Further Dean Thoughts From Mickey

After reading my daughter's blog entry for this morning about elevating the political discourse in the country, I felt it necessary to amplify my earlier post, which might appear to be a digression into a discussion of personalities rather than issues. That's not to say that personalities aren't important. As I said before, many people vote for better or for worse on whom they would prefer to have a beer with.

But my problems with Howard Dean go well beyond personality. His flip-flopping on issues has been well-documented. His denial of this flip-flopping in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary raises issues of integrity. Two examples: his argument with the Washington Post and their story about his flipflopping on issues; his argument with George Stephanoupolous about his support of NAFTA.

Yet Dean and his supporters claim he is a straight-shooter who tells it like it is, not the typical politician at all. His supporters seem to have a blind spot when it comes to their own candidate.

His recounting of a rumor that Bush had been forewarned by the Saudis of the 9/11 attack was bizarre and irresponsible, as is his refusal to retract or back away from it. The confederate flag flap is another case in point. It took him forever to admit what everybody but him knew, that this was not a good image to use to make an otherwise valid point. Such episodes suggest not only a loose lip, but a stubborness and lack of judgment that could prove dangerous in a president.

I am also bothered by the fight over the offer of the vice presidency to Clark, which Dean vehemently denies making (see Amy's previous posts, here, and here on this issue). Dean has admitted his weakness in foreign policy and his need to add a VP to plug that hole. For months there have been newspaper reports about a possible Dean-Clark ticket, none of which were ever denied by Dean. He obviously felt it was to his benefit to have these rumors out there, but now that Clark has become a formidable challenger he has in effect labeled him a liar. Well, someone is lying and I don't think it's Clark.

So, my problems with Dean go well beyond issues of personality although they certainly started there. His pugnacious and combative style may work well in the primaries to energize the base but the general election will not be won without a core of likability, which Dean is incapable of projecting. He can move to the center on issues but he can't change his personality. [And if he does, he will no doubt be accused, as Al Gore was, of attempting an image makeover and not being genuine -Amy.] As I have tried to address above, however, there are issues with his personality and judgement that have a direct bearing on his fitness to govern and these need be addressed by the electorate before it's to late.

[posted by Amy on Dec 27 but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey, on Dec 26. Amy has altered the post date to reflect her father's time of writing. Amy thinks her father should learn to post his own stuff though...]

thought for the day for my fellow bloggers

Paul Krugman (bless his little heart) has a nice op-ed today. He's talking to reporters, but I think what he says applies to us amateurs following the elections as well. This is serious business. Will bloggers, in our ever-increasing chatter, merely add to the cacophony of the traditional media to which we are supposed to be an alternative? Shall the blogverse become the talk radio of the internet set, as candidates' supporters troll one another's blogs, game Google for cheap amusement ('miserable failure'), shout each other down, and in general contribute to the decline of reason in politics?

I quote here Krugman's last line:


"But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election."



Our blogverse, at its best, shows that ordinary citizens with busy lives do not have to leave politics to the experts: the politicians and the pundits. Ordinary citizens can argue thoughtfully about what we want for our country and how best to make that happen. The more our pundits, journalists, and politicians abandon reasoned argument based on efforts to understand the facts, the more we must counter their unreason with actual discussion.

I cannot make Ted Koppel see that asking candidates to spend their debate time talking about whether they think Howard Dean can win the general election is detrimental to the practice of democracy. But I can refuse to follow his descent into vapidity. I can instead talk honestly about what I see and understand to be happening in the world and respond thoughtfully to those who disagree. We bloggers must believe that words still have content.

Let us try not to pollute the internet with the garbage of thoughtless language and pointless pseudo-debate. Let us be generous to one another. Let us fill the blogverse with the kind of dissent that does protect democracy, not the kind that erodes it. Let us reclaim our right to think. No one else will do it for us.

Confession

Today I will come clean. I have been beating around this bush for several weeks now without coming right out and saying it. Today I will. I don't like Dean. I tried, I really did after all we are both physicians. Early on I was intrigued by him, but as his campaign has progressed my feelings moved from unease to discomfort to frank dislike.

It's not because of his politics, much of which I agree with. I have never felt this way about a Democrat before. In addition to believing he will take the party to a crushing defeat I simply don't like him. It has a lot to do with his cockiness, which borders on arrogance. His stubborn refusal to admit when he's wrong and his sometimes bizarre statements don't help either.

