Daily Kos

DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE?

by Mike in Ann Arbor

Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 12:41:05 AM PDT

DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE?
(with all apologies to Dennis Miller)

It seems to me that painting Dean as the angry candidate is going to be the strategy of the Republican and conservative pundits over the next several months, and you can surely count on more than a few Democrats doing the same thing. (Are you listening, Joe Lieberman, and all you whining Clark supporters?)

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but if Howard Dean is going to be portrayed by the DLC as the "Angry Candidate," then we damn well ought to see if there is something for him to be angry about. You know, we live in a country that has been handed over to The Great Miscommunicator by the Five Grand Poobahs, where, before that, we were essentially at peace and gaining on the ground where violence was flashing--Ireland and Israel. We were in solid enough shape financially that Tom DeLay was literally salivating over the idea of having enough federal funds come to his district that he'd have a few bucks left over to get fitted for a new hairpiece. And all of that occurred while basking under the glow of the president, Bill Clinton, who was so "bad" that peace and prosperity, for some, have since become opportunities to spend ourselves as drunk as our current prep-boy president used to get at a Skull & Bones mixer for the incoming class of neo-con stormtroopers.

Now as a country we're engrossed in this rags-to-riches-to-rags story that has only recently, with the inauguration of the current credit card commander-in-chief, allowed us to give to the federal government permission to give up on the great middle class and involve us two costly and mismanaged wars.  The economy is hemorrhaging so many jobs that the unemployment lines look like the queue to get into an Ann Coulter/Arnold Schwarzenegger Jell-O Wrestling Smackdown. Overseas, after deciding that 12 years of containment was enough, Donald Rumsfeld's plan of whispering in Bush's ear every night "He tried to kill your daddy. He tried to kill your daddy." finally paid off, and Bush decided to bomb the living crap out of Iraq quicker than Ralph Reed leaving an Al Sharpton Meetup. We know, Ralph, it was the "Rev." thing-ie that threw ya', right?

Back at home, John Ashcroft has decided that he needed to fill the recent Taliban vacuum created by Bush's spring training victory--you know, where the largest army ever assembled took on a bunch of fellas with RPGs mounted in the beds of Toyota Land Cruisers--and in a bold move sure to have raised even the tweezed eyebrows of a begowned and begone J. Edgar Hoover, ordered a burkah to be installed over the solid brass bosom of Lady Justice. If that weren't enough, old Peeping John figured that the Bill of Rights had simply become a bit too cumbersome to manage so he reduced it by about half, leaving only a single clause of the First Amendment (I won't tell you which one, but I will say that Jerry Falwell got to choose), half of the Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth. Oh, and he was going to leave in the Third, too, but some fella named Poindexter told him that it had to go.

In spite of all this, the country is still stupefied by whether Friends will be picked up for just one more year and who the Bachelor will kiss off next. All the while, they're keeping the other eye on a color-coded national alert system that seems to elevate with every ten-point slippage in Bush's Approval Rating. We find ourselves back into election season, which is roughly defined by four years, less the average length of Joe Biden's opening statements to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Assembled for the Quadrennial Clusterfuck are the usual panoply of serious candidates, seriously boring candidates, and seriously out in left field candidates. Now in the interest of party unity I'm not going to go off on these folks, but I do have to say that if Joe Lieberman doesn't move back to the left, Bush is going to find that he really will have a primary candidate to run against. I hear that his speeches now begin, "Hi, I'm Joe Lieberman, and I represent the Pat Buchanan wing of the Democratic Party." (Around here we just like to call him Bush v43.1.) And if Dennis Kucinich doesn't stop yelling at me, I'm going to have Nurse Ratchet pay him a visit and make sure that there's nothing left in that little paper cup by the time she leaves to give John Edwards' campaign some much needed electro-shock therapy.

I know.  I said that I wasn't going to do this, but I can't leave without a word about Wes "I'm a Democrat. Really." Clark. Poor Wes just can't get anywhere with more than a small band of rabidly naive voters now that the sun has come up on the campaign and a little light shows that he doesn't even cast a shadow. I'm not saying that his campaign doesn't have any traction, but when I hear his name I immediately think of someone in army boots and a sleeveless undershirt trying to gain on a run-away Zamboni.  Talk about Not Ready for Prime Time; Clark's got all the substance Brittany Spears after snorting a tank of helium.

