) campaign for the presidency and felt he was sunk by almost stifling sincerity, and, frankly, boredom...so it can cut both ways.

[chimpymustgo]

89. Renie, I'm sorry. But every question of Dean comes back with an

excuse. I have laid off Dean - in fact I didn't even come on the board after the debate, I was so pissed off - I was afraid I might say something that would get me banned.

This is such a pattern with Dean - and I'm just sick of it - especially when he starts to lie about one of Edwards' main themes, in order to puff himself up.

You're pretty new here. Let me assure you, there is a lot of pent up anger from supporters of other candidates who have been kicked all over this board JUST BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE.

Some of the most vicious posters were banned, but last spring and summer - Dean and many of his supporters were bashing everything in sight. Talk to some of the Kerry supporters.

That said (and I did need to get it off my chest!), I do take great pride in Edwards' sincere, caring nature - and I will try to reflect his character in my posts.

(till Dean does it again...LOL)

[helleborient]

91. And we poor deluded Dean supporters...

Who came into the group to support him, particularly after the MoveOn vote...

Are continually, over and over, tarred with the behavior of people in the past...some of whom aren't even here now.

I've never attacked anyone for supporting someone else...I have asked serious questions...I've question attacks on Dean.

But...I'm feeling like I, and the people I talk to in local Meetups and see at Dean's speeches are continually being called uninformed, mean, nasty people.

Maybe I need to go to Iowa to see what really happens. If his supporters are so nasty...why is he leading in polls? Are they standing behind these people with their arm twisted behind when the pollsters call?

I guess maybe I just need to take myself off DU...because there is such an aura of nastiness based on who you support.

I apologize for past Dean supporters...I haven't read their messages...I haven't met any in person...but I would like if some of us are given another chance and are given the opportunity to actually ask questions.

I am quite proud of all of the candidates...I have wariness about supporting some of them, but I continue to ask questions because I want to know more, and I can be defensive if it seems there is an unfair attack on my candidate.

I have posted at least 3 times I think today that I thought Dean's comment about race in the debate was dumb....now I will say it was wrong....but it is not his entire campaign or his entire record, so I havent' switched yet.

Sometimes I wish I as a Dean supporter was asked why I support him rather than having assumptions that I'm a pit bull on a short leash just waiting to be let loose and raid the neighborhood.

[chimpymustgo]

92. Wow helle. That's huge - to admit Dean was wrong.

In all the dozens of posts on this subject, very few Dean supporters have actually said, "he was wrong", which kind of rubs salt on the wound.

Not to tar you with the brush of other Dean supporters, but that has long been the pattern around here. Dean has made numerous "misstatements" about other candidates - some of which he personally apologized for. But for some of his supporters - there's just always some excuse or justification. Some, not all.

It's the pattern that bothers me. There seems to be a tendancy for Dean to say what he thinks the occasion warrants.

I like Dean's outspokenness, and can see why some people like him. But I worry a lot about this truthfulness.

[DemBones DemBones]

102. Loving Hellebores as I do, I don't wish to be at odds with anyone

who has taken their name. :-) And I commend you for saying that Dean was wrong about this. We need those statements as much as "My candidate is great!" statements. I hope you'll stay at DU.

I've said before, and will no doubt say many more times, that all of us should defend our candidate with facts when he(she) is challenged and we know he is right. Verifiable facts, with links. But if he's wrong, we should admit it. If we disagree with him on something, we should just say so. No candidate has to be perfect and no one has to be 100% in agreement with their candidate.

To the best I can recall, I have never before seen a Dean supporter admit that Dean was wrong about anything.

I just came from a thread in which some Dean supporters were bragging about who they have on Ignore, and another posted "Dean rules. . . others drool."

It's nice to see there is at least one Dean supporter who has some balance about supporting Dean! Like you, I'm looking all the candidates over, and not just believing their campaign literature.

The Hellebores will be in bloom again before this all settles out.

[renie408]

99. I shouldn't preach to you or anyone

And I understand how you feel. I just had shades of other posters when I read your replies and I got a little nervous.

[renie408]

81. Good thinking

I hadn't even thought about 9/11 *wince*. I can see how talking about something like the debate comments might be better held off for a day or two.

[ModerateMiddle]

105. well, when the campaign DID respond

they further lied:

What's most irksome is that, rather than chracterize the remark as the careless, and basically harmless, hyperbole that it was, Dean's campaign has defended it in a shamelessly misleading fashion. Actually, they don't even really try to defend it. Instead, Dean's aides are counterattacking his rivals, calling them opportunists who only complained about the comment to slow down the mighty Dean machine. Their evidence? Dean said the "same exact thing" at a forum in June, back when he was still just an upstart, "and there was no righteous indignation," as a Dean spokeswoman explained to The Boston Globe.

But it turns out that what Dean said in June was quite different: "I don't just talk about quotas here in front of a predominantly Latino and Black American, African American, audience. I talk about quotas and affirmative action in front of white audiences, because white people need to hear from white politicians that this is an important issue."

Big difference! The crux of the controversy is Dean's hubristic "only white politician" line from Tuesday night. Back in June, he didn't say anything like that. It was certainly not the "same exact thing."

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=700

[Ediacara]

46. well

you've not been on the forefront of politeness yourself Renie......

Anyway, this whole thread was started by a linkless news snippet from a person who had an agenda, which isn't very polite. Then, another person said that Edwards should punch Dean, which is not very polite either.

I know a lot of Edwardian kids think that Deanies are rude assholes, but look, when people try to issue baseless or unverifiable attacks, advocate physical violence, or just plain lie about our candidate, we tend to think that they're not very polite.

EDIT: fix pronouns

[chimpymustgo]

48. Sorry, Dino. This is a big deal, based on Dean's insulting lie.

And a link has been posted in the thread. Here's another:

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/
EDWARDS TAKES DEAN TO TASK
(09/10/03) U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said Wednesday that a false claim about race made by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was "divisive."

In a debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Tuesday night, Dean asserted that he is "the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences."

Edwards routinely talks about the civil-rights movement and the need to continue its aims, regardless of the makeup his audience. Other candidates, including U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, also regularly talk about issues of race while campaigning.

"Governor Dean's statement was devisive, and devisive is exactly what we're trying to overcome," Edwards said in an statement Wednesday. "His statement does a disservice to everyone he stood next to and all the people before us who have raised this issue over and over again in front of all audiences."

-snip-

[Ediacara]

50. thanks

for finally posting the link.

That doesn't however, get you off the hook for urging people to become physically violent with Dean though, which is NOT polite. I bring this up, since you seemed to make such a big deal out of politeness in the very same post.

Plus, in the news-link you provided, Edwards seems less than upset about Dean's comments, actually partially praising him for bringing the issue of civil rights up.

I'd also like a link to the full article. The AP doesn't normally post 6 paragraph stories as the whole thing, and this one seems especially tailored for an Edwards promotion page, which is exactly what the link you provided is.

[chimpymustgo]

51. I posted from the News and Observer and the Washington Post.

Geez.

And of course I was being hyperbolic about Edwards punching Dean in the nose.

[Ediacara]

53. well

both links are critically lacking in anything that Dean or his campaign said in response.

[mbali]

55. No response

Maybe that's because the Dean campaign HASN'T responded!

[renie408]

54. It's not a lie, though

He said it. If the posted statements are lies, I wouldn't blame anybody for wanting to get it straight. But nobody here, including the Dean supporters, are trying to say he didn't make the comments. Some of them are just trying to figure out a way to pretty them up. To me, it would be much better to say, "*ouch*...yeah, in his zeal to make a point, Dean put his foot in his mouth. As he progresses as a candidate over the next few months, he will get better and better at watching what he says. He is a passionate beleiver in his message and sometimes that passion carries him away. He is better now at watching what he says and he will get better still." See? Doesn't that sound pretty good? The other way is like a bunch of people sitting in a room with a pile of shit in the middle. They can all pretend like it is not there or that it is something else, but it still stinks and draws flies.


