Pulling a 'Clinton' on Dean may be making him more popular

[Q]

- Republicans attacked Clinton for a decade...and it only made him more popular among Democrats. Republicans attacked Gore in 2000 and he ended up winning the popular vote and more votes than Clinton.

- Americans...especially Democrats...love an underdog. The more Republicans attacked Clinton and Gore...the more determined Democrats became to turn out the vote for them.

- And now we see a concerted effort by both Republicans AND Democrats to attack and smear Dean...and the result could be the reverse of what they desire.

- We see the same kind of dirty tricks used against Dean that were used against Clinton and Gore...but this time it's coming from both sides of the political spectrum. But many Democrats are SO TIRED of being the victims of dirty politics that the unintended consequences of the attacks this time around may actually attract more sympathetic voters to Dean.

- I haven't decided which candidate I'll support as of yet because it's really too early to logically make such a determination. I have to say that in my thirty years of voting and participating in Democratic politics...I've never seen these kinds of attacks against a Democrat BY Democrats.

- I frankly don't understand why Democrats would feel compelled to help Republicans get the upper hand by participating in the smearing of Democratic candidates. But those attacking Dean...fairly or unfairly...should understand that they're not going to change any minds and may indeed be helping the Republicans AND widening his base of support.

- Something to think about...

[Skwmom]

1. Bring on the truth ads

which expose Deans actual record.

[Q]

3. How many 'truth ads' have you encouraged against Bush*?

- This is what has me baffled. It's not as if many of you have ever insisted that the truth be told about the Bush* administration. Few of you have searched the web for dirt on Bush* as you've done for Democratic candidates. Why is that?

[mikehiggins]

17. Oh, come on

I've contributed to MoveOn and others just like a lot of people on DU. We are more than happy to tell people about the incredible harm this bozo president is perpetrating on our country, and we're willing to put up the money to do it with.

Matching funds like Soros' only matter if there are funds to match, and lots and lots of us have chipped in to help.

As to Dean, well, apparently he isn't the Progressive White Knight that his followers and Trippi claim him to be. Jimmy Carter goes on Larry King and points out that Dean is essentially a much more conservative guy than the Democratic primary voters have been led to beleive, and that he will reposition himself once the nomination is wrapped up. Not exactly a shock to us old guys.

Now there's nothing wrong with this politically. Its the way things are done. The only people who will be shocked by this are those people who think Dean represents something new and fresh out of the box. He is, after all, a career politician who has found a new way to get to the top and he deserves some credit for that.

But he is still a career politician and there are always things in your past that can be used against you. That is the nature of the game. Even Bobby Kennedy, mostly my political idol, had some clay feet in his record.

Dean, of course, is no Bobby Kennedy.

He is the same guy who made the same deals in Vermont and hasn't shown any signs of being a better or more progressive guy than he was then. Letting his supporters know that before they vote for him is in no way unfair or illegitimate.

That attack ad with Osama, on the other hand, is neither fair nor legitimate. I think we can all agree on that. Any democrat who has any ties with any of the people involved in that atrocity should sever those ties immediately. This is far beyond the pale, even in the kind of cut-throat competition Democratic primaries are historically infamous for.

[NicoleM]

19. I'd love to know

exactly which issues Trippi has claimed Dean to be a "Progressive White Knight" on. Gun control? Can't be that, we all know he had an 'A' rating from the NRA. Death penalty? Nope, he's for it in limited circumstances. Fiscal issues? It can't be that either, since I've heard Dean himself say many times that he's a fiscal conservative, not a progressive. War? I don't think it's that, since he has repeatedly said for months that he's not anti-war, just anti-THIS war.

So, please, enlighten me.

[ozone_man]

37. I think he's responding to the RW press

trying to paint Dean as a McGovern liberal. Dean has never tried to sell himself as a liberal, but is a pragmatic, moderate Democrat.

I like his pragmatism. He fights for the social, liberal issues that are important, while maintaining fiscal responsibilty, and his track record as governor for 11 years shows this.

No wonder he scares the bejeesus out of the DLC and PNAC, he actually has common sense.

[virtualobserver]

4. Dean's "actual record" will get him elected.

so let's "expose it".

[RetroLounge]

32. Who needs them when we have you and your ilk right here.

eom

[virtualobserver]

2. Dean is going to clean house at the DNC

the Old Guard of the Democratic Party won't go down without a fight.

They care more for their own survival than for our nation. They have proven that with their constant cooperation with Bush.