I mean, really, this guy doesn't even have the cajones to frag the guy running point; he's content to just sit back and let the other candidates and the little rabid dog soldiers of his campaign take their shots at the Dean's ankles.  Clark just wants to be seen as a gentleman general, all smiles and lightness.  Well, he's half-way there.  Wes Clark is not a man weighted down by original ideas.  

Which, I suppose, brings me to Carol Mosely-Braun. I like this woman. I really do. No knocks on her at all. I just hope that she, no matter who wins, is appointed to a meaningful job. We could do a whole lot worse than having her in a job where she is inspired to succeed.

But speaking of a whole lot worse, we have to turn on...er, I mean to...Rep. Gephardt and Sen. Kerry. To say that Gephardt is dynamic is about as believable as saying that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks of September 11, which is to say that about 55% of the DNC believes that the congressman from Missouri will energize enough of the apathetic Democratic base to actually get off their bon-bon enhanced butts and get out and vote for the senator from Massachusetts.  Well, I've got news for you, Al & Bruce, but Kerry's campaign is falling faster than the add rates for Martha Stewart Living. I mean, two more months of these poll numbers from his backyard of New Hampshire, and they'll be holding his campaign meetings at 1:00am in the portrait-festooned Bob Dornan Suite at the D.C. EconoLodge.

But back to "Mr. Angry": Howard Dean has no right to be angry, not in this Walden Pond we're all swimming in. Everything is just fine. Yeah....right!

While Adm. Bush pilots the S.S. Condoleeza Rice into the rocks of the next Prince Edward Sound with such abandon that even Dick Cheney's smirk shifts from one side of his face to the other, this "little teapot"--thanks, that was cute, Peggy Noonan--may well have awakened that great untapped nerve in the American electorate and fired it up enough to take an active role in returning this old warship with the Ken Lay Steering Cabin to dry-dock, giving us back a country that doesn't meet every international challenge with the angry force of arms, every national security crisis with angry black boot of the Justice Dep't., and every fiscal emergency with the angry sword of more and deeper tax cuts for the Pioneers and the Rangers who are surely scheming to float his presidency on the waves of more and more money and deeper and deeper deceptions.

Hell, I'm damn proud of the fact that Howard Dean's angry. And if you're not angry, well, you're just not paying attention.

Of course, it's not just my opinion that the DLC sure as hell is wrong.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 36 comments

  •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

    Give'em hell, Mike
    I have the power...and it makes me all wiggly.

    by Del in MO on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 12:56:07 AM PDT

  •  Easy on Clark, please (none / 0)


    Please ease up on the Clark supporters. Or is a 100-message flamewar the goal here?

    by squiddy on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 12:56:26 AM PDT

    •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (3.42 / 14)

      Let me tell you something, squiddy.  I've had it up to my ass taking it easy on the Clark supporters.  These folks are no better than Republicans when it comes to fragging anyone whom they perceive as standing in their way of promoting "The General" to Commander-in-Chief, and that especially applies to Dean.  Go read that hate-filled blog of theirs and you'll get an idea of what the stakes are here.

      Whether I stop or not, one thing is certain: they will keep on dragging Dean through whatever mud they can find, as they know full well that the only way that Clark stands half a snowball's chance in the blast furnace is for Dean to be utterly destroyed.  Clark, you see, can only look tall if he's standing on Dean's dead body.  Take a look at Lara Sinavenus' diary.  She's a Clark regular intent on sewing as much hate as possible.

      When I get the notion that Clark supporters are in this for the good of the Democratic Party, then I'll ease up on them.  Until that day, I'll give as good as they will.

      We need a better president.

      by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:07:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (2.50 / 4)

        The Clark supporters who post on his blog are very concerning.  You're right.  Their vitriol is astounding and their all-or-nothing mentality serves no purpose except to bolster the true believers over there.  I'm convinced the vast majority of them are not Democrats, but are conservative unenrolled (or indies) or disenfranchised moderate Republicans.  They are definitely NOT Democrats; they ooze contempt for virtually everything the party stands for through both their actions and their words.