And since you are so hot for links, please go back and find the links to where I have been impolite and in context. I am very willing to say that I am frequently impolite, but normally not without provocation. And I will also say that I started out here trying to be very friendly and just trying to learn. I got that knocked out of me fairly early.

And LISTEN. I do not think that all Deanies are rude assholes, just like not all Edwardians (that's kind of funny) are saints. But you cannot just pretend that there aren't some Dean supporters out there who are pretty damn vicious and they taint the whole crowd. Just like there are Kerry supporters who do the same thing.

[Ediacara]

64. I didn't mean to imply this issue was a lie

But there have been plenty of outright lies flung at Dean. Sorry if there was confusion.

And ya, I agree some Deanies are mean, but it's wrong to single out Deanies, when ALL the candidates have equally mean and rude supporters on DU. The singling out of Deanies drives me up the wall when people who are, let's say controversially devisive, like N_J and genius to name two, support Kerry and Kucinich. To talk about mean Deanies (not you specifically, but most non-Dean people) and leave the mean Kerrycrats, mean Dennisites, mean Liebermaniacs, mean Edwardians etc out is silly.

[renie408]

65. Go back

to my comment.

I said that your statement about being supporters being impolite was funny, but probably not the way you had intended. I did not single out ANYBODY, even you. I was thinking about some of the Dean supporters I have seen here and that implication is clear and I do not deny it. But otherwise, you are doing a whole lot of extrapolating to come up with me saying that all Dean supporters are mean. I have not said that ANYWHERE 'cause I am too smart to make blanket comments like that. And that makes me more nervous than anything. If I am smart enough to avoid it, Howard should be.

[helleborient]

68. Are you also watching where in the country those crowds are?

The Dean crowd in Chicago was fairly racially diverse...but it was Chicago. If it was here where I live it wouldn't have been simply because of the general makeup of the population here.

[TSIAS]

6. I wouldn't call it racially divisive

But I think Dean was wrong to say that. I noticed that when I was watching the debate. I didn't like it when he said that he was the only major candidate to oppose the war, either.

[dean4america]

8. not necessarily

This was not some random utterance - Dean has always said that white politicians need to have an honest discussion with white audiences about race. That does NOT mean talking about race is germane to the examples that Edwards gave. That's EXACTLY the kind of racial placation/language that has been used to talk about race by white politicians for decades.

Dean is 100% right on this issue.

[Rooktoven]

9. Dean was wrong here.

Yes whites _do_ need to talk to whites about race, but his statement that he is the only one that does it is just flat out not true. Edwards called him on this because Edwards brings up those issues as well.

[dean4america]

10. so explain to me

why the hell Edwards didn't say something after Dean said this the other 700 times he said it this year? He said it in his speech to the Cal Dem's on March 15th, uses it in next to every stump speech, said it at the Children's Defense Fund forum (Carol Mosely Braun was nodding her head in agreement after Dean said the EXACT same thing).

I like Edwards, but this attack is baseless. Talking to white audiences about race in the sense of mentioning one fought for civil rights or what not is NOT THE SAME as when Dean says on the stump in conservative areas that affirmative action is a good thing that we need and here's why; or when he talks about disproportionate allocation of funds in schools; etc.

[diamondsoul]

12. OMG, you aren't seriously defending this statement are you?

Come off it, I don't care how many times he's said it, it's BS!

If he's the only one who does, why is it Edwards is constantly talking about haves and have-nots in the education system? Just who do you think he's talking about when he says inner city schools are in dire need of funding and repair? Who is it you think he wants to improve conditions for?

If Dean is the only one who talks about race in front of white audiences, how come Dennis has supported Affirmative Action and spoken of how the DP is applied disproportionally among the races? Kucinich speaks of the same discrimination in anti-drug laws.

I don't care if he said it once or 1,000 times, it's a lie.

[renie408]

26. Oh, Jesus H. Christ

If Dean were caught eating a baby on video, some of you people would argue with it and say that he was justified or that the videoer was just making some baseless attack.

[helleborient]

70. And some here...

Would claim it was a corporate media plot if Howard Dean won the Nobel Peace Prize...

yeah, unfortunately we have to wade through emotional attacks and passionate defenses to get to real material...nothing new in the world of politics.

[mbali]

32. He did NOT say the exact same thing

Dean has said in the past that white candidates need to talk about race to white audiences - and Edwards agrees with that. But last night he went further and claimed that he is the ONLY white politician who does this. He has never made such an outrageous claim - which is not only untrue, but amounts to an attack on the other candidates - in any previous forum. For example, at the CDF forum you reference, he said the following (after Carol Moseley Braun had already made the same point):

"Now, Democrats need to talk about race, and especially White Democrats need to talk about race, because Republicans always talk about it at election time. They just send folks to the polls and say, “If you haven’t paid your rent, you’d better not go in there,” or they make calls at 8:00 at night, three days before the election. What we need to say, particularly in the South, to White folks is, 'Your kids don’t have health insurance either, and we can help you.' There are 75,000 kids in Georgia with no health insurance, most of them are White. Those folks need to be voting Democratic, because they’ve been voting Republican all these years. The Republicans haven’t done anything for them, and they aren’t going to do anything in the future. So what I want—I agree with Ambassador Moseley Braun, the dialogue about race in this country has to start with White folks, because believe me, Black folks know all about it, and they’ve known about it for 400 years."

Dean was not criticized for that remark because there was nothing wrong with it. But last night, he stepped way out of line. When he so sanctimoniously claimed that he was doing something the other candidates weren't, he went too far.

But in criticizing him, Edwards didn't attack Dean at all. He said nothing about Dean's comment during the debate. It was only when he was asked by a reporter what he thought of it that he gave his reaction. And his statement in no way "attacked" Dean. He simply said that he was wrong - and he was - and pointed out why. And then he pointed out where he was right.

And, by the way, Edwards talks about affirmative action, school funding, judges, etc. CONSTANTLY, wherever he speaks. Maybe you're not paying attention.

[ModerateMiddle]

106. He HAS said that he talks about race to whites

but this was the FIRST time he ever said that he was the ONLY one to do so. It was wrong, and he was trying to differentiate himself from the other candidates in front of a black audience,

and he screwed up.

Not unlike in California when he said Edwards flopped on his support for the war after Edwards had just tolerated the boos for having been steadfast.

Dean isn't careful with his words.

[blm]

15. and Edwards has done so for many YEARS

not months.

[mbali]

36. Random Utterance

Random utterances are fine for politicians running for City Council or local school board. But we don't need a candidate - much less a President - who trips himself up with "random utterances."

Bush has demonstrated the danger of power in the hands of a person who doesn't know what he's talking about and blurts out comments without thinking. Dean needs to tighten up his game or go back to the minors.

[helleborient]

71. Really....

Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" was highly highly dangerous and emblematic of his minor league status?

It was a stupid comment, and most politicians say stupid things in their careers.

I certainly hope the election doesn't turn on this one comment. I don't think that's what John Edwards intended.

And you can bet the candidates will be talking more about race issues than in the past. That's a good thing!

[renie408]

72. Not the same thing

That particular comment of Clinton's is not quite the same thing as Dean's comments about his fellow nominees. Dean, whether it is earned or otherwise, has a reputation for not working and playing well with others. This kind of comment, given the scrutiny we have already discussed, only increases that perception. He needs to avoid heightening his perceived pitbullishness to appeal to a wider audience. I think he should just immediately learn to mentally strike any statement that begins with "I am the only candidate who..." before it makes it out of his mouth.

[helleborient]

74. It was a dumb comment...

And I'm sure it won't be the last one, but I don't base my vote primarily on Howard Dean's perception of the other candidates.

I would be interested in a discussion about the various candidates effectiveness in working with others in their careers. I've always been impressed with Ted Kennedy's pure skill as a legislator.