I had a discussion recently with one of his supporters and when I mentioned these issues he agreed with me and said "That's why we love him, he gives the Republicans hell and never backs down." "Great but what about the general election?" I asked. "No problem," he said, "the country will love him." Well, if I can't even like him and I agree with him on many things, how is the country going to love him? Ultimately if he's nominated he will be defeated because of his grating personality. Karl Rove won't have to paint him as a draft-dodging peacenik tax raising liberal, the country will ultimately reject him because he's the last man on earth they would want to have a beer with.

And sad as it is to say that's often what people vote on.

[posted by Amy on Dec 27 but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey, on Dec 25. Amy has altered the post date to reflect her father's time of writing. Amy thinks her father should learn to post his own stuff though...]

Safire tells horror stories; here's why he's wrong

Mr. Safire, who I wish would stick to elucidating word origins in his eminently skippable Times Magazine column, gives voice to the secret nightmare of non-Dean dems everywhere in his Op-Ed today: If Dean doesn't get the nomination, he'll go Nader on us and, as Safire puts it, "That split of opposition would be a bonanza for Bush. In a two-man race, the odds are that he would beat Dean comfortably, but in a three-party race, Bush would surely waltz in with the greatest of ease."

Safire doesn't want this to happen because "landslides lead to tyrannous majorities and big trouble. "

Now, I agree that a three-party race would be a disaster, and that it's only in Bizarro-world that Bush wouldn't win. But I dispute Safire's nightmare for several reasons.

First of all, if Bush would beat Dean only 'comfortably' in a two-man race, why would a three-man race lead to a 'landslide'? People who would vote for Dean no matter what would still vote for Dean, people who would vote Dem no matter what would still vote for the Dem candidate, and disaffected Republicans and Independents who, in a Bush-Dean race, would hold their noses and vote for Bush, would have the opportunity to hold their noses and vote for the centrist Dem instead. Bush might win, but very likely with less of the popular vote than he would have garnered in a two-man race.

Second, Bush's installation as President in 2001 was not the result of a clear victory at all, much less a landslide, and his administration has still behaved as a 'tyrannous majority'. Safire imagines big trouble in the future ; I invite him to wake up and smell the big trouble that is the present. Things will undoubtedly be worse if Bush manages (I won't say 'wins') a second term, but I'm not sure it matters whether he gets by comfortably, in a landslide, or with a little help from his friends. 1984, here we come!

Third, I am so sick of hearing about the fractured Democratic party and how it's split between the DLC old Washington Dems and the Internet revolutionary Dean-dems. It's insulting to call those of us who support candidates other than Dean 'Washington Dems'. Why don't you just call us 'squares' and get it over with?

Wait, you say, it's not like Safire made that split up, he's just reporting it. Clark and Dean are calling each other liars, and their supporters are viciously attacking one another, as evidenced by your own pro-Clark anti-Dean blog! Such a family feud can't possibly be resolved in time to present a unified front for the general election. It's getting far too brutal. Sure, those square DLC dems will rally round no matter who wins the nomination, but those Dean people won't.

I voiced the very same worry in a previous blog post, quoting the Doctor himself as evidence. Let us all remember, however, that the scenario presented is only one possibility. There are other possible futures, and as Dean likes to tell his audiences, we've got the power here. Not Mr. Safire, not Mr. Gore, not the DLC, the DNC, or the GOP. I'm all for imagining the worst, but let's do a little risk management and plan for it too.

So here's the scenario: Clark wins the Dem nomination. Dean and his supporters decide to have themselves a little third-party party. Heaven only knows what little Ralphie Nader is up to. Karl Rove is gloating, John Ashcroft is preparing to re-anoint himself in Crisco while going after those who have found more creative uses for shortening, and our soldiers are still dying. But wait! What's this? Those DLC squares have some internet geeks too? They've got grassroots? They've got cash? And what are they doing? They're fanning out across the country, with their blogs and their flyers. Reagan Dems like my dad do intensive outreach to those disaffected Republicans and Independents in the so-called Red states. Clark socialists like me party with the Deaniacs and thin their ranks. Little-d democrats come out of the woodwork in unlikely places, found at soldiers' funerals, in unemployment lines, even at church socials. Suddenly Karl Rove is popping tranquilizers and the race looks not-at-all-assured.

Bizarro-world? Maybe. But maybe what we're living in right now is the bizarro-world.

And anyway, it's Christmas Eve. And even though it's not a holiday I celebrate, even though I'm the perpetual pessimist, today I feel hopeful.

Today, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Continuing Saga of Clark-Dean scuffle over VP...