        Most of this crowd won't support Dean if he is the nominee.  They'd rather see Bush get a second term than have Dean get the nod over Clark--and that is perverse.  These folks deserve our disdain.

        I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

        by lightiris on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:17:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Dean Freaks (2.50 / 2)

          Change the names and a few words and your post is absolutely correct:

          The Dean supporters who post on his blog are very concerning.  You're right.  Their vitriol is astounding and their all-or-nothing mentality serves no purpose except to bolster the true believers over there.  I'm convinced the vast majority of them are not Democrats, but are disenfranchised lunatics trying to find some meaning in their angry, sad little lives.  They are definitely NOT Democrats; they ooze contempt for virtually everything the party stands for through both their actions and their words and they are so far out of the mainstream that it's laughable.

          Most of this crowd won't support Clark if he is the nominee.  They'd rather see Bush get a second term than have Clark get the nod over Dean--and that is perverse.  These folks deserve our disdain.  

          You people blabber on about being ABB but you're really NBD.

          Pathetic.

             

          Without music, life would be a mistake.

          by Cory on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:46:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: The Dean Freaks (none / 0)

            Now there's some original thinking.

            We need a better president.

            by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 10:19:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: The Dean Freaks (3.50 / 2)

            That's all very clever and all, but my argument doesn't really work in reverse.  Dean supporters are Democrats by and large.  They support the party.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the vocal Clark supporters who post on his blog and around the internet.  On any given day, one can find dozens of posts from people who refuse to actually spell out Dean's name, who refuse to call him anything BUT playground names, and who refuse to support his candidacy even if he is the nominee.  That's fact, and while you may not like it, it's there in black and white for you to read should you choose.

            Indeed, your titling of your comment "The Dean Freaks" suggests to me you might be one of those posting such nonsense.  

            I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

            by lightiris on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 11:11:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: The Dean Freaks (none / 0)

              Dean supporters are Democrats by and large.  They support the party.

              LOL.  They support Howard Dean.  Very few do anything for the party except put all their eggs in the Howard Dean basket.

              Anyone who refuses to say anything but complimentary things about Howard is instantly pounced upon by the most rabid Dean supporters and called Republicans, trolls, etc. Just like you did.

              The media dares to comment on Dean's constantly changing positions?  Diary entries entitled 'Fuck the Washintgton post!'  How dare they write something not praising our savior!

              The suggestion that any candidate other than Dean might be a better choice against Bush?  Troll ratings!  Bush-lite!

              I expect La La behavior at the official sites of each candidate.  That's where the supporters should be able to play their silly games.

              It's just a shame that sites that were once so informative like this one have become to tiresome with the same blabber.

              Twenty diary entries about how Howard will change the party.  Twenty diary entries about the article that didn't praise him.  Twenty diary entries about who Howard should pick for his cabinet.  Twenty diary entries about the lunatic Wesley, Joe, John, John, and Dick supporters.

              It's all rather strange that so many Deanies are seeking constant validation for their choices. Are you trying to convince others to come to your way of thinking by beating them over the head with it or are you trying to convince yourself you aren't dragging the party into a giant sinkhole?

              In either case, it's all very odd and freaky.

              Without music, life would be a mistake.

              by Cory on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:28:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: The Dean Freaks (none / 0)

                Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the Dean campaign.  It is nothing at all as you suggest.  If that's the was you see it, fine, but you would do well to spend a little time examining it closer before you go off saying things that simply are not true.  

                As a matter of fact, most of the people who support Dean, are Democrats, thugh some are folks who havn't found anything in the Democratic Party to get this excited about in decades.    

                So, after you've been more acclimated to what the Dean campaign is about, perhaps you're modify your position.  In the meantime, if you're looking for a sinkhole, look no further than the campaigns of most if not all the Democratic candidates.  Not a one is producing anything but the opportunity to do better than expected (And in Kerry's case, not even that).

                Dean has the current buzz, in spite of the efforts of many who seek to derail it.  You may not care for Dean, but he does represent the true alternative to Bush.  And for all those who be believe that the Democratic Party is committing suicide if it is to nominate Dean, wait until you find out just how weak the rest of the field is.