I'm not as familiar with John Edwards' specific effectiveness as a legislator. What laws has he authored and built coalitions to have passed? Apparently John Kerry was not as effective as I would have liked in negotiating with Bush over Iraq. Carol Mosley Braun really was not a very effective legislator. I'm not sure if Al Sharpton plays well with others. Dennis Kucinich is excellent at pointing out the wrongheadedness of much legislation, but what legislation does he actually get passed in working with others? One of my main problems with Gephardt is I was very frustrated with him as House leader...we lost the House and caved to the Bush administration under his leadership.

[renie408]

83. Ok

That is the kind of thread I would really like to start. I will get some stuff together and post it. Thanks for being open-minded and interested!

[mbali]

86. Because you asked . . .

According to John Edwards' Senate bio, he was a chief sponsor of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, strong and far-reaching patient protection legislation that passed the Senate in 2001. He helped craft the No Child Left Behind Act and legislation that improved airport security, made our seaports safer and reduced our vulnerability to bioterrorism. He co-sponsored campaign finance reform legislation and the opposition to new regulations that would make our air more polluted.

He's been instrumental in keeping many of Bush's anti-civil rights judges off the bench. He helped lead the fight against Miguel Estrada, among others, on the floor of the Senate, saying, "As a judge on the DC Circuit, Miguel Estrada would have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of Americans. The American people deserve to know about this man who will affect their lives. They deserve to know whether he will respect and protect their civil rights. They deserve to know this before he dons the cloak of silence and invisibility that would necessarily envelop him upon elevation to the bench. The American people deserve more from Miguel Estrada than 'none of your business.'"

The News & Observer of Raleigh described Senator Edwards as "smart, disciplined, hard-working" with "a down-home manner." The Wall Street Journal called him a senator who "impresses colleagues in behind-doors deliberations." The Washington Post said Senator Edwards has "the ability to think on his feet...master complex issues and...communicate in plain language to ordinary people."

[mbali]

84. Arrogance ain't a pretty thing

There is a considerable difference between Bill Clinton misleading the press and public about his private sex life and Howard Dean standing up at a debate forum mischaracterizing the efforts of his opponents to address the race issue in America.

The problem for Dean is growing into something less about the comment and more about character, fitness and temperament. Not only has Dean not admitted any mistake, he has further compounded the problem by claiming that he has said this in the past - which he has not and I defy his campaign to produce any citation of him doing so - and accusing the other candidates of instituting a smear against him.

Dean seems to think it's perfectly fine for him criticize the other candidates and anyone else in his sights day in and day out. Yet when HE is subjected to the slightest scrutiny, he whines and attacks and screams foul. If he can't handle a simple, "what you talkin' 'bout, Willis?" from his Democratic opponents, he'll be a real wreck if Bush and Rove ever get ahold of him.

[helleborient]

85. Here's a lie in your post...

"Dean seems to think it's perfectly fine for him criticize the other candidates and anyone else in his sights day in and day out."

He didn't say anything about any other candidates when I saw him speak in Chicago...he only referred directly to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft. I assume it was the same stump speech that night in New York City. He missed a day.

Character assassination ain't pretty either.

[mbali]

88. You're a little confused, aren't you?

I have not engaged in character assassination, nor have I lied about Dean's record. You must be learning your debating tactics from Dean.

I hate to break this to you, but the speech you heard Howard Dean give in Chicago is not the only time he has ever spoken. Dean regularly criticizes other candidates in the race - apparently you aren't paying attention.

[helleborient]

90. You said day in and day out...

You were wrong. Again misguided hyperbole...or lie...you choose.

[mbali]

93. No need to choose

Too bad you do not understand the difference between a figure of speech and hyperbole.

[helleborient]

94. Creative waffling...

If Howard Dean said John Edwards was attacking him day in and day out...is that figure of speech, hyperbole, or lie?

[helleborient]

95. In my dictionary under hyperbole it says...

Extravagant exaggeration...

Since Howard Dean does not even speak day in and day out...isn't this exaggeration a bit extravagant?

Dean's attack about other candidates not speaking to white audiences about race seems to me either hyperbole or lie...at best an extravagant exaggeration...at worst a premeditated untruth. I don't think it was a "figure of speech."

By saying your comment was figure of speech...you are indicating you knew that what you were saying was not really the truth, but you said it anyway...hyperbole or lie? It was surely premeditated.

Pot, kettle, black

[mbali]

96. Whatever

At the risk of dragging this ridiculous discussion out any further, I will concede that saying Dean criticizes his opponents "day in and day out," if taken literally, is an exaggeration, although hardly an extravagent one. I used it as a figure of speech and assumed that everyone would take it that way since, obviously, Dean does not criticize other candidates "every day without exception and all day long," as MY dictionary defines the phrase.

It's sort of like how Dean often (not day in and day out, but a whole bunch of times, nevertheless) criticizes Congress for giving the president a "blank check" to invade Iraq. Of course, one could argue that such a claim is a lie or at least an extravagent exaggeration since Congress really didn't give the president a blank bank draft. But such an allegation itself might be hyperbole since it's quite clear that he is simply using a figure of speech.

Anyway, I should have said that Dean criticizes his opponents REGULARLY or QUITE FREQUENTLY or AD NAUSEUM (oops - better not say that since I don't think he's made anyone throw up). I will be more careful next time to ensure that no one confuses a figure of speech for hyperbole or a lie.

:-)

[opstachuck]

13. i didn't realize he was white.

i thought i heard in a speech that he was a nigerian-born former slave who was frozen in the early 1800's. apparently the thawing-out process pales the skin.

i still say he's black.

[w4rma]

16. Link and comment

Edwards Critical of Dean Over Race Remark
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54160-2003Sep10?language=printer

The WP article's headline seems to imply that Dean pulled a Trent Lott: "Race Remark". Obviously this isn't the case.

IMHO, this is just Dean's competitors trying to parse his words for any small thing they can possibly criticise him on. This seems to be the best they can come up with, for now, so I'm not worried at all.

They were going to attack Dean on *something*.

[mbali]

33. Dean Double Standard?

Why is it that when Dean criticizes other Democrats, it's proof of how honest and forthright he is but when any Democrat criticizes Dean, it's a baseless attack?

You Dean people are starting to sound more and more like right wing Republicans defending Bush.

[genius]

17. I thought Dean's remarks were racist too.

They were a put-down to the intelligence of black voters. Clearly Dean's remarks were not scripted as no scriptwriter anywhere would be stupid enough to suggest remarks like those.

[w4rma]

18. too? Noone has said that his remarks were racist, because they aren't

Folks are saying that Edwards and Kerry and other candidates have been speaking to white folks about racism in addition to Dean.

[Mass_Liberal]

20. WHAT?

listen, Dean's comments were perhaps a mistake, but by no means were they racist! You can't criticize a candidate for attacking and then attack them. Jeez. Genius is coming on way too strongly on this thread. I can't thing of a single piece of evidence for saying Dean is racist. He is completely the opposite.

[renie408]

29. I don't think they were intentionally

racist. I think it is a bit of a stretch to come to that conclusion. I think he got off message and blurted out something stupid. What I don't get is why people just can't admit it and get on with it. It is trying to twist the situation around to where it doesn't stink that I find the most deplorable. Seems a little Bushie to me.

[kang]

19. Is anybody else worried about what's happening with Dean?

Looking back over past topics, there seems to already be a stack of Dean stories where he made a knee-jerk comment that he later had to clarify or correct. The difference now is that other Dems who are trying to make headway against him are pouncing on these opportunities.

I understand that people make mistakes or honestly change their minds about things, but does anybody sense that the media's focusing on a theme that Dean shoots first and clarifies or corrects later? I'm weary of them painting any of the candidates as another over-exaggerator...they already seem to have tagged Kerry with the Gore label. Put up against Pres. Bush's ability to consistently maintain his lies, if Dean's honest mistakes keep up I'm afraid that he'll be the one labeled the liar.