Earlier today I wrote "I'm guessing Dean did in fact offer the VP spot to Clark, but obliquely enough that he could plausibly deny having done so. Dean can feel comfortable saying he did not offer the spot to Clark, since he probably never said something like "Hey, support me, and you can be my veep." And Clark is not lying when he says the idea was "dangled". He's simply answering honestly about the implicit content of a meeting that was no doubt full of ambiguity."

Clark confirms this in an interview with Judy Woodruff of CNN:

WOODRUFF: General Clark, you're obviously in South Carolina campaigning for the presidency. But I want to clarify something about this vice presidential offer, so-called. You have said that Howard Dean offered you the slot as his running mate. He today is saying he never did that. Set us straight. What happened? Did he or didn't he?

CLARK: Well, we had a private meeting. And I told him that the key thing for me was to decide whether I was going to run for the presidency or not. He said, Well don't you want to know what the alternatives are?

And at first I said, No. And then I said, OK, well fine, go ahead and tell me but that's not going to affect my decision. He said, Well I'm thinking, you know, the vice presidency, and that kind of thing. It wasn't like, sign on the dotted line.

But it was discussed, it was discussed by him. It was brought up by him in a very positive fashion. And it's not something I've ever seriously considered.

But I think the point here is that his campaign has used this for some time as an effort to sort of buttress his national security flank by saying I might be his running mate. My point is, I'm running to be president of the United States, not to be his vice president. And I'm getting a lot of traction on that.

WOODRUFF: Just to be clear, then, he didn't formally offer you the job or the post as running mate, as his vice presidential running mate, if he gets the nomination?

CLARK: No. But just to be clear, he made the offer. Nobody's going to formally offer that position until the whole process is gone through. But let's put it this way, as I said yesterday, it was dangled out there and discussed. I mean it was offered as much as it could have been, I think.

I love the way Clark refuses to be bullied into saying Dean didn't really make the offer.

Okay, I have a sleeping baby pressing down on my carpal tunnel as I'm typing, so I think it's time to quit my obsessive blogging for the day...

Canvassing in Florida: Implications for the General Election

In the 2000 general election the presidency was decided by 500 or so votes in Florida. It would therefore be instructive to look at the current situation in Florida and the strength and weaknesses of the various candidates. The polls tell little about the most important issue for the Democrats in this election: who is the strongest candidate to take on Bush? Many of the poll respondents don't know much about most of the Democratic candidates, while Bush is well known. Moreover, the polls have fluctuated wildly in the last few months, with some polls showing Bush defeated by an unnamed candidate and others showing a landslide for the incumbent. If the Democrats can win Florida, this will go a long way toward winning the White House.

For the last few weeks I have been canvassing extensively for Clark in Titusville, Florida, a town of 35,000 on the east coast, near Kennedy Space Center. This is an extremely Republican part of the state. My canvassing found few registered Democrats, but several thinking Republicans and Independents. Many of the Republicans expressed great admiration for the president and had no problem with his policies. However a significant percentage -- about twenty percent in this unscientific poll -- had grave reservations about Bush, centered around his policy in Iraq and the large deficit. Still others were concerned about the future makeup of the Supreme Court if Bush were re-elected. The problem these Republicans and Independents faced was finding someone on the Democratic side with whom they were compatible and could vote for. They were concerned about national security, the deficit and the fracturing of the American electorate under the current president. They unequivocally rejected Howard Dean as an alternative, and for the most part were not comfortable with any of the other candidates except for Wes Clark. They were drawn to him because of his military background and foreign policy experience -- powerful issues for many Republicans. The Florida Coordinator for Clark tells me that 20 to 30 percent of Clark volunteers are Republicans, which tallies with my own experience. If we write these voters off, as Dean's campaign would like to, we effectively are writing off Florida and other swing states. This is a recipe for disaster. There are few new voters in my state that Dean can mobilize to offset those that he will lose.

Winning the general election by ceding the entire South to the Republicans and focusing on other regions, as some have suggested, is an iffy strategy at best. Certainly Florida is winnable with the right candidate. But this candidate must appeal to Independents and at least some Republicans, and based on my experience the only candidate who can do this is Wes Clark.

[posted by Amy but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey]

I found a Wesley Clark t-shirt that I like...

Earlier I complained about the Clark campaign's lack of t-shirts that appeal to me. I did find a shirt I liked, although it's not from the 'official campaign store,' but from the Wesley Clark Weblog store at Cafe Press.

Anyway, here it is, and I've ordered it. Yay.

