Dancing with Dean, Coming Home to Kucinich

[Karmadillo]

A good discussion of the kind of campaign that might work against the Republicans.

http://www.opednews.com/dinan0104_dean_kucinich.htm

A pervasive illusion has been dissolved this week, creating an opportunity for a powerful step forward. It's an illusion that has gone under the banner of "electability" - rational people assessing which candidate has the best chance of beating Bush. Underneath the surface debate, there's another truth, driven more by fear and emotion than an accurate appraisal of the landscape. People have been afraid that, in order to defeat a colossal bully, we need an even more macho fighter in our corner. And thus a lot of very well-meaning people propelled Dean to the foreground, believing his fire, attitude and military-like campaign would prove a clear match for the other, much nastier bully. A natural, very human instinct.

Round 1 is over. The unstoppable, win-win-win bluster of our favored tough guy detonated back on him. The Iowa voters, in the end, decided they didn't really fancy it. The tough guy warfare ended up taking Dean down a notch and made him the laughingstock of talk radio everywhere with the "Dean Scream." Gebhardt went down with him as Democrats proved again that our status as fighters is NOT our highest priority or value. Would Dean meet the same fate when slugging it out with Bush, who does, after all, have a bigger warchest and the incumbent's advantage? Trading punch for punch with him may not be the winning strategy since the potential for backfire is enormous.

As the illusion of "we need the toughest guy to win" dissolves, many Dean supporters are looking around, wondering if it is time to get behind someone else. Is the damage already irreparable? I've watched this development with a mixture of compassion and hope. Compassion because I know that Dean stands for a lot of positive things and that the feeding frenzy now descending upon him runs the risk of obscuring the extraordinary ways that he has already galvanized positive change. But also hope, because I see a real opportunity for the party as a whole to take off its blinders and see that a slug-fest with Bush may not be the best strategy in 2004.

Creating a winning alternative to Bush is about honoring and celebrating the very virtues that are at the core of the Democrat party and the large mass of progressives who no longer identify with it. It is a philosophy of hope and progress. It is a bold, leading forward into our future. Republicans rule by fear, Democrats lead with hope. Conservatives cling to the past, progressives lean into the future. The visionary torch of the future is what we need more than a burly fighter.

more...

[Iverson]

1. a fine point

"Creating a winning alternative to Bush is about honoring and celebrating the very virtues that are at the core of the Democrat party and the large mass of progressives who no longer identify with it. It is a philosophy of hope and progress. It is a bold, leading forward into our future. Republicans rule by fear, Democrats lead with hope. Conservatives cling to the past, progressives lean into the future. The visionary torch of the future is what we need more than a burly fighter."

Now obviously not everyone will reach the same conclusion about candidates, but it underscores the importance of core ideas and ideals. Too often, ideas are scorned as luxuries or the trappings of extremism but it is this very retreat from them which turns that vacuum into a self-fulfilling prophecy as the entire political discourse drifts rightward.

The outrage at the very existence of Greens could be obviated by putting that same energy into something other than DLC-type triangulation.

[CWebster]

2. Yeah right

Dean supporters could've backed Edwards on their own without being told to do so. If it doesn't bother Kucinich supporters, it sure might bother Dean supporters who don't support Edwards.

And actually this tough guy analysis is wrong. Iowa voters, with a mind to beat Bush, were convinced that Kerry's military bragging was more important to best Bush since the media(yes the media) always casts everything on Bush's and the DLC's measure of what it takes to win.

[diamondsoul]

3. I never heard of this guy before last week-

but damn I like him a LOT! He just gets it!

Dean has done some wonderful things for this party, and by golly I'll defend him over this speech nonsense and the Sharpton potshot any day. If it isn't deserved, I'm right there to say so. BUT he's not my choice because I see in him a lot of same-ol' same-ol' policies and a lack of substance behind his passion and desire to reclaim the country.

There's no doubt in my mind HE and his supporters believe there is substance there, but I don't see it. Does that mean he's worthless or scum? Hell NO! He's fantastic! I'm just plain not convinced he has what he needs to make a Presidency work for both himself and the people. That's me and Dean supporters don't need to get all up in arms about it.

Kucinich, otoh, has had substance more than anything else from the outset. He leapt into the race with more policy papers than any of the other contenders had out there, and much later in the race than any of them joined. That in itself won me over in a hurry. He's passsionate, but in a deeply loving way. He loves people, loves humanity, loves the planet and by God loves this country! THAT'S what Kucinich is about, LOVE first of all- love of life, love of self, love of others, love of country- LOVE. Love each other and we can make anything happen.

Sounds idealistic, I know, but when has it ever been tried as an international policy? Love each other. Will never forget the 6 yr old child who said "I like Mr. Kucinich because he wants people to just stop hurting each other."- idealistic? Yeah, but dammit plain simple logic, too! Stop hurting and start helping. Why is that such a tough concept for us cynical adults?

[blm]

4. Imagine if Kucinich's voice had received the attention he deserved

all last year?

Imagine.