                We need a better president.

                by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:32:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Re: The Dean Freaks (none / 0)

                Cory, the Democrats who support Dean in the primary will almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election -- they have said so repeatedly. Those Dean supporters who are not Democrats (Greens, independents, moderate Republicans, non-voters) are potential Democratic voters that Dean has inspired to come over to the (D) column to support him. If he is not the nominee for the Democratic candidate, all bets are off for many of them -- not necessarily that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, but they have no prior allegiance to the Democrats that entitles the Democratic Party automatically to their vote. (Clark and his supporters are for the most part the same situation. The non-Democrats the candidate has won are theirs, not the party's - they will go where they want.)

                No Democratic candidate's supporters have to sit through the sheer amount of vitriol spewed at them like Dean's supporters -- not Lieberman's, not Clark's, not Kerry's, not Kucinich's, not Gephardt's, not Edwards', not Sharpton's, not Moseley-Braun's -- not by a long shot. All of the candidates themselves take some flak, as they should, during the primary process. But only Dean's supporters get constantly and visciously attacked to the levels we see here on this blog for example. And it is, by and large, Clark's (stated) supporters who are spewing the most bile here. (Certainly not all of Clark's supporters, just the obnoxious ones. Dean and Clark have a lot of similarities in their platforms, and should be natural allies.) So don't be surprised when Dean supporters get reactive to getting attacked yet again.

                There are a lot of folks here who support Dean - they post enthusiatically about their candidate. And if you look at the polls across the country, a substantial plurality of Democratic primary voters are supporting Dean, and they are enthusiastic about their candidate. If you look here and elsewhere at what many of the more vocal "supporters" of other candidates (and a number of the candidates themselves) have been doing, they have been relentlessly negative on Dean with very little positive to offer about their own candidate. And look where it's gotten them. Make your case dammit. (And refrain from including a coda to the post saying something like "and you're a koolaid drinking idiot to support Dean", please.)

                I support Dean in the primaries (and by extension as president) because I believe in his platform and his message, and I believe that he can beat George Bush. Initial evidence indicates that he has the best chance for doing so. (I'm not writing off Clark.) So cool your jets, refocus your energy, work (positively) for your candidate of choice, and let's beat George Bush in 2004 -- whoever the Democratic nominee is.

                DailyKos for 50 States -- Let's Build It!

                by DavidW in SF on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 04:26:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (none / 0)

          I'm sorry, but I have to agree with lightiris, but on a larger level.  The past month has seen a vicious increase of nasty attacks by non-dean supporters.

          Case-in-point:

          On the 24th, a diary entry was created by a user (who shall remain anonymous) that basically made up lies about Dean.  I was angry, as there's so much of it floating around, that I refuted some of it and then ended it by telling him to drink a nice hot cup of shut the f@#k up.  Long story made short, I got in a flame war with some gep and clark supporters, they rated me as super troll, I lost trusted user status.  Normally I'd ask some of my Dean supporter friends to help me out, but seeing as it was the 24th, not many people were around.  

          Then I did something foolish- I created a few other names with other emails and rated myself back up to regain trusted user, which I had earned by posting wisely and intelligently since this summer.  They pointed it out to kos, those other screen names have been disabled, and I'm back to square one.  Granted, I shouldn't have done what I did, and I'll be the first to admit it and apologize, but in the end, it seems unfair that I got the short end of the stick because I told non-Dean supporters to shut up if they were going to lie.  And I won't apologize for telling people to shut up if they're not telling the truth.  Bush supporters are going to spew lies- get used to it, we're going to have to combat it hardly and directly.

          Anyway, there were enough of them to gang up on me.  Not that I'm trying to justify my actions, because I'm not, but I don't think that they were in the right, either.  They emailed kos and they collectively labeled me as a troll.  Which isn't fair, because if you look at my old account's history, I had many diary entries and had been rated highly by some of the most respected members of this community, ie theoria, deminva, folkbum, and many others.  

          So, I guess I'm apologizing, because two wrongs never make a right.  However, I warn other Dean supporters to beware of this; some (and certainly not all) non-Dean supporters are getting vicious in their attacks, and we need to watch one another's back.  It's indeed sad that we all can't get along.  

