Three threads have tried to defend Obama by invoking Dean from 2003 [View All]

[madfloridian]

I have not said much about what Obama did, but now I will. If you are going to attack someone who is not even running to excuse that your candidate hurt a group of people badly by pandering to bigots, then it is time to speak up.

Obama, like many or most of our Democrats, is more concerned about the religious vote than about the traditional base of our party. What he did was wrong. It hurt the gay community badly.

I took up for Dean in this post because no one else was doing it. He may be doing his own share of refusing to speak out much now....but he did speak out in 2003. It is wrong to compare his statement with what Obama did.

Sitting down to try and lower my expectations some more.

Howard Dean:

"I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."

Constance Rice:

Dean is right for three reasons.

First, he's right politically. Without a vision big enough to embrace Southern white men -- angry or not -- this country cannot be diverted from its current path toward corporation-focused, downwardly mobile plutocracy and turned back toward people-focused, upwardly mobile democracy.

..."So, Dr. Dean, get the interracial sophistication that's needed to carry out Dr. King's vision of the grand alliance, and get it quickly. As much of a minefield as it presents, talking about the Confederate flag, poverty and race is crucial for our country's future as a multiracial democracy.

Go for it. And you don't need to apologize.

Slate's William Saletan:

Had the questioner heard Dean's previous speeches, such as the one Dean delivered to the Democratic National Committee in February, he would have known exactly what Dean meant. As Dean put it on that occasion:

"I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."

I have that speech on videotape. I'm looking at it right now. As Dean delivers the line about Confederate flags, the whole front section of the audience stands and applauds. It's a pretty white crowd, but in slow-motion playback, I can make out three black people in the crowd and two more on the dais, including DNC Vice Chair Lottie Shackelford. Every one of them is standing and applauding. As Dean finishes his speech, a dozen more black spectators rise to join in an ovation. They show no doubt or unease about what Dean meant. He wasn't condoning racism. He was saying that his party shouldn't write off people who share its economic philosophy just because they don't yet share its understanding of civil rights.

Obama was doing what he had to do, I guess, to be elected in this religious climate. Obama is no bigot, but he did appeal to them. He was wrong.

Comparing the two, especially having three threads started to do it, is just really overboard. Dean's words were very clear, and people who took time to listen and read had no problem.

Defend your candidate, but don't attack someone to do it.