Dean tells state Democrats abortion rhetoric needs to change

[janx]

LOS ANGELES – Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told California Democrats last night the party needs to change its rhetoric on abortion to project a more mainstream image.

"I think we need to talk about abortion differently," Dean said. "Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. I don't know anybody who's for abortion."

The former governor of Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate addressed the three-day California Democratic Party convention here – a gathering at which the party's long-standing hostility toward President Bush was overshadowed by its newfound vitriol against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his assault on Democratic constituencies, especially labor unions.

Dean joined in the Schwarzenegger bashing, beginning his speech in a not-too-convincing Austrian accent.

More at link:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050417-9999-1n17dean.html

[Crowdance]

1. Dr. Dean, Meet Crowdance--A Former Democrat for Abortion Rights

And if you want my vote for your party, you'd darn well better be FOR abortion rights too.

[janx]

5. That's not what he's saying.

He appears to be saying that instead of reacting to the charges leveled against us by the "pro-lifers," we have to change the dialogue.

[mzmolly]

7. "Abortion Rights" is not the proper way to frame this issue.

"Personal choice" about individual medical decisions is. ;)

[ClassWarrior]

21. There are people who get a thrill out of playing Russian Roulette, too.

NGU.

[ldf]

24. we allowed the pukes to frame the debate

as pro abortion, not pro choice.

that is what they do. they create lies, and make the rest of america think those lies are what democrats stand for.

they did the same with "partial birth abortion", when there is no such procedure. but it worked.

they did the same with the "death tax", spinning it to be taking everyone's inheritance, when the "estate tax" only touches the richest of americans. and it is working.

we must IMMEDIATELY counter every single statement they make with the truth. it WILL work, we just have to do it.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Exactlyl right.

Dean isn't attempting to lessen women's reproductive freedom. He's saying (and he's right) that it's way past time WE decided the terms of the debate, that WE framed the conversation. It's time to play offense, not defense.

We've allowed the right to define the debate for far too long, and have gotten dragged into a useless fight over their terms.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[FourStarDemocrat]

65. Amen to that, I'm not for mincing words either.

Abortion should be rare, but LEGAL. Women should have the right to choose for themselves, no ifs, ands or but's about it. Under Clinton, the abortion rates were consistantly LOWER than under the Bush regime. That's what Dean should be emphasizing. I'm pro choice, pro- abortion rights- and pro-privacy rights. And I'm not going to compromise my values to satisfy particular voting blocks that Dean wants to lure into our party.

[Warpy]

2. Sure

"Who do you want making your decision, you or some politician?"

[Eloriel]

29. Perfect reframing--

also see post #4 below, that Dean is calling for REFRAMING, not changing our position.

[xchrom]

3. i'll reserve judgement.

i think this is a return to the make abortion rare direction.

but i'm not interested in to much rhetorical investment in anti-choice speech.

ultimately it's about women and their bodies -- not abortion.
hard to split hairs with that.

[hedda_foil]

4. He's talking about FRAMING and he's right!

On abortion, Dean stressed he was not advocating that a party dominated by supporters of abortion rights change its views.

"We can make common ground with folks," he said. "The issue we need to debate is not whether abortion is a good thing. The issue we need to debate is whether a woman gets to make up her own mind about her health care or whether Tom DeLay gets to make up her mind."

[janx]

10. The only people who could object to this

are the hardest core fundamentalists, those people who see birth control as abortion and who see blastocysts as babies.

[Jade Fox]

14. They also see sex and a sin you should be punished for...

especially if you are a woman. They object to abortion because it lets
woman off the hook. They won't do anything to make abortion less
necessary, because that lets women off the hook too.

[janx]

25. ...because...

"she should have kept her legs together!" ;-)

[mzmolly]

6. I agree with Hedda, it's about "framing" the issue so that we are

for choice, not for "abortion" per se.

[safi0]

8. That's the bottom line

No one's Pro-Abortion. No one wants to undergo that. But who do you want to control your or your wife or mother's body? Her, or the government.

[mzmolly]

9. Exactly.

Welcome! :toast:

[DELUSIONAL]

11. Frickin men turning women's right to privacy into a political football

[Dave Sund]

13. It's not about giving up

It's about reframing.

We aren't giving up any ground. We want to shift the focus of the debate. Stop talking about abortion. Start talking about choice. Start talking about who has that choice. Should it be the woman, or the government?

