The Primary Divide.

[last1standing]

It seems there are two types of Democratic voter this primary season, those who think Establishment Democrats are the key to the future of progressive politics and those who think that Establishment Democrats have lost their way and are seeking a new type of leadership from "Outsiders". I classify Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman with the Establishment and Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun as Outsiders. Clark is either one depending on who you speak with.

For me the divide became apparent after the 2002 election. I sat at home that night watching the returns with growing anger like many here. We had been predicted to gain seats in the senate and house, instead we lost in every arena, losing control of the senate and becoming powerless in the house. To me the reason was obvious, at a time of booming deficits, restricted liberties, and rising unemployment, many of our candidates ran on a platform that they were close to bush*. The plan of the Establishment was to take away bush's* talking points by encorporating them into the Democratic platform. Instead of talking jobs these candidates were talking about working with the White House on terrorism. Instead of preaching fiscal responsibility, they were preaching Homeland Security. Instead of working to re-establish our Constitutional rights, they spoke of supporting wars in the middle-east.

I swore to my wife that night that I would never again support a Democrat who tried to run on a repub platform. I promised that I would work only for a real Democrat running on Democratic Ideals who stood up for what he believed even when it didn't seem popular. I was angry that night and thinking back, I am angry still. We lost more than congressional seats that night. We lost the respect of the world. We lost our chance to repeal the Patriot Act. We lost another millions or so jobs. We lost clean air. I believe we lost our soul.

During the election I had heard of a guy who was running for president in 2004 named Howard Dean. It was a fluff piece on CNN meant to portray him as a hopeless outsider who stood no chance of being more than a blip in the polls. They had some fun showcasing his "blunt talk" for about three minutes then went on to some other story. I really didn't think much of it at the time as 2004 was the next election, not the one coming up.

After the 2002 debacle, I posted several times here suggesting that Daschle, Gephardt, and McAuliffe step down and let people step up who would be willing to take on repubs, not just try to work within their talking points. I found reaction to be mixed. It seemed about half supported me and half supported them. I was surprised by the number of Establishment loyalists out there after such a defeat. After all, when Newt Gingrich lost seats in 1998 he stepped down in disgrace. Why wouldn't our leaders do the same when their philosophy had failed us. Of course that was my opinion and others, rightly had theirs.

Anyway, I never lost my desire to see someone step up who still had some fire in his belly and was willing, for good or ill, to take on the repubs instead of trying to co-opt their message. I felt we needed an Outsider because the Establishment was too comfortable and afraid of losing their cozy positions. I still think that. While I still have much respect for Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, I think the only hope of saving our party is by taking a chance on the Outsiders in this race. Not because I'm angry with the Establishment, which I am, but because I truly hope to see Democrats again control the destiny of this country. But I only see that hope coming alive with someone willing to fight.

For me the fighter in this election is Howard Dean. Every punch that lands on him sees two swings coming out. He will not be branded a elitist intellectual, nor can he be called a wimpy liberal. He has shown the energy and the passion to stand up and call his detractors out. I believe this is the major reason he currently leads the field. I think that most of us want a fighter and feel that Dean is our only chance to beat Karl Rove at his own game.

I don't like to speak for the Establishment so I'm asking those who support Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Clark to let me know how far off base they think I am. I'd also like to hear from Dean supporters and other Outsiders as to why they support who they do. I'd really like to hear from those who can keep the flambait down to a minimum and not slander their opponents with claims of lying, being pro-war, or any of that stuff. Thanks.

[baggypants]

1. Daschle, Gephardt, and McAuliffe are liabilities

Guys like this assure the dems are doomed to defeat again.

This type of establishment dems will only alienate "the middle", who in the end will ultimately determine who the president is.

The repubs will for the their candidate. The dems will for for our candidate. It's the middle we have to convince and these guys just "turn off" the middle.

[mouse7]

18. I wouldn't lump Daschle in

He's not my choice as a Floor leader, but he's not a bad guy. I can't explain why I feel that way. Just a feeling.

If he weren't floor leader, I think we'd find him more valuable.

[cryofan]

2. But what does it matter if Dean fights, if he fights against liberals

Dean words from the past show him to be philosophically conservative, and even disdainful of the liberal agenda.