[patricia92243]

7. If the old guard of the democratic party don't get with the program -

they will not only not survive - they will be dead in the water!

[Q]

8. Agreed....

- I spent eight years of my life defending Clinton and Gore against unfair attacks from the fascist right. Now it seems like it's starting all over again...but now it's Democrats attacking Democrats.

- This type of infighting will destroy the party at a critical time in history...when our main focus should be on ousting the most corrupt and totalitarian government this nation has ever seen.

- The bushies are counting on us not being able to organized ourselves in time to defeat them in 2004. The sad truth is that they may just be right.

[Q]

9. It's the 'new' guard that's the problem...

...not the 'old' guard. The old guard includes those like Kennedy and Byrd...among the very few in the party speaking out in no uncertain terms against the Bush* junta.

[virtualobserver]

15. agreed

maybe the 'old' guard can be part of the new 'new' guard.

[Democrats unite]

10. Do you know how many members there are at the DNC?

Do you know how the DNC is run? These are not general questions I am asking, they are very specific. & until you can answer them I suggest you talk not of what you do not know.

[virtualobserver]

14. I can clearly see the incompetence of the DNC

They have offered only token resistance to Bush.
They have a pathetic record in recent elections.

Thanks for your condescending "suggestion", BTW.

[Democrats unite]

16. Still haven't answered the question which is typical

of a...

[virtualobserver]

18. obviously since I pointed out the total strategic failure of the DNC.....

I implied that it is 'run' poorly.

I don't need to see the inner workings to know that.

[BJ]

21. You're right, it's immaterial how many and who works in the DNC.

As Ralph Nader observed in 2000, the major parties are in reality merely two heads on the same monster, i.e. beholden to the same corporate interests.

While the Democratic National Committee goes as supplicant to the coporate lobbyists for campaign funds, Dean, and to a lesser extent Kucinich, are attempting to short-circuit the corporation-donor-lobbyist-candidate money current. Only by disrupting the flow of campaign cash from corporate home offices to Washington can real reform get done.

[patricia92243]

5. AMEN!!!

[Q]

6. I don't necessarily like Dean as a candidate...

...but I have to say that it's pissing me off that Democrats are attacking their own...and spending MUCH MORE time at it than they've spent attacking our mutual enemy: GWB*.

- Bush* would be a goner in 2004 if we could pull this type of energy together against him instead of each other.

[max2000]

12. I Agree, but

But, what angers me more is that Dems are buying into GOP balloney that 2004 will be a close election. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING!!

We live in the polar opposite of the 2000 race, where we had peace, a surplus, and 3 million more people were gainfully employed
then today:
war, record deficits, unemployement, a dismantling of social safety nets by the GOP

Why are Dems listening to anything the press has to say, which are big contributors to the GOP. Bush is easy to beat, he's a total screw up. He's messed up so bad, he got his buddy Baker to try to bail him out again.

Dems need to grab the ear of everyone they know, especially Republicans and ask them, Do you feel safer than you did 4 years ago? The Omnibus spending bill ready to vote on in Jan has cuts to Homeland security. If Bush is better qualified to protect us, why is he cutting Homeland Security. And tell your Republican friends, that for a conservative GWB sure does spend and spend and spend.

Come one Dems, lets not do the GOP's work for them.
Back the nominee, no mater who, focus on GWB, and tell Nader to go away!

[mikehiggins]

20. Max, before you continue down that road

answer me one question:

In the history of the United States, how many times has an incumbent President been defeated in a time of war (whether legitimate or fictional)?

You may think things are different today, though I cannot see one reason to beleive that.

Richard Nixon was reelected despite everything.

Bush has a very good shot of duplicating that, even as the death toll of Americans and Iraqis grows along with the size of our deficits.

I support Clark because my experience tells me he is the only voice on the Democratic side with a shot at weaseling enough votes away from Bush's base to eke out a win next year. A Yankee ex-governor who signed a civil unions law and claims to have been against the war from the beginning and wants to take away the Bush tax cuts?

You have to be kidding, and the joke isn't funny.

[virtualobserver]

23. This is not an attack, just a question.

I like Clark a lot, but it disturbed me when he opened his campaign with saying that he probably would have voted for IWR on one day, then on the next day he said that he never would have voted for it.

All politicans make contradictory statements, and no one has a perfect database in their head that keeps that from happening.

But I think that these quotes would be a centerpiece of a Bush attack
on Clark. Considering that this contradiction is on whether we should go to war, don't you think that Bush will be able to seriously undercut Clark's credibility with this?