[sandnsea]

31. "clarifies or corrects later"

That's the problem, at least my problem.

He isn't going to be called a liar by the Republicans, he's going to be called a buffoon who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. That's the problem with Dean. Even his comment about Tennessee last night was wrong. It's got the 8th highest murder rate per capita in the country. The south always has a higher murder rate per capita, he sould have at least known that and avoided a southern state in that comment. He could probably get away with that particular comment with Republicans, but if he doesn't sharpen up, he's going to continue to make blunders like that and we can't afford it in the general election.

[mbali]

34. Dean's Free Ride

The other Dems have gone pretty easy on Dean. But can you imagine what BushRove and Co. would do to him the first time Dean blurted out one of his mindless "mistakes" in a general election campaign? They'd eat him alive.

[Ripley]

23. Yeah, that Dean's so divisive, but Old Joe...what a uniter.

Let's see...Joe's favorite song "My Way" by Frank Sinatra.

Attacks Kerry, Edwards, Dean AND Bush in one sentence for not wanting to send in more troops right now.

I could go on. But I guess that doesn't matter. It is only Dean who can do wrong according to the Democratic Underground "wisdom".

[helleborient]

24. This is what Howard Dean had to say in Chicago...

I was at the "Sleepless Summer" event in Chicago...

At the event, Howard Dean called Bush on the carpet for injecting the race card into the Supreme Court deliberations on the University of Michigan affirmative action policies. He rightfully said that Bush used the word "quota" multiple times in it's brief to the court. He pointed out the University of Michigan system has never used quotas...and it was an example of Bush playing the race card. He said that alone is enough to throw him out of office.

He then said that it is when black, brown and white people vote together that we make progress on Civil Rights.

Are there examples of other candidates talking at this length to a primarily white audience about what racial politics mean in America?

It strikes me this is not the same as Lieberman touting his marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. or John Kerry or John Edwards talking about their past personal experience. Is it?

I'd be happy to see quotes or personal experience hearing them talk about a real issue such as this to a primarily white audience.

[renie408]

25. So

Since Dean said some good stuff about race once before, it is ok for him to make obnoxiously divisive and inaccurate comments whenever he wants to?

[chimpymustgo]

27. Dean's "claim" was an obnoxious lie - and he knows it.

He CANNOT be the nominee.

[mbali]

35. You asked

You mean like this?

"I believe that as Southerners, all of us in this room have a special responsibility to lead on civil rights, not only because we know America's tragic and terrible history when it comes to race, but also because we have led the way in breaking free from that history. And every politician from the South – whether you're a mayor, a governor, a senator, or president – has a moral obligation to make the mission of civil rights our own.

"Unfortunately, there are still some political leaders who take the low road, trying to divide people for their own political ends; some who take the slow road, saying the right thing, but dragging their feet when it comes to progress; and some who take no road, failing the responsibilities of leadership and the calling of our values in their silence.

"Leadership is more than photo ops with black children. It means supporting the education and safe streets those children need to have the equal shot in life they deserve as Americans.

"Leadership is more than talking about diversity, while attacking the vehicles to college diversity in court. I am very disappointed that the president has decided to join the fight against affirmative action at the University of Michigan. We should support efforts that increase diversity – and put an end to systems, like legacy admissions, that give a special preference to the most advantaged at the expense of diversity.

"Leadership is more than nice words. Leadership is courage, and commitment, and action. It means doing everything we can to make equality a reality — not only in our laws, but in our lives, in lives where the vestiges of discrimination remain a scar on our nation — from a health system where African-Americans get inferior care, to a school system where separate and unequal is the reality in far too many places."
John Edwards, January 20, 2003

One of our greatest challenges is ensuring that every child has a good education. Now, education has made all the difference in my life. I was the first member of my family to go to college. But here in America, we know that we have two kinds of public schools: one for the “haves” and one for the 'have nots.'

How do we close this education gap? We support and fund our public schools. How do we lift Americans out of poverty? By lifting the tax burdens on working Americans and providing real economic opportunities so they can provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families.

How do we stop racial injustice and the drive to rebuild the barriers of the past? By speaking truth to power and putting our muscle and might in front of efforts to end affirmative action and making sure that people like John Ashcroft don’t take away our civil rights. And we must do this with an understanding that, for many Americans, the attack on civil rights is a reaction based on fear and insecurity, not reason or reality.

We cannot continue to allow this fear to be manipulated for political reasons. We must reach out to people and help them understand that civil rights is not an 'us' against 'them' proposition.

That’s why I am fighting to make sure that the judges and laws that are proposed strengthen our rights and liberties, not weaken them.

America does well when we all do well--when we remember to treat each other with simple kindness and respect. That’s what you do every day and that’s why I am reaching out to you now—for your wisdom and ideas. I believe that wherever you live, whoever your family is, and whatever the color of your skin is, if you are willing to work hard, if you are willing to take responsibility, you ought to be able to go as far as your God-given talents and hard work will take you.

That’s the America we believe in. That’s the America we can create by using the good will that resides in all of us to do God’s work here on this earth. Not just on Sundays but every day of our lives. That’s what I’ll do as your President.

John Edwards, September 7, 2003

[sandnsea]

37. Thanks so much

I've heard him talk so many times and what strikes me now is that I totally missed it. It is such a natural part of what he has to say, that it just doesn't stick out until you're looking for it. It isn't like he talks along and then... 'now we're going to talk about race'. He did it in New Mexico too, he just included racial problems as a fact of life and natural part of any solutions. I'm not putting it into words very well here, but I'm impressed. This is Clintonesque, in a good way!

[mbali]

38. You're Welcome

I think you're right. My observations of Edwards lead me to believe that this is so natural to him, so much of what he is, that he just doesn't make a big deal about it.

Last year, GQ magazine did a feature story on Edwards. The piece ended with an interesting observation. The reporter asked Edwards about his personal experiences with the race issue. He was surprised that Edwards didn't have much to say about it and wondered if he was shallow in this area. Then the reporter talked to old friends of Edwards, including numerous African Americans. One of them told the reporter about an incident when they were in high school - they were walking somewhere together when they passed some black students staging a sit-in. Edwards stopped to see what the problem was, chatted with the protesters for a few moments, and then joined the sit-in.

The reporter wrote that he couldn't understand why Edwards never mentioned this incident - after all, most politicians would jump at the chance to brag about having participated in a civil rights sit-in. But, having spent time getting to know him and his friends, he figured it out. Edwards, he said, probably didn't think it was a big deal. For him, it was likely just another example of him doing what he had done all of his life - "another example of Johnny Edwards sitting down with the little guy."

I think that says it all.

[renie408]

41. I will be interested to see

who replies to this. Another thing I have noticed is that people oftentimes call for evidence and then when it is produced, they ignore it.

[chimpymustgo]

43. Edwards has walked the walked. What a great guy he is.

And he doesn't pander on the issue.

[helleborient]

57. In this case you were wrong...

I did reply and appreciate the additional information...one of the things I highly value on DU.

[renie408]

59. And thank you

for being so good about it. I apologize for any slight.

[helleborient]

60. Apology accepted...

For me it's posts that include actual information and data related to the candidates outside of the bluster and personal opinions that are really helpful. The response to my question makes me look a little closer at Edwards today...as it is impossible, I think, to spend enough time to know what all of the candidates are saying everyday, so I am dependent somewhat on enthusiasm of supporters who are proud of what their candidate says or supports.

I was able to actually attend a Dean appearance in Chicago and saw him in person and was personally moved...that does have a lot of impact, but I'm open to messages from other candidates and could switch somewhere down the road.

Aside from my frustrations of internal carping among activists, I'm quite proud of the candidates as a whole - we have a great group to choose from!