For example:

Gee, I wonder why Dean never tried to balance the budget by raising taxes on the upper class, i.e., his millionaire Silver Spoon cronies? Instead he balanced the budget by cutting taxes and social benefits, all the while laughing and poking fun at lefty liberals. But don't take my word for you.....just read Dean's own words:

Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

[last1standing]

3. Your post has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

I'm not arguing whether Dean is a liberal I'm asking for people's opinion on the Establishment/Outsider issue.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. some people seem to think they can stop the slide to the

center by DC establishment by electing a centerist.

that thinking baffles me.

[last1standing]

6. Once again, not the point of this thread.

n/t

[sangha]

20. It is the point

Or did you forget about the part where you wrote about wanting a Dem who fights for Dem ideals?

You:"I swore to my wife that night that I would never again support a Democrat who tried to run on a repub platform. I promised that I would work only for a real Democrat running on Democratic Ideals who stood up for what he believed even when it didn't seem popular."

Dean:"Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda"

[last1standing]

26. It's not a candidate bashing thread.

If you don't have anything to contribute, then this isn't the thread for you.

[sangha]

32. Who's candidate bashing?

I pointed out:

1) Dean is a centrist
2) Dean has no committment to pursuing Democratic ideals
3) You say you want a candidate who will fight for Democratic ideals

I compared what you said you wanted, with Dean's statement. Instead of explaining how that (seeming) contradiction can be resolved, you've chosen to go the name-calling route.

And I'll post in any thread I damn well want to. If you don' like that, alert the mods.

The only thing I wrote about Dean was Dean's own words, which I did not offer any opinion on. Most of my post was about your words.

[Walt Starr]

7. Dean is my kind of centrist

He's centrist on the issues I am most to the center on, such as fiscal responsibility and gun control, and he is liberal on the issues I am most liberal on, like Iraq and abortion.

[mouse7]

23. ???

You're criticising Dean for centrism when you support Edwards?

[sangha]

25. No

he's criticizing the idea that you can fight centrism by nominating a centrist.

[mzmolly]

31. Dean is actually a 'pragmatist'

who is deemed a centrist (which is fine by me.) I like people who think outside the box and weigh issues individually rather then make decisions based on blind ideology.

I would suggest most of our candidates have a some what centrist record depending on the issue. Heck, look at Dennis Kucinich *on the record* he's as centrist as they come.

The respected Molly Ivins *who endorsed Dean* calls him a "fighting centrist", and I think I like her characterization. ;)

[Raya]

10. The is 1 person here that cares that Dean WAS Establishment, till Trippi

Thats all I see today. Maybe more.

Anyone who cared to look back just to the beginning of Dean's campaign would see that we are just being used by a formerly politics-as-usual Governor, who never supported the peace movement -- until now.

[last1standing]

11. Okay, but why don't you say something about your candidate?

I wanted to get people's opinion of the whole field not just Dean. Is your candidate Establishment or Outsider?

[mouse7]

21. He's not peace movement. Never said he was.

He WAS against War in Iraq from the start.

[mouse7]

19. You mean like Kucinich anti-choice voting record?

[Walt Starr]

4. The Democratic Party Establisment has been failing the party since 1994

It's time to go back to the people and take power from the Party elites, especially the Clintons.

[JPJones]

8. Fire in the belly

That fire in the belly might explain Dean's diarrhea of the mouth.

[last1standing]

9. I can see you'll be a great benefit to this board.

/sarcasm.

[WillyBrandt]

12. An insulting dichotomy

It paints non-Dean candidates as Establishment. Dean himself is both outsider and Establishment, just as Wesley Clark is, albeit in different ways.

You know, the qualities you like and admire in Dean are not, for the most part, exclusive to the Good Doctor.

[last1standing]

13. Not trying to insult, just providing an opinion.

I admire many qualities of several candidates and could easily support Clark or Edwards if they show some fire and independence. How about talking about your opinions of this?

[sangha]

33. Investigating Iran/Contra, S&L, BCCI aren't a sign of independence?

If not, can you name the Establishment Dems that supported Kerry in his investigations?

[last1standing]

34. I never said Kerry wasn't a good senator.

Kerry has done alot of good but that alone doesn't mean we should all just join up with him as there are eight other candidates who have done good things as well. I don't think he's shown the energy or passion it will take to win the nomination, let alone the GE and neither have any of the other Establishment candidates who I think are too comfortable in their positions.