[DELUSIONAL]

19. Dave --

Frickin men turning women's bodies into political footballs.

And now using the oh so cute words -- "re-framing" . . .

Other Johns, and Bills, and Freds -- in earlier posts tell us to just give the point to the Right Wing Thugs and move on.

Sometimes I just don't like the male half of the human species -- at all.

[Dave Sund]

23. The issue is choice

And that's where we want the debate. Right now the debate is centered on abortion. The debate should be centered on choice.

[DELUSIONAL]

42. MEN are centering the "debate" on ABORTION

WOMEN -- are concerned about CONTROL over our own bodies. AND we are concerned about privacy.

Yes I am DELUSIONAL to believe that a male could EVER really understand this issue. Males CANNOT understand -- you never will and you never can. It is all theoretically and removed from your focus.

Women are dying around the world because of MALE CONTROL of their bodies.

It is an issue of control and privacy and ownership of our own bodies.

YOU males can "re-frame" the issue all you want -- and play politics. But basically you do not get pregnant.

So --- Jim, Bob, Bill, Tom, Buster, Frank, Harry, Sam, Jerry -- etc -- keep your god damned politics out of my uterus.

I consider Harry Reid to be a serial killer -- because of his anti-choice anti-women votes. He's votes have cost women their lives.

Yes I am hard headed on this issue -- I watched a class mate of mine become more obviously pregnant -- from being raped -- until she left school. I see a bunch of men "re-framing" this right back to the alleys.

[Zhade]

47. Thanks for broad-brushing all men.

Including this one, who understands he can't understand the issue as you do but is nevertheless fully behind you.

Take care not to alienate your allies.

[omega minimo]

51. Wow. Thanks for being here and voicing such awareness

I understand the hard line attitude that you responded to. And agree with "Take care not to alienate your allies."

I endorse letting people know up front that their personal opinion about abortion is just that. Their opinion can be acknowledged or engaged. The subject is a passionate one and people love to discuss it at length-- distracted from the fact. The FACT that women have the Right to Choose means it's not their decision until it is.

Men are in the picture. Depending on the situation, they will be involved (or not) in reproductive health choices. That's the business of the people involved.

And it is strange how the most vociferous spokesmodels for the "unborn" are men.

The whole thing is about keeping women in their place and turning back the clock on social progress of the past 3 decades. Because it is such a passionate litmus test issue, Repugs can use it to divide, distract and conquer. This and the gay marriage issue is about keeping the oldschool model of rigid heterosexual gender roles/duties and male-dominated households (and schools, churches, clubs, businesses, companies, banks, governments, militaries, hierarchies, societies) intact and inviolable.

Again, I call for Democratic Party to address the socioeconomic realities AND THIS DAMN WAR IN IRAQ and protect women's rights and the health of all Americans.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Interesting choice of a handle, considering your comments.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Does that mean there's something Hillary isn't telling us?

Not just a man/woman debate. There are women on both sides.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. Very smart that Dr. Dean

He is framing and I hope that Hillary is equally as adept at framing as the good doctor.

[KittyWampus]

58. Actually Hillary Said The Same Thing And Was Villified Once Again

[Larkspur]

61. Hillary is not a proponent of "reframing the debate". She's a

Triangulation proponent because that is what worked for Bill Clinton. Of course, what worked for Bill doesn't work for most Democrats.

On the surface, her remarks were similar to Dean's, but she is really a panderer, not a re-framer.

[davidinalameda]

62. you go girl!

LOL

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[ooglymoogly]

15. he's right

should be womens rights...abortion is an ugly word no matter how you use it.

[welshTerrier2]

16. language, framing and slippery slopes

the focus of Dr. Dean's remarks seems to emphasize his belief that we need to "reframe" the debate ... the justification for changed language is obviously to make political gains ...

but let's not ignore the fact that all social movements, such as the freedom of choice issue, have chosen their language for the very same reasons ... the goal of language on social issues is to raise consciousness ...

the term used by Democrats on this issue has always been "freedom of choice" ... it has been the right-wing that paints us as "pro-abortion" ... it sounds like Dr. Dean wants the Party to alter its rhetoric to promote the idea that abortion is an evil (my words not his) that should be legal but RARE ... the underlying message sounds like abortion should be discouraged but "tolerated" ...

the argument creates a very real risk of a "slippery slope" ... when the "opposition Party" starts making negative moral judgments about private medical issues between a woman and her doctor, can the overturning of legal abortion rights be far behind? i'm open to Dr. Dean's ideas but i think before we all merrily jump on this bandwagon we should think through the possible ramifications ... changing the language we use may be a way to attract more voters to the Party; it also might be a way to put an end to legal abortions ... let's take this one a little cautiously ...