[renie408]

61. That is EXACTLY

how I became an Edwards supporter. I live in NC and about five or six months ago, he came and spoke near here. I went to see him and it was so...I dunno. Amazing? That sounds so trite, but it is true. I stood in that crowd and thought, "This guy is talking to ME." Then I started looking into him more, more than I had when I voted for him for Senator. His stands on issues and the way he represents them just speaks to me. I don't ignore or totally agree with his vote on Iraq, but I understand it. I have said a couple of times that I am not really looking for a candidate to be perfect. I think that is where the GOP is in trouble. They want Bush to be infallible. Boy, did they pick the wrong guy. I want somebody that I can understand who is going, generally, in the direction I want to go, the way I want to get there.

I would easily forgive Dean his missteps if people would honestly call them missteps. It makes me nervous for some people to appear to represent these things as if they are not mistakes. I am a little leery of demagoguery. I figure that is what we have with Bush. I am not saying that is what you are doing, really. I just see it done here and other places for all the candidates at one time or another.

[helleborient]

62. Yep..it would be a great world

If politicians felt like they could own up to mistakes in public. I'm not sure any of the candidates are good at that, but I understand it. They are crucified by press and opponents when they say they made a mistake.

I missed a local appearance by Edwards, and have been kicking myself ever since. It is stretching to say it would have convinced me to support him, but I would still like to have seen him in person.

Standing in Chicago and hearing Dean support taking back the flag as a symbol for all of the country, recognizing the successes of the Clinton administration, calling the Bush administration on race baiting, and saying that the Bush administration did indeed lie about Iraq...these are things I need to hear to inspire me. And I appreciate Howard Dean not just sticking to campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, but reaching out to the entire country early.

In 1992 and 1996 I worked for the Clinton campaign, and in 2000 I voted for Gore and gave support in personal conversations but did not work for him...primarily because I didn't think his campaign was doing the work to truly inspire the country...until the last week or so. This year I do feel inspired again by most all of the candidates (Yeah, like most of us, I find Lieberman a little scary)...and look forward to the rest of the primary campaign and the general election campaign. I've already met wonderful people locally through the Dean Meetups that I didn't know before...and look forward to meeting supporters of other candidates when the work heats up. I do think that political work can feed the political soul.

[helleborient]

56. Yes...that's exactly what I mean..thank you

I talked about what Howard Dean has actually said on the campaign trail hoping to see posts from others about what the other candidates have actually said...instead of vague discussions.

Those statements are outstanding...thanks for sharing it!

[mbali]

39. More from Edwards

"We need leadership with the courage of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who fought for civil rights and voting rights even when they knew it would cost them dearly. We need leadership with the resolve of Bill Clinton, who made the hard decisions in 1993 to tackle a deficit problem that no one thought could be solved and put this country back on the road to prosperity.

...

"There’s one other thing I want to say about creating opportunity for all our people. I am proud that the South is the birthplace of the civil rights movement. A couple of years ago, I attended a ceremony honoring four young African American men who, over forty years ago, walked into a Woolworth luncheon counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, fifty miles from where I grew up.

"They walked in with courage and dignity, sat down, and asked to be served. When they sat down, they stood up. They stood up for all African Americans, for all Southerners and for all Americans, and they helped change our country. I was a 10-year-old boy when Martin Luther King gave his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It was a call to conscience that changed our history, and I’ll never forget it. He said that he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I am no longer a boy. I’m 49 years old, and the time has come.

"We need leadership with the courage to stand up against discrimination at the voting booth, to stand up against the appointment of judges who will take away fundamental rights, to stand up for all of those who still suffer the consequences of discrimination.

"We must stand unequivocally and proudly for a woman’s right to choose. We must stand up for a woman’s right to earn the same dollar as a man for the same work, not 73 cents and dropping like today. And we must stand against hate crimes of any kind – whether they are based on race or sexual orientation.

John Edwards - New Hampshire Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
Manchester, New Hampshire
October 18, 2002

[valniel]

97. An earlier Dean on quotas and affirmative action

Gov. HOWARD DEAN: You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based not on race but on class, and opportunity to participate.
JEAN MESERVE: You sound like Newt Gingrich.

CNN, "Late Edition," 4/9/95

[mbali]

98. Dean and Affirmative Action

Here's the full text of that exchange:

JEAN MESERVE: Governor Dean, are you at all alarmed at this talk of eliminating affirmative action programs?

Gov. HOWARD DEAN: You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based not on race but on class, and opportunity to participate.

JEAN MESERVE: You sound like Newt Gingrich.

Gov. HOWARD DEAN: Well I don't know what Newt Gingrich-

Gov. GEORGE ALLEN: No, Newt Gingrich hates class warfare. Newt Gingrich would not ever want to .

JEAN MESERVE: But he's talked about a means test for affirmative action.

Gov. HOWARD DEAN: Well I think people from working class families who have not had the opportunity- the educational opportunity, regardless of whether they're white or black, ought to be given some kind of opportunity, and that may mean doing something for those groups of people, but I don't think it ought to be done by race.

[valniel]

100. Thanks & Sorry.

I just hated his comment at the debate, and jumped the gun!

[mbali]

104. No need

to apologize. The portion you posted was quite consistent with the entire exchange. I just thought it would be helpful for folks to see the whole thing.

I'm curious about what Dean's view is now about affirmative action, whether it is consistent with his previous statements (which I am very concerned about) and, if not, hear his explanation of how his view has evolved.

[AP]

101. If I could comment on this...

...studies have shown that class based preferences and wealth based preferences don't serve as adequate proxies for race. Racism, apparently, is so pernicious, that it extends beyond wealth and class.

Is that hard to believe?

This past summer a professor at the University of Chicago published a study which concluded that when two identical resumes are submitted for a job, one under a name like "Jennifer Lawrence" and the other with a name like "Daryl Johnson", the one with the name that doesn't sound like a black person's name was something like 50% more likely to get a call for an interview.

So, how are you going to break down this manifestation of racism which is obviously present even in 2003, if not by methods targeted specifically at race? Daryl Johnson's problem isn't class (who knows what it is -- it appears, from the resume to be the same as Jennifer Lawerence's). It's the color of his skin. (For those of you who say his parents gave him the wrong name, do you think that really matters? If his name were Kent Rockwell, and he showed up for interview, the same factors which were in play in the Chicago study would be in play in the interview).

Having said that, I'm glad to Dean is using words like 'class' and 'opportunity to participate', but I'd like to see it in his discussion of taxes and the budget rather than in an argument against race-based affirmative action.

[valniel]

127. I agree, there is definitely still a need for affirmative action

[burr]

107. Dean and Edwards are driving many of these primary votes to Sharpton!

Ripping each other as bigots will not win votes from anyone, but it will lose the votes of minorities. These voters are tired of the repeated lines from "EUROPEAN"-Americans about the pain of "AFRICAN"-Americans, hearing Edwards talk about racial tolerance, and hearing Dean saying he talks about race to whites. Minorities are going to be included not excluded in this discussion of these issues, one way or another! It is time to stop treating "them" as a minor interest group, or another third party. To all Democrats "they" must no longer be minorities..but part of the life blood of our party, our nation, and our agenda!

[mbali]

108. What?

Edwards has NOT accused Dean of being a bigot. Please do not mischaracterize his comment.

As for treating "them" as a minor interest group, check out something that Edwards frequently tells audiences - black and white. This excerpt is from a speech he gave in January:

"More than anything, leadership means recognizing that civil rights is not a zero sum game where 'we' give something to 'them' — whether it’s women or minorities or immigrants. The civil rights movement was not about some 'them.' It was about 'us.' All of us. It was about transforming America into a nation so much closer to living out the true meaning of our creed."

[surfermaw]

109. Wait for the Cream to rise

Don't be too hard on any of the candidates, let the cream rise and then support..heck I see something in each of 8 of them I like...My intrest is in Edwards who is from my state,but I like Dr.Dean style, and think if Gore would have used it he would have won by an amount that would have suprised people. I like Kerry style of acting presidential...And the soft heart of K...Al Sharpton articulation and Carol M.B. ability to speak with simple words and explain her stance on issure and then how to finish up on them.