A nice Clark-supporter story...

on a Clark campaign blog

My husband Will had a great time in the grocery store parking lot this weekend. He was about to pull out of the parking space when an older gentleman knocked on his window and said, "Bush in 04!!" (He had no doubt spied my husband's "Clark in 04" bumper sticker.) Will rolled down his window and said, "I can't do that - I love my country too much." To which the man responded, "Well, if you'd spent any time in the military, you would probably think differently!" To which Will responded, "I won the National Defense Medal in Desert Storm." The startled man sputtered, "Oh, well, good for you," and quickly walked off . . . .

Did Dean offer Clark the VP spot? And what's it all about?

As the race for the Dem nomination rapidly becomes a Dean-Clark one-on-one, the campaigns and candidates are seen to, uh, clash. Latest dispute is about whether Howard Dean offered Wes Clark a spot on his ticket as VP. And it's getting ugly...

First, Clark says tells ABC News that the vice president's slot "was sort of discussed ... and dangled before I made the decision to run" in a meeting he had with Dean in September.

Then, Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, following Clark on the same ABC News program, denies that the issue was discussed.

Then Matt Bennett, Clark Campaign Communications Director, issued a brief, snippy statement:

"Joe Trippi may want to check in with his candidate before talking. Howard Dean did in fact offer Wes Clark a place on the ticket in a one-on-one meeting that Trippi did not attend. Joe Trippi shouldn't comment on meetings he wasn't invited to."

Finally, Reuters called up Dean himself and asked if he had offered the spot to Clark.

"No, I did not," Dean told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I think Wes is a good guy. I think he'd be a good running mate, but I think it would be highly foolish of me to offer anybody the running mate spot."

Is someone lying? Probably not. I'm guessing Dean did in fact offer the VP spot to Clark, but obliquely enough that he could plausibly deny having done so. Dean can feel comfortable saying he did not offer the spot to Clark, since he probably never said something like "Hey, support me, and you can be my veep." And Clark is not lying when he says the idea was "dangled". He's simply answering honestly about the implicit content of a meeting that was no doubt full of ambiguity.

It is disingenuous of Dean to claim that he hasn't thought about his VP spot at all. Given that he and Clark did meet in September, what the hell else could they have been discussing?

Dean Admits To Lack of Foreign Policy Experience; Bush Team Prepares for Landslide Victory In Wartime Election

Yesterday Howard Dean admitted that he had a hole in his resume with regard to foreign policy, one that he hoped to plug with his vice presidential nominee. This is not a good place to have a hole given the current state of the world. Five years ago it may not have been so important, but today it's critical. We have already seen what on-the- job training in foreign affairs cam be like; as well as leaving this area of responsibility to one's vice-president. Neither seems to work very well, at least in Republican hands.

But the larger issue is not so much the lack of hands-on expertise in this area, although this is important, but rather what Karl Rove and company will do with this "hole". THEY WILL DRIVE A SHERMAN TANK THROUGH IT. If Bush and company could destroy Max Cleland, don't you think that they are salivating about getting their hands on Howard Dean with his "slightly deficient resume"? We are at war, and they will play that for all it is worth. No, it is not a good time to run a candidate with no foreign policy experience, especially one who, after being declared unfit for military service, spent the year skiing in Aspen.

This election all good Democrats who want to win and not just make a statement should remember that the republicans have a 200 million dollar war chest and they have experts who know how to use it. So let's not make it any easier for them than it already is. Let's nominate a candidate who can't easily be called a traitor or draft dodger. Let's nominate Wes Clark.

[posted by Amy but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey]

Wherein Amy admits to Dean campaign envy

Culturally speaking I'd probably be happier in the Dean campaign. Lots of Clark campaigners seem to be military or ex-military, and that's not the milieu in which I feel most comfortable. I remember once my freshman year of college my friend Brian in ROTC had to go to some kind of ROTC formal, and he had to bring a date, cause that's what you did, so he took me with him. There was a long receiving line that we had to go through to meet all the higher-ups and their wives, and the whole thing was this surreal experience....I felt any second like someone there was going to call me out "You! Hippie girl! Give me 20!"

I have much the same feeling in the Clark campaign.

In some ways this is a good thing. We need to get over the culture wars, and one way to do that is to hang out with people with whom we are otherwise not likely to hang out. It's less fun, because bridging those gaps in experience is pretty hard work.