[Dave Sund]

17. Our ways of making it rare

Making education and birth control readily available, thereby decreasing unwanted pregnancies.

Their way: Don't have sex.

[w4rma]

38. Also, reproductive education, social programs and reducing poverty. (nt)

[omega minimo]

36. The nearer your destination, the more you're Slip Slidin Away

I am going to plug in behind WT2 :hi: on this excellent thread, where the point has been made early, often and well, that this is about the medical privacy of women and the Right to Choose.

We're already there! This battle has been won. The framing already exists. The Repugs are trying to chip away at American women's rights to privacy in reproductive health decisions upheld by the Supreme Court 30 years ago.

What's the framing? A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The word "Woman" and "Right" side by side have fallen out of fashion-- lets bring it back and build on the foundation that has been established.

"Dean said, "Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. I don't know anybody who's for abortion."

Pardon me for pointing this out, but it is sloppy and/or irresponsible for Mr. Dean (and he's a Dr., too) to use the buzzphrase (talk about FRAMING!) "I don't know anybody who's for abortion." "FOR ABORTION?" Let's remind him it's about the RIGHT to an ABORTION and medical privacy-- i.e. WOMEN'S RIGHTS. If Dem's use "FOR abortion" they are playing footsie with the opposition instead of standing firm for women's rights.

WT2: "the argument creates a very real risk of a "slippery slope" ... when the "opposition Party" starts making negative moral judgments about private medical issues between a woman and her doctor, can the overturning of legal abortion rights be far behind?"

I'm with you WelshTerrier2-- and thank you for your insightful comments on framing. If we deselect "abortion" and insert any other issue into this statement:

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told California Democrats last night the party needs to change its rhetoric on ________ to project a more mainstream image"

...what does that suggest? The watering down of issues to pander to a certain (and possibly imaginary) segment of voters? Trying to be mainstream (ever since Nuke Gettingrich's "Devolution") HAS GOTTEN THE DEMS into the weakened and defensive position they are in.

We need to educate concerned voters about the core issue, the right to privacy and reproductive health, and reintroduce the concept of WOMEN'S RIGHTS. (THEY CAN HANDLE IT!)

Which, after all, is what the Repug dominators seek to destroy.

:kick:

[flpoljunkie]

56. Agreed. And I like your framing of the issue..."freedom" of choice.

[madfloridian]

18. Here is more on what he said in Seattle.

Someone took notes from taping a meeting with a women's group there.
He made it clear that he knew there was a lot of concern among us. He wants to emphasize "who gets to choose" instead of using pro anything.

From someone at the blog:
"When you talk about a woman’s right to make up her own mind, you are talking to every woman in America, not just the people who think they are pro-choice or pro-life or what ever it is. My strategy on “Choice” issues (I’m trying to ban that word from my vocabulary) is to refuse to let them make it an issue about the morality of abortion and make it about whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind. Cause we’ve got to have a ton of women on our side who may be uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. I think many Americans are uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. They don’t know what to do, they don’t really want it to be illegal, but they don’t want abortion on demand, which is what the Bush people say we’re about. We’ve got to make the debate about whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind, or whether that should be left to politicians.

"If we can re-brand this issue in that debate, then I think that’s the end of the debate."

[Zhade]

43. How do you feel about his words, MF?

I'm split - on the one hand, it makes sense to frame it as a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body (which I support 1000%), but on the other hand I'm not totally convinced WT2 doesn't make a good point upthread.

[madfloridian]

67. I tend to agree now that I am hearing more about it.

His point is that some women who oppose abortion would not deny it to others if they felt the need. But if you use the word "pro-choice" they will back off because of the years of abuse of that word.

But they often agree easily that a woman should make health decisions not legislators.

[realFedUp]

20. I never hear Regressives talking about vasectomies

ahhh, shouldn't one of the surest ways
of preventing pregnancies-vasectomies-
be supported, talked openly and enthusiastically
about....