[burr]

110. If that is the case why was Edwards defensive about Dean's statement?

You would think that he would find such an "untruthful" remark unworthy of response, which was the case.

[AP]

111. Setting the record straight is being defensive?

I've seen a new spin from the Dean people in the last day.

Everyone knows dean has a reputation for being angry and for attacking Bush and the Democratic Party.

Now, when people respond to Dean, they're being angry and attacking Dean? What's up with that? Is that supposed to make Dean's attacks and anger seemed justified or appropriate?

And the notion that Edwards's setting the record straight was done in anger or was an attack is laughable.

[mbali]

112. So only Edwards is supposed to be quiet, eh?

Edwards let the remark go during the debate - he could have nailed Dean but chose not to. It was only the next day, when a reporter asked his reaction, that he said what he did - and if you actually read what he said, it was very gentle and quite reasonable.

It's strange that Dean supporters think that it's a virtue for their guy to shoot from the hip, go after other candidates, and to "tell it like it is" even when he's flat out wrong. Yet, at the same time, they expect everyone else to just keep their mouths shut and not utter a peep, no matter what Dean says, even when Dean has mischaracterized their actions in a nationally televised debate.

Not only is that a double standard, it is eerily similar to the attitude of Bush and his supporters.

[burr]

113. Let me set you straight...

I am not a Dean supporter, I am not yet supporting anyone. Secondly Edwards can run his mouth all he wants. Dean's statement was made to pander, a claim that he was the only white running tellin' whites about black problems. Edwards goes crazy and takes this as an attack on him, southern Democrats, and the other candidates.

Both men were being stupid. Dean's statement was stupid, and many black voters will see right through it not as an attempt to reach out. And Edwards is claiming that he has been doing the same thing Dean claims to be doing, and will ultimately will be seen as caring more about what impact the statement has on his campaign than who it offends.

[renie408]

119. I am not quite

as politically savvy or nearly as intelligent as you are. You are going to have to explain that 'both men were being stupid' comment. I can pretty clearly see where Howard was stupid. Everybody can see that, whether they admit it or not. What I can't see is where defending yourself and your fellow candidates from a lying attack is stupid.

And let me ask you this, how smart is it to alienate you own damn party?? Doesn't Howard understand that he might just need some HELP from all those other white boys who were standing on that stage with him down the road?? Who is going to be able to back him with enthusiasm if he wins the nomination??

[AP]

129. Furthermore, if Dean doesn't win the nomination, how is he helping

the party by leaving the impression in black voter's minds that the nominee doesn't take their concerns seriously.

It was a stupid thing to do, only rivaled by Burr's stupid interpretation of what happened.

[burr]

134. He isn't...

but neither is Edwards! :smoke:

[blm]

114. Why is Dean so OFFENSIVE?

He misrepresents the others and has done so since last January.

He deserves MUCH harsher rebukes than he is getting now.

[burr]

116. Maybe Edwards thinks only he can tell southern whites about black folk!

Is that why he is "offended"?

[mbali]

117. You can't be serious

Let me get this straight. Dean says that he is the "only white politician" talking about race to white people. Edwards, asked for his reaction to the statement, says that it is inaccurate and points out that he and numerous other politicians are talking about race to various audiences. And from that you draw the conclusion that Edwards went "crazy and takes as an attack on him, southern democrats and other candidates" and that he believes that "only he can tell southern whites about black folks."

Wow.

[renie408]

121. Scary, ain't it.

[mbali]

122. Indeed

[burr]

128. yeah Edwards can be pretty scary...

but not as scary as his supporters. :freak:

[renie408]

120. Again

You are going to have to explain that comment. It is either A) too obscure or B) too inane for me to understand where you are going with it.



(I vote 'B', BTW)

[AP]

130. burr, we know you hate Edwards, but you must have more plausible

criticisms than this?

If you don't, then what's your real motivation here?

[burr]

133. Of course...

And I explained this at the very beginning of my argument. Both of these men are trying to win the votes of black primary voters. Dean says he is the only white candidate talking to whites about problems on black voters minds. Edwards says this isn't true, he does the same thing!

I say they are both wrong. Black primary voters do have some different concerns than whites, but are sick of being treated as a seperate voting block. They wish to be part of something greater, a new spirit in America that will tranform the way everyone talks, thinks, and reacts on the issue of race. A united movement that will end the fear and hate which has been burning throughout this country since 9/11.

Only then can other issues which concern all Americans like national security, democracy, and healthcare reform be addressed in a truly inclusive way. We cannot drift to the left in the primaries to win black votes, but then let these people down by drifting away in the general election!

[mbali]

135. I don't think

that black voters expect or even need white politicians to talk to white audiences about problems on black voters minds. They don't need to have their views "translated" to whites by white leaders. I don't know about Dean, but I know that John Edwards does not do that, nor has he tried, since he does not pretend to be some special emissary between whites and blacks.

The point of white politicians talking to white audiences about race is to help them understand the larger issue of race in America, which goes beyond just what black folks are thinking. What you are suggesting implies that civil rights is all about black people's problems and what black people need and what white people should do about it. Discussions about race should go far beyond that.

The white leaders who are best at discussing these issues do much more than simply tell white audiences what black people are thinking. Bill Clinton and Bill Bradley are two of the most effective leaders in this regard. Bobby Kennedy was a genius at it.

[burr]

137. Be glad, this is my last response to you...

I am tired of discussing this subject with those who will not offer their views in a objective or thoughtful manner, but when I become frustrated..you distort the very meaning of what I post. And I consider myself to be very tolerant of all points of view. It is only the boring ones or the idiots that I cannot tolerate!

"The point of white politicians talking to white audiences about race is to help them understand the larger issue of race in America, which goes beyond just what black folks are thinking. What you are suggesting implies that civil rights is all about black people's problems and what black people need and what white people should do about it. Discussions about race should go far beyond that."

First I can articulate my own opinions without your assistance. You do not need to do this for me, and I will cease to worry myself with your foolishness! Second, I never implied civil rights was about what blacks need and what whites should do about it. If you had taken the time to read my posts you would of seen that my point was that civil rights, now more than ever needs to be a united effort, directed at ending the fear and hatred which has been burning in this country since 9/11. I expressed the view that minorities are tired of being treated as a separate subgroup, but wish to be treated as part of the majority within the national electorate.

Finally I am glad you got my main point, that black voters do not expect white politicians like Dean and Edwards to talk or "translate" to white audiences about their problems. We are all in this together, and we all have a stake in this battle of protecting our civil liberities.

[renie408]

142. Yes, with such an example as yourself

I cannot understand how we could have slipped from the thoughtful and objective.

You scared of getting struck by lightning much??

[burr]

143. What comes around goes around...

at least I don't speak for other DUers or rewrite what they post..I believe this is wrong and that it crosses a (personal line). Quoting someone directly is a different matter, and is a respectable way to dispute flaws in another's arguments.

I believe in posting my feelings and opinions. The last post was not in response to anything you posted. I have always enjoyed our debates, and respect your opinions.

[renie408]

146. I am skipping around

and reading things I have missed over being away so much the last week. I just finished reading your comment about Edwards going 'crazy' and came straight to this post where you talk about people not being objective.

In other threads, I have also respected your opinions and enjoyed discussing things with you. But here you seem to be so off base to me. It is almost like you didn't even read what Edwards said or the context in which he said it. It has led me to believe that you are perhaps not so objective yourself on this subject. Plus, you gotta admit, you were cranking up the volume pretty heavily yourself.

[burr]

147. no kidding...

I was showing what fun it is to fight fire with fire.

I feel this entire thread is a joke. Want to read it again, this entire thread is a joke. Dean and Edwards both have strong civil rights records. Dean bravely broke new ground on civil-unions...a moral issue which no southern politician touched at that time, except to attack it!