[Q]

28. We can't tailor our politics to prevent Republican attacks...

...on any issue. We shouldn't change our minds or agenda because it may or may not be distorted and unfairly used against us.

- The Bushies will attack any frontrunner...and if an issue doesn't exist they'll make one up.

[cally]

33. I don't see how Bush could attack Clark on that

Bush will have to spend time defending his stance and why he took us to war.

I'm sure you are aware, that Clark said that the first days of his campaign and corrected his statement immediately. He said he was flustered and answered wrong. He opposed the war.

[virtualobserver]

36. I understand.

But all they have to do is have an ad that has both quotes, and then say "which is it, Gen Clark".

I have no interest in bashing Clark, and every Candidate has statements to defend......That one just worried me.

I am a Dean supporter, but I am very comfortable with Clark.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cally]

48. I don't agree with anything you said in this post

I am not a Clark apologist, a Clarkie, nor a fool.

[tsipple]

25. Lyndon Johnson, 1968

You forgot the election just prior to 1972.

That defeat happened pretty recently, during the last major war in fact.

[ResistTheCoup]

35. Lyndon Johnson didn't RUN in 1968

What are you talking about????

:shrug:

[SPURGEMAN23]

31. I am amazed at the lack of understanding of what Dean has done

and is doing.

It is very clear to me.

We do not need Bush voters. Screw them. we need to excite our base and get them to bring in a few voters into the process that usually don't participate.

I remember when this place was ABB and we wanted someone to take Bush on. Here comes Dean and he gets in his face and now that is bad. Give me a break.

The argument that "if people just knew his record they would not like it" is incorrect and if you agree with it, that proves you have no vision. It has been proven that when people see his record they SUPPORT him.

Face it, he brushed aside the other candidates to take on Bush Directly and has shown the right formula so far, it is like he had a plan to do it. Wow, I guess he is just lucky. Yeah right.

[slinkerwink]

44. welcome to DU!!!!

:hi:

[ClintonTyree]

11. Divide and conquer............

the mantra of the neo-cons in this brutish year of our Lord 2003. These people will stop at nothing to retain power and I'm quite sure that a significant ammount of this infighting originated and is being perpetuated by them.

[Q]

13. If it's NOT being perpetuated by them...

...they're at the very least loving the fact that Democrats seem to hate the candidates as much as they do.

- I get the impression that many Democrats STILL don't understand the gravity of the situation. There's no precedent for the Bush* administration. NEVER before has such power been placed in the hands of just a few people...with the media helping to coverup their dirty deeds.

[Snellius]

22. I hear you

Sometimes I get the feeling that the whole house is going to have to fall apart -- or torn down -- before we can start rebuilding. But if all these conflicting forces can be channeled together, it will focus into a powerful beam, Ghostbusters.

[liberalmuse]

24. What we are here to do...

is to make sure Bush is removed from office, period. Even a Dean who veers to the right is much more preferable than what we have now. I don't think he will dump the people in lieu of corporate interests--he'd get hell for it because we will always remind him how he got in office (in the event Dean is nominated). Anyway, I've looked at Dean's record in Vermont, and it's something that he should be proud of.

I'm looking at it this way--I am on this planet right not to make sure Bush doesn't get 4 more years. What we do now is going to affect generations of human beings to come. Let's not blow it.

[Karmadillo]

26. Pulling a Clinton? A little hyperbolic, no?

Comparing legitimate criticism of a politician's record to the attempt by Republicans to overthrow a duly elected President may be going a little too far.

According to your post, Democrats aren't even allowed to try to change minds. That's hardly fair. Dean certainly didn't mind making harsh attacks on other Democrats when it suited his purposes, going so far as to call them "Bush-lite" (do you really think John Kerry or Dick Gephardt wouldn't be a substantial improvement over George W Bush?). And, of course, there's the hypocrisy of accusing Democrats of issuing Bush a "blank check" when Dean was also willing to do the same by embracing Biden-Lugar. For better or worse, Dean attacked first and from what I know of politics, turnabout is fair play.

For fun, note the Kerry response to the attacks in the second article. Front runners hate attacks. Attacks are bad. Destroy the party etc etc etc. Of course, when they're no longer the front runner, they see the light and, amazingly, realize attacks are completely OK. Now that Dean is the front runner, of course he'll claim attempts to highlight the flaws and contradictions in his record are ill-advised and play into Rove's hands and must be stopped etc etc etc.