[Dave Sund]

22. It's about choice!

If you would listen to what Dr. Dean is saying, he's saying we've got to make the issue less about abortion, and more about choice. He's saying we have to defend a woman's right to choose. That the conservatives try to force us into defending abortion. When we should really be defending the choice.

[welshTerrier2]

26. ""pro-life Democrats" should be encouraged to run for office"

the article linked to by the BP said Dean said that ""pro-life Democrats" should be encouraged to run for office" ...

sorry, friends ... that's not "reframing"; that's endorsing pro-life (i.e. ANTI-ABORTION) candidates ... no, that is not OK ...

if Dean really made that statement, he has some explaining to do ... if the Democratic Party's "big tent" means that Dr. Dean is willing to try to "win" at any cost, including depriving so many of their liberties, count me out ...

it sounds to me that there's a bit of political tap-dancing going on with all this reframing business ... if the Party makes its message "fuzzier" in the hope of appealing to more people, Democrats will continue to lose ...

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Howard Dean: "Somebody's position on choice can't be a litmus test"

"Somebody's position on choice can't be a litmus test," Dean said yesterday. "I'm as pro-choice as they come, Bob Casey has been a tremendous friend of working people."

more: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/11263555.htm

[welshTerrier2]

33. "litmus tests": a perfectly reasonable approach to voting

i love the way so called "litmus test" voters are often villified ...

the message is, "if you care very deeply about an issue and a candidate for office holds a view on that issue that is absolutely unacceptable to you, you have no right to use only one issue to vote against that candidate" ... what a bunch of nonsense that is ...

each voter should have every right to weigh the candidates based on their personal system of values ... if that system puts all its weight on a single issue, who are these high and mighty types who fail to respect their views?

i will never again vote for a candidate, including Democratic candidates, who vote another penny for the "war" in Iraq ... and i'm sick and tired of people labeling me a "single issue" voter ... there are 1,500 dead American issues ... there are more than 10,000 badly wounded American issues ... there are more than 10,000 American families trying to deal with deaths and injuries caused by the "war" and their are millions of Americans suffering from the impact of the "war" ... and that doesn't address the more than 100,000 dead Iraqis and the impact on the rest of the world ...

yeah, i'm a "single issue, litmus test" voter all right ... of course, millions of lives of being destroyed by that issue ...

[w4rma]

39. "litmus test" voters = "single issue" voters (nt)

[welshTerrier2]

71. well, try this then ...

i will not vote for a candidate who votes another penny for bush's "war" in Iraq ... litmus test? absolutely ...

i will not vote for a candidate who doesn't support "freedom of choice" ... litmus test? absolutely ...

two litmus tests ... two issues ...

how do you square that with your statement that "litmus test" voters = "single issue" voters ??

the point is, i care very deeply about many issues ... to paint me as someone who only cares about a single issue really distorts my views ... the fact that i would rule out a candidate because of their view on a "single issue" does not make me a "single issue" voter ... i vote FOR people based on their positions on many issues ...

[dsc]

40. as long as you admit it

and are consistent in that you let others do the same but with different issues, then you won't hear from me. But most people who are single issue pro choice on this forum behaved quite differently towards those who voted for Nader on some other single issue.

[Zhade]

44. It should be a litmus test...

...only in that the respective candidate must be dedicated to letting others control themselves.

If they don't want an abortion, they don't have to get one. They have absolutely no right to try to control others, however.

(Btw, you never answered my question about the bankruptcy bill - should I go ahead and conclude that you do support it?)

[janx]

41. There are women who will not have an abortion

on religious grounds. They can practice their religion. They're welcome in the Dem party as long as they don't think about trying to infringe on the rights of other women.

That's about the extent of it.

The Dem party has for too long reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to the rhetoric of the religous right.

It's far past time for that to stop.

[chefgirl]

45. Exactly right

There are women who will not have an abortion on religious grounds.
They're welcome in the Dem party as long as they don't think about trying to infringe on the rights of other women.

I couldnt agree more, because I AM one of those women. Additionally, not only will I NOT try to infringe on the rights of other women with my personal beliefs, I would fight to the death to protect a womans right to choose...ALWAYS.