The Dean campaign makes citizenship look easy and fun. I could go to parties with other young people for whom college was a blur of cultural studies classes and really good bud and student actions in support of university service worker strikes. You can get Dean buttons in colors other than red, white, and blue, and spaghetti strap Dean t-shirts (not that anyone would see me in a spaghetti strap t-shirt this time of year anyway...). The Clark campaign offers a "Clark 04 Running Bib". I didn't even know there was something called a running bib. I certainly don't want to wear one. And the t-shirts are of the ordinary type, which don't fit well on women with big breasts. (They just make you look fat and dumpy, not pleasantly busty...) I am not above using the words "Clark for President" stretched across my bust in a tight-fitting baby-doll t-shirt to attract men on the street to take a flyer from me. (Sorry to gross you out, Dad...)

Anyway, I'm sure I'm stereotyping the Dean campaign, just as I'm sure I'm stereotyping the Clark campaign. But I'm trying to explain a certain wistfulness I have. It usually goes by the name nostalgia. It is nostalgia that attracts me to the Dean campaign, a half-dreamt memory of easy community. My nostalgia falls over me in waves of unease -- what if I made the wrong decision? What if I'd really be happier in the Dean campaign? Did I pick the wrong club after all?

But campaigns are not candidates. One does not support a candidate because his merchandise is better or the people look like more fun, or somehow seem more like my kind of people. A campaign is an organization that exists to further a goal, and doesn't have much to do, it seems, with what happens after that goal has been either reached or abandoned. The ability to throw good parties as a campaign does not translate into the ability to lead a country of citizens who are very different from one another. Americans don't need to be able to party together in peace and harmony. We need to be able to work together, respect each other, use our differences to our advantage, come together to meet common goals despite those differences. We need to be able to be citizens together.

And no one ever said that would be easy or fun.

Wes Clark makes the word "Patriot" sound like something I could call myself with a straight face...

I think a lot of us lefty-types (I speak of Max and myself here, I don't think anyone would call my dad a lefty-type --although maybe he'll correct me?) have a hard time with the sound of the word "patriotism" in our mouths. After 9/11 we all felt pretty patriotic, but then John Ashcroft started telling me that criticizing the government was giving aid to the terrorists, and patriotism started feeling like jingoism again.

I love my country. But I'm not sentimental about it. So many people who are patriotic in a saccharine way are certain we live in the best place in the world, but having never left the country nor learned much about anyplace else, they really have nothing against which to compare. I've seen what's out there, at least some of it, in the rest of the world -- the crappy roads, the legless beggars, and the shantytowns. But I've also seen far better public transport, higher quality food, more respect for workers, and universal health care.

We enjoy staggering wealth and freedom here, and that's something to be happy about. But we're not perfect. Saying that shouldn't make me un-American.

And then comes along General Clark, and he says:

The New American Patriotism I've talked about is emerging strongly around the country. These are people who want to pitch in and help, not just wave flags. And these patriots also understand that what we're protecting isn't just our borders against an invasion but also our rights and ideals against their compromise. That's why one of the strongest reactions I get is in pointing out that in a democracy in time of war, dialogue and debate, disagreement and dissension are the essence of patriotism - not a failure but a celebration of who we are as a nation! No Administration has the right to say that if you disagree, it's unpatriotic!

Wait! You mean, I can be a patriot even if I---

• like France and buy their cheese
  
• Don't like going to Fourth of July picnics and don't get teary-eyed at the Boston Pops rendition of the 1812 overture...
  
• Don't like waving a flag
  
• Think socialized medicine is a good idea
  
• Hate a lot of things about American consumer 'culture'
  
• don't particularly like the look of red, white, and blue together (too primary for me)
  
• vacation regularly in other countries

Hey, maybe loving your country is kinda like loving your family: you love 'em, you hate 'em, you complain to your shrink about 'em, you wish you didn't have to deal with them, you think they're crazy, why'd they do that? remember when they did such-and-such and how terrible that turned out? but in the end you're stuck with them, and when you look at other peoples' families you realize yours is actually pretty good after all, and you're proud to be a member of your family, for about three seconds until something else about them ticks you off and there you are again, complaining.

Some of us are just complainers. It doesn't mean we don't love that about which we complain so heartily...

Hey, maybe I'm a patriot after all....

For Republicans suffering a crisis of conscience...

here's a very nice essay posted on the Georgia for Clark site about crossing party lines for Clark

Give now to Clark for President

To those of you who read this blog and have been convinced that Clark is the best candidate to win back the White House in 2004: time is running out. The race at this point is judged by who has raised the most money, and Clark needs every dollar he can get before the end of this fundraising quarter. Please give whatever you can now! For those of you who still have jobs and can afford to give more than 250 dollars please divide it and give under two names {husband, wife, significant other, etc.} so that Clark can receive the maximum in Federal matching funds ($250 per donor).