It's OK for candidates to say that kind of stuff, but there's no real need for us to believe them. The more we know about the candidates, the better able we are to make an informed choice.

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/59576

Dean hard on fellow Democrats during latest N.H. visit
January 23, 2003
The Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. — Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Thursday accused fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls of copying President Bush and saying anything to get elected.

Making his pitch to retirement home residents, Dean said Democrats are not going to beat Bush in 2004 by portraying themselves as “Bush-lite.”

“We have to have a candidate who makes Democrats feel proud to be Democrats again,” he said. “It’s about capturing the presidency by, instead of being an echo, being a choice.”

Four of Dean’s opponents — Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman — voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. But on the campaign trail, they have been criticizing Bush for taking a unilateral approach, Dean said.

“Now they’re trying to say, ‘We tried to constrain the president,”’ Dean said. “Nonsense. They all voted to give the president a blank check.”

more...

http://www8.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/sprj.irq.democrats.ap/

Dean first to single out Democratic presidential rivals for criticism

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Howard Dean has brought an end to the polite public tone of the Democratic presidential primary by singling out John Kerry's position on Iraq.

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, and Dean, former governor of Vermont, are virtually tied for the lead among nine Democrats in a recent poll of New Hampshire voters.

Dean has gained support among anti-war voters for his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and in recent days has ramped up his criticism that Kerry's stance has been unclear.

"To this day I don't know what John Kerry's position is," Dean said Thursday in a speech to Iowa activists. "If you agree with the war, then say so. If you don't agree with the war, then say so, but don't try to wobble around in between."

Kerry has said he will not respond to Dean. His spokesman Robert Gibbs would not comment either, other than to say, "Democrats are disappointed that Howard Dean has decided to use a war for political gain and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way."

more...

[Q]

27. I've about given up on those who needlessly attack Dem candidates....

- Although I mention Dean in the opening post...this is not just about him. It's about the future of the Democratic party and how we 'choose' our leadership.

- In the last couple weeks...DEMOCRATS have spent more time attacking their own candidates than they've spend attacking Bush* in the last three years. What's wrong with this picture?

- And your reponse to this thread is yet more of the same? Those who choose to attack Dems instead of supporting their own candidates are driving Democrats to third parties.

- It used to be that we got others to support candidates by promoting their ideas for the common good. Now we use the same tactics the Republicans used to purge moderates from their party. We use the tactics the RWingers used against Clinton and Gore against OUR OWN candidates.

- Those who attack our candidates instead of Bush* should be ashamed...but they're too caught up in their own ambitions to see the damage they're doing to the party and our chances to win in 2004.

- The Democratic party is in self-destruct mode. It's not a pretty sight.

[Karmadillo]

30. How revealing. First you attack Democrats for "pulling a Clinton",

comparing them to the Republicans' efforts to overthrow a duly elected President, then you get all huffy when someone calls you on it. And, of course, you neglect to explain why other Democrats, according to you, can't attack Dean after he attacks them.

[Q]

39. Certainly you recognize the difference between debating...

...attacking and smearing? I'm in no way defending Dean. I use him as an example ONLY because he's the one getting the most HITS from fellow Democrats.

- It's one thing to debate the other candidates on the issues and point out their weaknesses...it's quite another for Dems to go out of their way to dig up dirt, spread rumors and use RWing talking points to character assassinate other Democrats.

- And yes...I'm comparing the dirty politics that some Dems are using against other Dems as similar to that used by RWingers against Clinton and Gore.

[Karmadillo]

46. Nice try, but no dice.

1. Read your original post where you lumped those who attack (debate) Dean "fairly" with those who do so "unfairly". Suggests you don't recognize the difference you bring up in the post above.

2. If you recognize a difference between debate and smear, why your reply in post #3 to Skwmom's completely reasonable post #1 about the need for truth ads?

3. Read again your response above in post #27. You're against all "attacks" on Democrats. Or, at least, you were.

4. If you want to equate what some Democrats are doing to what the Republicans did in attempting to overthrow a President, you might want to provide some links by way of evidence. If you're talking about the Osama ad, an ad which I think everyone who's expressed an opinion here at DU has criticized as being beyond the pale, the sweeping language of your original post would seem way excessive. If you're talking about other criticisms of Dean's record, how about identifying them? As things stand, your effort to compare Democratic candidates' efforts to win the nomination to the actions of the Republican/media smear machine against Clinton and Gore would appear to be engaging in the very sort of smearing you so loudly decry.