Do you not think of Kerry as Establishment?

[mouse7]

22. Hard to call a Vermont MD establishment

Hard to call anyone from Vermont establishment in the first place, but his MD training pretty much takes him completely out of the discussion.

Going through 4 years of Med School, internship, and residency gives you a completely different worldview than most pols recieve on the Hill.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I don't think you are far off at all, if at all.

I have had the same anger you expressed about how our Party reacted to Bush moving into the White House. Leaving Clark aside for just a moment, I have much the same feelings about those in our Party who sat in Congress, who were nationally recognized leaders in our Party, and who failed to put up a better fight. I am not saying that none of them put up any fight, I know that would not be a fair statement, but not enough of one. Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia has never been my favorite Democrat, but he was incredible in his opposition to Bush's plans for Iraq. His was a lonely voice. Most of our elected Democrats were too busy nuancing all of their statements so as to appear reasonable to the majority of the American Public who so were infatuated with Bush at the time.

To be honest, I think too much attention is paid to the actual votes of our Congressional Democratic candidates regarding the conditions for invading Iraq. Just slightly too much, because their stances were telling and it does matter. Still I doubt any of them, with the possible exception of Lieberman, would have acted like Bush did with the power given him, and I suspect even Joe would have been on better behavior than Bush. Dean took a better stand than most of those men (Kucinich was great), but it wasn't light years better. The thing is, I think that Iraq vote symbolizes a lot more than who did or didn't foresee the consequences of giving Bush a blank check on that specific war, as critical an issue as it obviously was then and still is. It symbolizes the entire failure of our Congressional leadership, and the leading voices in it, to provide an effective check on Bush's entire radical right agenda; and an abdication that enabled Bush's seizure of near absolute power to redirect the future of America via a sharp right turn, far beyond any feeble non-mandate Bush could fabricate having received from the tortured 2000 Election returns.

That, in my opinion, is what prevents Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman, from staking any valid claim for leadership of our Party in the 2004 Election. I give Edwards a partial, but only partial, bye on this one because he was "only" a freshman Senator. So that is what initially drew me to support Howard Dean for President, and why I could still be happy with him as our Party's nominee.

You were astute to above acknowledge that some view Clark as of the Establishment, while some see him as a legitimate outsider, though you go on to group him with those you consider representative of the Establishment. It would be impossible for me in one post to summarize and address all of the arguments that have been made on that single question to date. I see Clark as a true outsider, in some ways the furthest "out" of any of our candidates. I am now absolutely committed to doing everything I can to help get this man elected President of the United States, and that is one of the two reasons why. So many assume, usually wrongly, that the progressives who are backing Clark in this election are doing so for completely pragmatic reasons having to do with how "acceptable" Clark will be to the American Public during the Fall campaign, compared to other possible candidates including Howard Dean. That is the second reason, and a good reason to back Clark if you see things that way.

That is not my first reason, though it is what made me look at Clark in the first place. Much is made of the connection between Clark and Clinton, too much is made of that connection, because it isn't as close as many assume it to be. The two met infrequently before Clark became NATO Commander. People assume the opposite because, you know, they both come from Little Rock and went to Oxford. Not a stupid assumption, but it is foolish to accept assumptions as fact without looking into them. Clark was one of the few men in the top echelons of the American Military with an intellect independent and flexible enough to break with the then prevalent Cold War strategic planning mind set. That is why Clinton backed Clark's advancement, not out of any prior loyalties and alliances. Now Clark has Clinton people on his staff, he has Gore people and Graham people too. Early in his young political career Clark has leaned on some of the top economic advisers and officials in Clinton's Administration to give shape to some of his initial domestic initiatives and proposals.

That was a shrewd move, because Clark certainly couldn't turn to the people who were already closely associated with the campaigns of his opponents. Precisely because Clark is an outsider candidate, he didn't have a core group of long time political aids who worked with him for years drafting legislation in Congress. You might remember that barely two weeks into Clark's campaign he was already being attacked for not having enough specifics in his domestic platform. Clark didn't have the luxury of renting a cabin in the mountains to camp out in for 3 months while he took a crash course in EPA regulations etc. He had to start campaigning and raising money. So yes Clark initially leaned on some Clinton people. Yeah he called Bill and asked for some recommendations. Bill owed Clark big time for that NATO Kosovo thing, and he returned the favor. That doesn't make Clark an Establishment candidate. Clinton may in fact want Clark to win. Gore may in fact want Dean to win.