Edwards also has a strong record on civil rights first as a trial lawyer, then as a Senator. And he speaks passionately about it. His flaw..voting for measures like the Patriot Act, which sets us back 60 years in this area!

[EeJay]

150. I can't help wondering . . .

I'm not questioning Dean's sincerity on the issue, but I wonder if he would have been as adamant about opposing the Patriot Act if he had actually been in a position to have to make that decision just a few weeks after 9/11. He may very well be quite sincere, but it's much easier to speak out against something when you are not in any way accountable for it.

I did a Lexis search to see what the candidates were saying about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed. Although he was quoted several times during that period about terrorism and other issues, Gov. Dean apparently said nothing about the Patriot Act until he became a candidate for president.

It was interesting that, the other night when the candidates were asked whether they thought the Patriot Act should be revised, Dean ducked the question, saying that he was not in the Congress and thus does not have to vote on such a thing. I found that very strange coming from someone who has been so quick to criticize the members of congress for their votes on the Patriot Act, the war, etc.

I certainly understand why people disagree with the senators and members of Congress who voted for the Patriot Act, but they had a difficult choice to make during a very difficult time. They had to not only consider their consciences, but also try to represent their constituents, the vast majority of whom wanted the bill passed at the time. Again, I'm not justifying their actions, but it's important to put them into perspective.

I just wonder if Howard Dean would have been as adamant about his opposition to the Patriot Act at the time if he were in the Senate or Congress at the time it was passed.

I believe that Kucinich is in a much better position to criticize his colleagues since he was in the same boat and went against the tide.

My two cents.

[burr]

152. Easy...

Look at how Vermont's congressional delegation voted on the legislation.

[EeJay]

155. What does that say?

Are you saying that Dean would have voted the way the Vermont delegation did? Did he ever say that?

[burr]

158. I'm saying that he would have voted to represent views of Vermont.

Dean has said he would have voted against the patriot act.

[EeJay]

159. Interesting

It's easy for him to say now that he would have voted against the Act, but he may have been in a much more difficult position had he actually had to make the choice at the time. And given that the Vermont congressional delegation was split but leaned yes (two voted for it, one against), it wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to vote yes, if his purpose was to represent the views of Vermont.

My point is a simple one. It's no big deal to claim after the fact that one would have taken an action that now seems to comport with current popular will and to criticize others for doing otherwise. But I'm not convinced, given the mood of the times and the views of the constituents, that Dean would have definitely voted no on the Patriot Act in October 2001. While I admire his willingness to speak up against it, I'm not too terribly impressed since I don't think it says much.

[burr]

161. It's even more impressive that he stood up against it then...

he has made this an issue ever since he was the first candidate to enter this race in 2002. :thumbsup:

[renie408]

164. But according to you

He was standing up against Senators voting the way their constituents wanted them to. Edwards keeps getting creamed for voting for the Patriot Act, yet he is from NC. So am I and I can tell you that every Billy Bob in this state was all about anything that had the word "Patriot" in the title two years ago. So Edwards was doing his job and Dean has nothing to say any more. Right?

[EeJay]

167. So which is it?

You said he would have represented his constituents. Now you've changed your position.

The bottom line is that we don't know what he would have done had he been forced to take a stand at the time. And, although he had a lot to say about terrorism at the time the Patriot Act was enacted, he said nothing about his views of the Act until late last year. By then, it was clear that the public was turning against it. His view was hardly controversial. Unlike his opponents who were serving in the House and Senate on 9/11, Dean didn't have to make a difficult choice during a difficult time. That's why I'm not too terribly impressed by his criticism of his opponents who voted for the Act. Kucinich has earned the right to point fingers; I'm not sure that Dean has.

[burr]

170. Politicians all point fingers...

so enough of the BS. If you don't mind, I need some fresh air. :hurts:

[renie408]

171. Again, no answer

Hey, you might try running for office yourself.

[renie408]

163. Give it up

I have been saying that for a month. They don't want to hear about it. With hindsight and crystal balls, they know how their guy would have voted if he had been asked to and they know what was the right thing to do.

[renie408]

162. Oops

So you are saying that the people that voted for the Patriot Act were responding to the feelings of their constituents and are therefore not personally liable for their vote? Doesn't that negate a good bit of Dean's campaign?

Gee, thanks. That really lets my guy off the hook with a lot of people.

[burr]

165. Here we go again!!!

I can express my own opinions and you can post your's, I do not need others doing this for me!

[renie408]

168. Is that an answer?

Or an evasion?

I vote evasion.

You are saying that Dean would have voted the way Vermonters would have wanted him to, right? Then if you follow that on out, it stands to reason that Edwards and Kerry could have been voting the way their constituents would have wanted them to, also. If that is the case, what is the big deal about them voting for the Patriot Act and Dean saying that he would not have?

If this is not the case, just clear it up.

For all us uneducated voters.

[renie408]

160. Thank you.

[renie408]

118. Try looking at this

from some perspective other than that Dean is incapable of making a mistake or that everybody is out to get Dean for absolutely no apparent reason (because he is such a nice guy who has never had a bad thing to say about his fellow Democrats and all).

Let's say you were actually capable of being unbiased...a stretch, I know, but let's pretend for now that you could be. Now, from that totally mythic perspective, let's look at the situation again: Dean said, "I am the only white candidate talking about race issues in front of white audiences." while standing next to several white guys who REGULARLY discuss just that with all of their audiences. Granted, we have learned that Dean's audiences are whiter than most, but still...So, again pretending that you can see this from somewhere other than the view when you are wedged up Dean's ass, do you really BLAME anyone for saying something about his statements? And did you actually READ what Edwards said? He did not offer the comments unsolicited, he was ASKED about Dean's statement by a reporter. He did not castigate DEAN, he very maturely and correctly said that he found the comments divisive and untrue and defended OTHER candidates, not just himself.

No matter how much Febreeze Dean's campaign team sprays on this sucker, it still stinks. I think that instead of trying to cover up the odor, they would be better off just acknowledging that it is there and get the hell on with things. This one comment should not be the big deal it is turning into. But I am telling you, if they cannot handle THIS any better than they have, they don't deserve to be on the campaign trail for the White House.

[Nazgul35]

115. All this time spent...

and how many Democrats could we have registered to vote? Seriously, there seems to be a considerable amount of time devoted to arguing over the most silly, idiotic points about the candidates while ignoring the fact that 2/3rds of Democrats don't even know who these people are....

Put down the keyboard....go outside and flyer for your candidate. Canvass your neighborhoods, get dems registered to vote....try and win over people based on the positive issues that your candidate brings to the leadership of the party....than maybe we won't have to be soooo norotic and anal over the little things, cause we'll be winning over voters on the important issues and vision of that best way to lead our country forward!!!!

:evilgrin:

just a thought....

and no need to protest that you are doing these things...that's a sure sign you are not....

:evilgrin:

[renie408]

123. Gee, ya think it is silly and 'time wasted'??

Then you might suggest to the Dean campaign that they discourage their candidate from attacking other candidates in a libelous (or would that have been 'slanderous'?? I can't ever keep those straight) manner.

Of COURSE you think this is a silly waste of time. Of COURSE you don't think it is a big deal that Dean castigated many of the other candidates with a lie that was designed to make him look good. But if that isn't a big deal, what IS?? And if you weren't supporting him and you were supporting another candidate, what would your reaction have been??

And the whole reason that this has become a big deal is because the Dean people handled it poorly. He should have apologized ASAP. Instead he is trying to blow smoke up everybody's butts about it. THAT is even more of a big deal than stupidly shooting his mouth off. And THAT is what is going to screw him.

[Nazgul35]

124. I can tell you exactly....

John Kerry made a remark about a month or two ago that got alot of people here pissed off....myself being one of them....but I understood that it wasn't as important as what Kerry's positions would be on a particular policy...or for that matter, whether or not some of his supporters are over the top, as has been a reason used by some for theit prefernces here...