I fully understand and respect what Dr.Dean is saying. He's absolutely correct, whether he advocates making abortion rare or not.

The issue here is WOMENS RIGHTS!

-chef-

[welshTerrier2]

55. "trying to infringe on the rights of other women"

isn't this exactly what encouraging pro-life Democrats to run for office would result in ??

[chefgirl]

68. NO, not necessarily

No, because Im what you might call pro-life, on a personal level.

Politically, however, I'm also pro-choice. It IS completely possible to be both.

-chef-

[omega minimo]

50. You are bringing up a subtlety that Dean is trying to address

in a ham-fisted way.

The notion that it is very personal, very private, and very protected by law, when a woman (and family) are faced with decisions of reproductive health. First of all, women have the right to choose, and refuse to go back to the back alley, lost summer and coat hanger days. Not matter what anyone else thinks and no matter what anyone else would choose IF it was their decision.

Secondly, we can acknowledge those concerns of others without being defensive about it. We have the right and our choice, our reproductive health is none of their business. If the concerns are about women's health, children's health, health care, education, poverty, social stability leading to family stability, etc.; then we can find common ground and move toward solutions, maybe even using the "legal but rare" framing-- carefully. The rhetoric may be well-intentioned, but it appears to be political pandering and a capitulation to the weakening of the basic issue: women's rights.

Let these "legal but rare" folks work on the social issues and address the realities of women's lives instead of starting from a position of Do They or Don't They have a right to poke their head in the bedroom and the doctor's office.

:kick:

Being for the RIGHT to abortion is not being FOR abortion. As for litmus tests, any Democrats who continue to ignore the importance of the Woman's vote in 2006 and 2008-- including Republican and independent Pro-Choice women-- are delusional, male, or both.

:evilgrin:

If Democrats address social and economic issues that affect women and families, INCLUDING THIS BLOODY ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ they will leave the Wrong Wingers in the toxic dust.

[welshTerrier2]

54. is this responsive to Dr. Dean's statement

the BP link highlighted a statement that Dr. Dean allegedly made where he said the Party should welcome pro-life candidates ...

i don't think anyone has asserted that "women who will not have an abortion on religious grounds shouldn't be welcomed in the Democratic Party" ...

but isn't the idea that the Party should endorse pro-life (as well as pro-choice) candidates endorsing candidates who would impose their views of the issue on those who don't agree with them ??

do you think the Democratic Party should ever endorse a candidate who believes it's OK to deprive a woman of the freedom to choose?

[Stinky The Clown]

27. When you couple this with what the Doctor said about "using Terri Schiavo"

You might start to see where this is going.

See this thread for some background ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1398912

There's no need to parse every little word he utters. Right now he's still speaking pretty much exclusively to the home team (us). He is spot on in his attempt to change the dialog from "Pro-Life" (which absolutely makes us "Pro-Death", no matter how much you don't want that to be the case - it simply IS) to rights - like the right to privacy and freedom from undue governmental interference in very private matters.

The whole dialog has to change. Like it or not. Stand on principle or not, the dialog **must** be changed.

This guy knows what he's doing. It can be argued that he is not our most artful spokesman (too direct for some, too prone to speaking his mind in clear, simple, unambiguous words, too prone to using shorthand for more artful phrasing, etc.) but his ideas are correct. As the dialog moves from this internal discussion (held in public, except few but us are listening) to a more widespread public debate, we can get more artful spokespeople out there. But for now, don't parse ..... absorb concepts instead.

The Doctor knows what it takes to move us out of Loser's Alley. Political correctness is an albatross.

[fasttense]

30. Dean's right. Democrats have let the repugs frame the issues.

Now if you are for the poor you are not a Christian. How did the repugs get away with that? Dean's right about the choice issue too. We let the repugs frame it as pro-abortion. I like the way this man (Dean) thinks.

[me b zola]

34. I favor a change in TONE of the debate, along with language

In other words, ATTACK their stereotype head-on! The truth is that most conservatives and a good many of the religious types absolutely favor choice when it comes to them or their daughters.

