Howard Dean 2008

[angus]

Dean's a huge embarrassment.  All the things I don't like about bush:  the cockiness, the tendency to speak before thinking, the constant verbal gaffes, etc., Dean is constantly doing.  The things I do like about Bush, the strength of conviction, the clarity, the refusal to apologize for the sake of political correctness, are absent in Dean's character.  Dean is one of the few people who would be a greater national humiliation than GWB, and even the democrats know that. 

No way Dean wins his party's nomination.

[angus]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the  away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

[angus]

well, it seems like the only glue holding them together right now is a general distaste for all things Republican.  So, pitting the GOP against the dems this year is kinda like having an arm-wrestling contest between gravity and the electrostatic force.

If the party is as you say it is, and I'm not so sure I buy that, then they really do have an uphill climb. 

Either way, Howard Dean and I agree on maybe more issues than GWB and I agree on, but there's no way in hell I'd vote for the bastard.  Might as well put Mickey Mouse up as a candidate.

[angus]

unity schmunity.  of course they're a big tent.  just like the reublicans are, but that's beside the point.  I'd offer that if the GOP (with 55 senators representing 27.5 US states over a 2.7 million square-mile area) can come up with a theme, or message, the the Democrats (with 45 sentaors representing 22.5 US states over a 1.2 million square-mile area) should certainly be able to.   My 'beef' with the description of the dems having too big a tent isn't one of outright disagreement (since I think, to some degree, all 19 or so political parties have disparate interest groups), but one of degree.  You cannot possibly make the argument that the Dems haven't a chance to rally around some basic platform (no, you don't have to buy into all the planks) and then sell it to the people.  IF the GOP can do it, and they have, convincingly, for the last 3 general (even-year) election cycles, (Al's "notional" arguments aside),  then the dems should be able to do it also.  Look, you know many of us don't buy into this Zell Miller "national party no more" B.S.  At least I don't, and that's not the point I'm making. 

What I am saying is that Dean is a loser.  Even those of us centrists (i.e.,, roughtly zero on the left/right axis, negatives on the anarchy/authority axis) who generally have a great deal of issue agreement with Dean (and who voted for Clinton!) can see what an undiplomatic stinker he is.  Find someone else.  Or lose again.

[angus]

who knows?  I found Carl's post (elsewhere) intriguing.  He pointed out that even though the talking heads favor Senators, the Governors actually have a better track record.  I should have noticed that before.  But here we are touting Bayh, Feingold, Kerry, and the like.  So, yeah, Dean would be the intellectual centrist's choice, if what you're looking for is a centrist with executive experience.  Still, I think he's so easy to mock.  So easy, in fact, that he couldn't even outpace the likes of Sen. Edwards and the stiff verbose John Kerry in the primaries, due to the bad press the (obviously Dem.-friendly) network television news was giving him.  True, they may have wanted Bush out too badly, and felt that Dean was too easy to mock, and would thus loose.  Therefore it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, but still, for an economic centrist (i.e., "new" democrat), anti-war, anti-Bush former Governor, can't they do better?

Davis?  yeah, right.
Richardson?  Hmmm, there may be some advantage here.
Napolitano?  naw, I hear she likes bathing with little boys.

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

[angus]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

you do realize Paul Tsongas is dead, don't you?

[angus]

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

Not enough hair.

He's fairly moderate too, a good candidate but i think he could make a better VP if a southern candidate where nominated. 

well, he may have been born in New York, like Bush was born in Connecticut, but now he's from PA.  And that's Mullet Country.  So, as a "regional strategy" it's a good choice.  There's potentially lots of appeal to flyover country folks for a guy who's currently from the three-mile island area.

[angus]

If Howard Dean wins the nomination, my colours will no longer be 'Red'!

I want to see a Democrat in power not tooting from the fringe!

Dave

he's actually not fringe.  He's fairly centrist, as far as I can tell.  He's a budget balancer, not a tax-and-spend liberal.  Not unlike Bubba.  His problem with the Right is that he's a little too anti-war, which makes him come off as unpatriotic.

My beef with him is that he comes off as a nut.  That's not the same as tooting from the fringe, though.  It's just that he's constantly making verbal gaffes, and not the silly Bushism variety either, but genuine misstatements.  Actually I find Bush's self-effacing, middle-finger poking sense of humor endearing.  There's nothing endearing about Howard Scream.  I know the "liberal media" like to make him out to be further left than he is, but let's be honest, he's hardly Fringe.  Look up his record as a fiscal conservative as Vermont Governor.  Makes these republicans look like big liberal spenders by comparison.  Where's RightWingNut when you need him?  Help me out here, man.

[angus]

you make a good point ben.  in addition to being perceived as a nut and as unpatriotic, he comes across as spinless, since he thought that bending toward the left he could secure the nomination (more precisely, he allowed the media to portray him that way).  This backfired.  You also point out his intolerance of those who disagree with him.  While this isn't fringe, it's unbecoming.  Clearly, neither the republicans in this forum, nor, for the most part, the democrats, want him to be the candidate, albeit for different reasons.  I don't think you have to worry about your party nominating him, unless, as has been pointed out, the war turns so sour that a flaming antiwar candidate has such appeal among single-issue voters in IA and NH that they manage a coup.  I think it's unlikely.  There will be a new face on both parties next time, and it's a long way off ...

[angus]

rendell is a good choice.  I'll consider voting for rendell, depending on who else is running against him.