As far as all the rest...I understand your frustration level is high, but this is really grasping at straws...as I said in the other duplicate post that thankfully disappeared in GD....the environment in which everyone was debating was one where I would forgive such statements, especially when all were concerned that a Larouche idiot might have jumped up at any moment and interrupted what was being said...

And I do believe that what some have said here is true...that is something different to parroting the old standby lines used by the party when ever there is an election, and than ignoring african americans after the votes are counted, and having a frank and open discussion about the issues or race relations in America...

And to be quite frank, if this is all a candidate has, and they think this will launch them ahead of Dean as a result...instead of showing off his vision for America, well, enough said...

So, just like I think it was a silly waste of time over the Kerry statement, so to is this....I suggest you look for statements that people make that support your allegations against their motives....otherwise someone might accuse you of slander...or libel...huh?

[renie408]

125. Accuse away...

I would have had to LIE somewhere for it to stick.

If not for self-aggrandisement, what COULD that statement have been for? Give me an alternative reason he said, "I am the only white candidate talking about race in front of white audiences."

Oh, and don't worry about what Edwards has to offer. I expect you will keep hearing more and more about it.

[renie408]

126. BTW

To be completely clear, I have repeatedly said that I understand his making the comment. What I don't understand is his inability to acknowledge that it was a mistake. If Kerry told a bald-faced inflammatorty lie about six of the other candidates in an effort to make himself look better and then refused later to apologize or acknowledge his mistake, then I don't think he deserves to be on the trail to the White House either.

[AP]

132. This isssue is vitaly important, especially if Dean doesn't get the nom.

He's basically telling black voters to stay home because the nominee isn't committed to solving your problems because he's not talking about them to the people you need to talk to to fix the problems.

Any candidate who DIDN'T respond to this WOULD BE STUPID, and you could rightfully accuse that candidate of not being interested in the interests of black voters.

[DrFunkenstein]

131. Dean Wants The Confederate Flag Vote, Too

"I do not want to win without the South. I want to go to the South and I’m going to say to white guys that drive pick up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back of their cars: We want your vote to, because your kids don’t have health insurance either."

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_dean2004_archive.html

<>

Here is a piece of merchandise you might want to look into:

http://store1.yimg.com/I/1confederate_1752_11259665

But probably not.

[DJcairo]

138. Damn Funk that was funny

You're getting more like me everyday.

-Eric

[Vikingking66]

136. It wasn't divisive, it was boastful

There is a difference.

If he had said that all the other white candidates were members of the KKK, that would be divisive.

As it was, he made a mistake that many politicians make: claiming too much credit. It sounds better to say "I am the only" or "I am the first"
than just to say "I am." Personally, I think this was avoidable; the first version of the line was "I think it's important for white politicians to talk about race to white audiences."

Note - race, not civil rights. There is a difference.

[DemBones DemBones]

139. No, it was divisive AND boastful. It's fine to say you're the

only one doing something IF you really are the only one.

But Dean is not "the only white candidate who talks about race to white audiences" anymore than he is "the only anti-war candidate" or "the only candidate criticizing Bush."

He (Dean) needs to be more careful what he says and learn to apologize when he says something wrong. He's gotten in trouble because he said he "never" advocated raising the Social Security retirement age, because he said the U.S. shouldn't take sides in the Middle East, because he referred to Hamas fighters as "soldiers" and because of this "only white candidate" faux pas.

We bitch like hell about Bush* making stupid comments so we can hardly excuse people in our party doing it, especially those who want to be our presidential nominee.

[mbali]

140. Just today

in Iowa, several of the candidates spoke at the Harkin event. John Edwards said, among other things, that civil rights is an important part of the agenda and that "it's not an African-American issue, it's not a Hispanic American issue, it's an AMERICAN issue."

Howard Dean, who spoke right after Sen. Edwards, on the other hand said nothing about the issue.

Hmm.

[burr]

141. Both candidates did well at Harkin's steak fry...

both made inspiring speeches that addressed civil rights, and neither said anything which I disagreed with on this topic. I think this thread has become more of a petty fight between the backers of these candidates than a significant dispute between the two. :shrug:

[EeJay]

144. I must have missed it

What did Dean say about civil rights? I heard him talking about values and bringing the American community together, but it was was very generic. I'm not criticizing him - I thought it was a very good speech.

[burr]

145. To me that is civil rights...

Looking at America as a single community not many different voting blocks or racial groups. Insuring that every voter has the same force and are not excluded when electing those leaders on our comman values. He also addressed Dr. King and those who had died in the civil rights movement, and King's last effort for a movement to create a united American community and for economic renewal in depressed areas.

Dean's themes followed this closely, and this was no accident.

[EeJay]

148. Wow

You got a alot out of his remarks. That's not quite what he said.

I'm not criticizing him, mind you. I just thought it was interesting that, just a couple of days after he said that he was the only politician talking about race to white audiences, he followed John Edwards, who talked specifically and very eloquently about race and he really didn't talk about it at all. All he said was that the year he turned 21 Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy died and now he wants America to become a community again. I would have thought that, after all of the controversy surrounding his claim and the fact that he refused to back off of it, that he would have said more than that. If this is the way he's been talking about race to white audiences, I'm not really all that impressed.

[burr]

149. first I think Edwards and Dean are learning from their campaign errors.

Second, you have to learn more about Doctor King and the last big movement he was working on to really understand the connection Dean was trying to make.

He was not trying to smash this into the tiny brains of some idiot Republicans, he was addressing an intelligent group of Iowa Democrats!

[EeJay]

151. Maybe he should make himself clearer

If Dean is making a formal speech, it might make sense to be cryptic and complex in his comments and expect that the audience already knows enough about him to make the connection. But this is a stump speech which requires a different tact. Many people who are watching this speech don't know his history or very much about hin - they're just trying to see what he's about. He's not just talking to the Iowa Democrats at the picnic - he's talking to everyone watching. He should assume that most people are watching him for the first time.

[burr]

153. nothing cryptic to an educated voter.

besides the important thing is to get this important message out, not making a college lecture on the history and differing details of the civil rights movement.

[EeJay]

154. Excuse me?

Who said anything about a college lecture?

Frankly, the argument you're making only helps to bolster the impression of elitism and disconnectedness that Dean is trying to refute. Suggesting that an audience is too educated to need a "lecture" on race makes it seem as if educated people don't need to hear anything about race and racism in America. Educated people are sometimes the most ignorant and most in need of plain talk about the issue.

Maybe Dean should have said, "I'm the only white politician talking to uneducated, unsophisticated white audiences about race."

[burr]

156. suite yourself...

Dean and Edwards made their points on civil rights clearly and articulately, I think you're beating a dead horse.

[chimpymustgo]

157. Welcome to DU EeJay!

Fasten your seatbelt.

[renie408]

169. Oh hell no

Edwards is from NC, remember?? He could nail Dean on that one, too.

[EeJay]

172. Too elite?

Dean really needs to be careful about not coming across as too elite. He keeps saying things that indicate that he's really quite out of touch. For example, during the CBC debate, when Farai Chideya asked what his favorite song was, Dean said, "One you've never heard of, Wyclef Jean's Jaspora."

I was somewhat taken aback at his answer, finding it very odd that he felt the need to advise an African American pop culture expert that she had never heard of a song by Wyclef Jean (but, of course he had). I suspect that perhaps HE had never heard of the song until shortly before the debate and he just assumed that if he didn't know it, nobody did.

The same attitude was evident in his comment about being the only white politician talking about race. I don't believe he was lying. I think he really believed that he is the only one doing it, primarily because he has no idea what other people are doing and thinks he's on the cutting edge.

Maybe he should stop believing his hype and work on getting a little more familiar with a broader range of people than he seems to have surrounding himself with so far.

[EeJay]

173. So much to nail him with

so little time. :-)

[renie408]

166. There you go again

not working and playing well with others.