Imagine this from joe blow elected Dem when interviewed on CNN:

"...Pro-Choice? You bet I am! But what the repubs aren't telling you is that so are most Americans, including most of them! How outrageous for repubs to paint themselves as the protectors of life when nothing could be further from the truth. Like most Americans, if an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy happened to one of THEIR children--FOR WHAT EVER REASON---they support the right of legal, medial access to an abortion, but they do it quietly & privately. That is all ANY American wants...the right to choose, the right to legal medical access, the right to privacy! The overwhelming majority in this nation support birth control and the right to choose what method is correct for them when facing an unplanned pregnancy...THAT is what the Dems stand for, and THAT is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want."

[Zhade]

46. OUCH. No, that's bad framing, I think.

"The overwhelming majority in this nation support birth control and the right to choose what method is correct for them when facing an unplanned pregnancy...THAT is what the Dems stand for, and THAT is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want."

This plays into the abortion-as-birth-control framing. Bad, bad, bad.

I realize this may not have been your intent, so you might want to rewrite that section to clear it up. It's unclear as it stands.

[peacetalksforall]

35. The refraiming then should be "Women's Choice'. Not pro-life, not

pro-choice. It should only be about 'a women's choice'. Therefore, men should defer and shut up.

If men could shut up and defer, maybe the women could get it straightened out.


In the end....
No sane people would write a law that women 'should keep their legs together'.

No sane people would write a law that abortion of any kind is unlawful for every person in the country.

No sane people would push for a law against abortion and then say they won't enforce it with penalties.

No sane people would fight abortion and facilitate killing.

In the end....

why give birth to a fetus to allow it to be blown up fully or partially through war. That should be 'thee issue' and the subject that needs framing.

[fasttense]

37. You said it!!

Why give birth to a fetus to allow it to be blown up fully or partially through war (or die from lack of medical care). That should be the subject that needs framing.

[Zhade]

48. I will defer, but I will not 'shut up'.

Consider this: you could be completely accurate in everything you've just said, but the hard reality is that the majority of people in Congress are men. It's unrealistic to assume that they will defer or shut up.

And I don't think you want men like me, who fully support a woman's right to control over her own body and choices, to shut up. We're on your side, and numbers mean something.

I recognize the ownership women have of this issue. I just ask that you not push away those men who support you.

[peacetalksforall]

53. You're right...defense is needed. Support, is essential. I'm kinda

glad I phrased it like that - finding out that there are people who can get excited about fairness was worth my mistake in phrasing it - specifically, the impractically of shutting up. Shout out, not shut up. Thanks.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Take it a step further:

the issue should be framed as the right to make private medical decisions without government interference. That's a way to put this that appeals to a far broader cross-section of the country.

[TriMetFan]

52. Abortion rhetoric

Like I told a friend that is "Pro-Life". No-one is for Abortion only for equal rights for women. And if you are so "Pro-Life" then why is it o.k. kill a child that is 16 or 18 year old for a crime? Why is it o.k. to pull the feeding tube of a child because the parent doesn't have insurance? Why is it o.k. to send young men & women to war over lies?

I can tell you that the "Pro-Life" person will get piss and call you names once you bring this you to their face.

Love the fetus, but kill the child.

[KittyWampus]

60. Amazing. Hillary Clinton Says The Same Thing & Was Hung In Effigy.

Dean says it, and he's a genius.

[janx]

64. My mother said it 30 years ago.

It's time to put it into practice.

[KittyWampus]

69. Ultimately, I Think This Hints That Americans Aren't So Divided As Media

and many politicos want us to believe.

Seems there's just a relatively small percentage of Americans who WANT to divide us all and search for topics to do just that.

"Common Ground".

That is what we should be seeking.

[theboss]

63. Why does Dean always state his political strategy?

I've never undersood this. If you want to talk to Southern White Men, talk to Southern White Men. If you want to talk about religion, talk about religion. If you want to re-frame abortion, re-frame abortion.

But I don't think it makes any sense to annouce a political stratgey to the public. It makes any effort after that appear to be cynical politics.

[FourStarDemocrat]

66. Good point. Besides that, he's giving his plans away to the repugs. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

70. I don't think he's given anything away

That isn't painfully obvious. Neocons have painted us as "Pro-Abortion" when we've tried to define ourselves as "Pro-Choice." Obviously, we didn't succeed in making the distinction.

It's obvious to anyone that if we want to succeed, we need to change how we are marketing ourselves to the mainstream and independents (assuming you believe we don't have the majority already... IMHO, I believe the repukes have one by redistricting efforts and a long-term power grab of local politics by careful framing of party stances).