[readmylips]

29. I was for Dean from the moment I first heard him....

later, I thought I would like Kerry. Last week when I heard Kerry critize little man bushie for allowing the binLadens to escape the USA after the 9-11 attack, (of course, organized by that Baker devil), I knew that Dean was the right candidate for me. Kerry should have come out, immediately after 9-11, and informed all citizens of what took place with bush/binLaden arranged escape.

Besides, the Heinz-Kerrys are very close friends to the Bushies. How Kerry was going to critize the bush crime family, bothered me. No way in hell was Kerry going to attack his loving long-time friends.

[sendero]

34. that is one of my main problems ...

... with Kerry. Everyone goes on and on about his vast experience and his insider knowledge, but what has he done with it? Until Dean put his feet to the fire, he'd done NOTHING.

Given the choice between an "insider" politician and an "outsider" politician, I'll take the outsider every time. Why? Because I already know what the insider will do, but I can hope the outsider will do the right thing.

That is why I'm for Dean or Clark way above Kerry or Gebhardt or Lieberman. I'd rather roll the dice on a hopeful success that enable a known failure.

[randr]

38. Dan Shor's comments

This morning on NPR Dan Shor pointed out that the endorsement by Gore was important because it showed a coalition forming between the insiders of the Democratic Party and the Outsider Dean.
Last night of Bill Moyer's Now Dorothy Rabinowitz, columnist and board member of the WSJ editorial board, had some very important observations of Dean from a conservatives perspective.
I have a very real sense that a tidal wave of support for Dean is about to engulf us.
Check out the dialog from last nights Now.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript246_full.html

[w4rma]

40. I agree, Q. I think their over the top attacks have been disrespectful,

and self-destructive to their own campaigns. Many of the attacks are based on terribly faulty information or intentionally misinterpreted information.

They should have been talking about their policies, theirselves and NOT other candidates (except for that fraud of a "president").

These mud-slinging tactics have done nothing but make me angry. These mud-slinging tactics are divisive.

[Q]

41. To be honest...I probably won't support Dean...

...unless he gets the nomination. I would probably start this same thread if it were Clark or any other candidate getting this type of treatment from their OWN party.

- The deck is already stacked against us...with Bush* being painted in the media as a 'great wartime leader' and a president they REFUSE to investigate on any and all issues. Think about it. Here's a 'president' who was caught red-handed lying this nation into war and hasn't been held accountable for it. And this is but ONE of dozens of lies and scandals surrounding this WH. He is virtually untouchable.

- This means another four years of Bush* if we don't stop the infighting and organize against him.

[w4rma]

42. I perfectly understand. And I agree with you. Although, I support Dean

and cannot support Clark in the primary due to my understanding of Clark's position on exporting software programming jobs.

OnEdit: More recent information on Clark's job exportation position has just been brought to my attention. I'm still concerned that this statement might be consistent with his earlier one about letting software jobs go to India, though:
…
BONNIE NEWMAN, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: If you were elected how would you keep American jobs from going offshore without violating free trade agreements?

CLARK: Well, I think what we first have to do is we have to make sure in our tax code we are not incentivizing the exports of jobs. So we have to go back through all the items of the tax code and make the companies who are putting headquarters out there taking jobs away from the United States are not being rewarded for it from the government. And then on the other side of it, we need to reward companies that are adding jobs in America. And then we need to take other broader measure. We’re going to have a $100 million jobs bill in America to restart this economy and really make job growth real. We’re going to work hard on science and technology, so we invest in the right research and development to create the leading edge technologies that will give us things that only we can manufacture in the years ahead. So it’s a multi-part program. But my number one domestic policy is jobs and we will work on that from day one.
…
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3669207/

[slinkerwink]

45. that's why we should be attacking the president, not supporting him

in that ad!

[Q]

47. Yes...that 'ad' is an amazing piece of propaganda...

...and it would be very interesting to find out who produced it.

- I believe that ALL of the Democratic candidates would bring a better foreign policy than Bush*...and they wouldn't have to LIE to the nation to do it.

- Another problem for Democrats is that the media has been decidedly against them since the 80s...when they began to build myths around GOP icons like Reagan. The American media promoted Reagan...and now Bush*...as if they can do no wrong.

- At the same time...they've attacked Democratic candidates and demand that they provide background information and records they never asked of Mr. Bush*. For instance...they made light of Gore's tour in Vietnam...but had nothing to say about Bush* failing to show up for a required physical (and drug test) that led to his being grounded from flying.