There really was a grassroots movement to Draft Clark to run, and I was part of that in the latter stages. Had you tuned in back then you would have seen much that you would recognize that would have made you smile. I doubt you have read many, if any, of the letters that we wrote to Clark urging him to run. It wasn't some back room smoky deal makers who pulled Clark into this race, it was a cross section of Americans who saw qualities in Clark that made us trust and respect him as a potential leader. Knowing what I know now about Clark, after having read many hundreds of those letters we all sent to him, it is inconceivable to me that he could have done anything other than step forward and answer our call for him to serve as a candidate for President. Many of those letters were heart wrenching, and incredibly thoughtful, and always compelling. We told him it was his duty to run, despite a lifetime of prior service, he was needed one more time. And Clark answered our call, and we are loyal to that man, and he has done nothing to shake that loyalty in the slightest. He has been all that we have asked of him. He is giving it everything he has. He is running a clean campaign that we can be proud of. He is telling the truth to the American people, and he is revealing the lies of the Bush Administration.

[last1standing]

15. Fantastic post!

And just what I was looking for. As for lumping Clark in with the Establishment, that was an oversight. I really don't know if he's Establishment or Outsider.

Personally, while I have respect for Kerry and Edwards, I don't think they have the fire needed to run and win a campaign. We need the insurgency of Dean or Clark, both of whom have proven they can muster loyal followers and collect the necessary funds. I guess I think that all of the Establishment candidates have lost their connection with the soul of the party. I do think Clark is different in that respect at least.

[mouse7]

24. Pentagon career is as "establishment" as one can get. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Some, like you, obviously think so.

You know who isn't "establishment"? Probably you're not, me either. My sister isn't "establishment", nor is my car mechanic, or the Realtor who handled the purchase of my house. None of us have a ghost of a chance to be elected President. Everyone who does have some chance to get elected has held some powerful jobs, and knows some powerful people.

Dean is considered an outsider candidate this year. Dean wasn't only Governor of Vermont, he was also the head of the National Governors Association, which is a nexus for political networking. Clinton took that route. Dean didn't get where he did in his career only by raising money on the internet. He had to court some hefty special interests for major donations toward prior political campaigns, the same as virtually all politicians holding state wide or Congressional positions.

Maybe Kucinich isn't firmly in the "Establishment", maybe. He does not have a real chance of winning the nomination this year though.

When I say Wesley Clark is an "outsider" candidate, I'm not claiming he is among the "disenfranchised" in our country. I'm not saying that Clark doesn't understand power, and I'm certainly not saying he is or was "powerless" in our society. I am saying several other things though. One, he wasn't directly party to the failed politics of the last four years, that resulted in Bush gaining the White House and consolidating power. We can talk about Clark's comments at the Republican fundraiser sometime if you want, but it is tangential here, and it certainly had no bearing on Bush's rise to power, or the failure of Democratic politicians to counter Bush more effectively in recent election cycles or in Congress. Clark was outside of all of that.

But I think Clark is an outsider in a more fundamental way. Though some refuse to believe it I know, Clark was not selected by Party leaders to run for President, a grass roots movement, the "Draft Clark" movement, launched his candidacy. Had Clark been the Establishment's candidate, it would have been arranged for him to have already received a slew of important endorsements. Clark is still lagging several candidates in that regard. Clark may or may not yet become the "Establishment's choice", but that is a different story.

Clark certainly had power in the Army, but for almost his entire career, he still lived on a right down the middle class income. The institution he served a lifetime in is thought of as the most racially integrated in American Society. Clark may have had a hand in lobbying Congress for Military funding, but he never was beholden to corporate America for the life blood of money needed to mount campaigns for office every two or four years. Clark walked through the halls of power, but he also spent time in the trenches, and on the front lines. Clark literally risked his life under fire, attempting to save civilians. In the mid 90's in Bosnia, with three stars on his shoulders, he grabbed a rope and went over a cliff trying to save some French diplomats who plunged down a mountain in a war zone accident.

The other thing is, Clark has always been somewhat of a maverick, a free thinker in a realm that typically did not reward free thinkers, and he made some enemies along the way there taking stands for what he believed in. Clark was one of a very few Senior Officers in the U.S, Military who believed the United States should intervene in Rwanda to prevent the genocide that was occuring there, despite the lack of American "strategic interests" in the area.

I am surprised to find myself backing a retired General for President of the United States, I'll admit that. I was one of those folks Norman Mailer wrote about decades ago who surrounded the Pentagon during an anti war protest in 1967. Back then I probably would have said exactly what you just did.

[Leilani]

16. I believe this is the Year of the Outsiders

I think many people in the country, not just Dems, are fed up with the status quo. Most career politicians are so busy raising money for the next election & hob nobbing with special interests that they have forgotten the people.

Look at Califonia: it was a mess & Davis was not fixing the problems. None of the Eastablishment people who ran against him did well. Arnold, although untested was the ultimate non politician. I am not discussing the rightness or wrongness of the entire thing, but people were angry & they went for outsider, non politician, positive, optimistic campaign, short on details.

I believe the sucess of Dean & Clark , in that order, is the same situation. People are looking for change, plain speaking, not all the canned talk from the careerists. I belive the people who are angriest are for Dean; they also want a huge party shakeup. Those supporting Clark are looking towards a new world view, with a larger emphasis on foreign policy & America's place in the world.

Of course this a simplistic assessment; many other factors are determining who people are supporting, but if you are seen as a career Washington politician you're toast.

I support Clark for several reasons: I'm closer to him on issues than Dean, I think foreign policy experience will be crucial, Clark is very genial & that will play better in the long run than anger, & I happen to admire his service to country. I know that the military is kiss of death to some Dems, but it's a plus for me, his Southern roots are good for the GE, & I just think the guy is incredibly brilliant, & I think he would have a non conventional Presidency.

[last1standing]

29. All of our assessments will be simplistic without writing a book.

But that was pretty damn good. I also agree with you to a great extent. However, I'm not supporting Dean because I'm angry. I am angry with Establishment Dems, but I support Dean because of issues and the way he presents them. I think he is much less angry than he's usually presented.

I like Clark, but his campaign seems to have been co-opted too much by Establishment staff. If he wants to win he needs to assert his independence from them.

[TexasPatriot]

35. hrm

i would disagree about the coopted campaign staff... i'll just use one anecdote... on the way to delivering a speech recently, the speech was written for him, he rewrote it - marked out sections, wrote up others, kept working on it in the car right up to the end - and when he got to the podium - he actually left the prepared text several times. (you can imagine what that does to his campaign staff)

See - it really is Clark up there talking. He gets prepped and briefed, and he has some sort of edetic thing going - because in all goes in and these sane policy concepts come rolling out the back. Take a look at some of the other detailed answers he's given in some of the QnA sessions after a townhall - its remarkable, especially when you remember that this guy is NOT a career politician.

As for the rest of his campaign staff - he has some heavies on his team (old gore types - like Gore's long time campaign finance guy who endorsed the other night in Tenn). On the flip side, i can remember details of very early decisions in the Dean camp to choose to run as an outsider for tactical reasons (political opportunism if i had to define it in short) - in fact its why Trippi has been so successful in that he's been able to mold the candidate to the campaign (which is pretty much what Rove did with Bush). I would argue that what we're seeing in Clark is a much fairer approximation of the man than what we're seeing in any of the other candidates.

[last1standing]

36. That's cool

So far, Dean and Clark are being defended as Outsiders, Edwards has been called a good man, and the rest has just been the usual candidate bashing highjackers. I hope there'll be some more real discussion on this.

[mouse7]

17. Disagree on Edwards

Edwards campaign as been different. He hasn't been tossing insults around.

Put Edwards in a seperate category.

[Leilani]

28. You're Right

Edwards hasn't been in DC very long, & does not seem like a party hack; he seems sincere & not programmed.

I like Edwards very much; he seems like a terrific guy with a great sense of humor.

I also like that he seems so devoted to his family, & does not use his son's death for sympathy points. I hate when pols do that, like Gephardt uses his son's cancer illness.

[last1standing]

30. Other than the flag bashing incedent, he's been very positive.

But that doesn't speak to whether he's Establishment or not. Can you make an argument for him being an Outsider?

[mzmolly]

27. Excellent post.

Thank you. I haven't much to add except that Dean is the right man at the right time. We need him, and I am greatful that he has given me a reason to be passionate about the potential of our nation.