          If you want to, rate this post.  It'll take a while for this name to get trusted user back.  Thanks guys.

          Well, we all promised to be ABB. So, I grudgingly support John Kerry for President in 2004.

          by AEDem2004 on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:31:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (none / 0)

        Fair enough. Some get on my nerves, but individually, not all by association.

        I have the feeling if Clark didn't exist, they'd still be here saying the exact same things about the frontrunner.
         

        by squiddy on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:25:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (none / 0)

      Why because he's the only DEM currently standing except for Dean and that's only because he like Lieberman and Gephardt has never been seriously attacked from the right?  

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:09:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (none / 1)

      The only thing that I'm sorry for is that typo in the fifth paragraph from the bottom; it should read "...  55% of the DLC ..."

      We need a better president.

      by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:14:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Easy on Clark, please (none / 0)

        ...and later in that same paragraph mispelling "ad." But really, that was awesome.
        While not all Clark supporters are bad as discussed, people should realize who take it easy on Clark compared to everyone else. I think most Dean people would easily vote for Clark if we won. I think anyone should want to vote for anybody but this crazy son of a bitch in the White House and his totally corrupt administration! People need to realize we're not going to get a perfect candidate and November is a long, long way away. Elections almost never go the way people think they will. Everything will totally change before we even hit the end of January. It's going to be a long year...

        by Joe Willy on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:44:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

    good stuff mike, i had flashbacks of times when old dennis was actually making sense and wasnt whoring his soul to faux news.

    Only the dissatisfied can make change

    by nogura on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 02:48:29 AM PDT

    •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

      Thanks.  

      I figure that since I paid $35.00 for a 45-minute routine some few years bck, where Miller spent most of the time drinking bottled water and contemplating his feet, I could rip him off for a few hundred words. Hell, he didn't even do a rant.  Way I figure it, he owed me.

      We need a better president.

      by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 11:04:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 1)

    Oh come on. I love this, absolutely no one is saying that there aren't things to be angry about. Your post amounts to nothing but a meaningless destruction of staw-man argument. The point is that americans, no matter in what bad straights, generally do not respond to angry candidates.

    Look at past democrats who defeated incumbents. FDR, he wasn't angry, he was hopeful and spoke of grand visions of how to rebuild America. Look at Clinton, he wasn't angry, he spoke of how to rebuild the american economy.

    No one is saying that there is no reason to be angry. You can have your little temper tantrum and shake your fists and scream about the evil clarkies. Well boo fricking hoo, the rest of us are trying to rebuild america. I don't have time for this content free crap.

    "Together we must rise to ever higher and higher platitudes" - Daley the Elder chanelling dubya

    by samiam on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:23:17 AM PDT

    •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 1)

      Content-free is okay if it's funny. And it was funny. Lighten up, will ya? If you want to be dreary, go hang on the Kerry blog, and if you want to be all sweetness and light, there's the Dean blog. :}

      W was elected to protect Them from Us.

      by Radical Middle on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:39:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 1)

        I'm just a little riled up by this rabid and totally unmoored attack on a position no one actually holds. Its nutty and his anger is so misplaced it makes me angry. His argument is kinda like:

        Of course Howard Dean doesn't eat babies. All these people are saying he eats babies when he clearly isn't. All the people who critize him are saying he eats babies and so they all must be Republican scum.

        Substitute eats babies with is unjustafiably angry and you pretty much have his argument. Its a straw man attack, its underhanded, mean and nasty and I don't like it.

        "Together we must rise to ever higher and higher platitudes" - Daley the Elder chanelling dubya

        by samiam on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:54:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

      George W. Bush is a very, very angry man.  What do you mean we don't like angry candidates?  we're finally glad we have a real shitkicker who'll suspend the constitution at the drop of a hat and go kick some terrerist ass!

      i believe it is YOU who are mistaken.  500,000 Dean fans can't be wrong.

      later

      by Randomtask on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:42:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

      Oh, lighten up, Francis.  Sorry, but a rant on  Dean having cause to be angry but that he should refrain from expressing that anger doesn't scan very well.  It was meant as satire, silly.  Sorry that your sensibilities prevent you from reading it for what it is.  (Sorry, too, that I was so hard on Clark [eyes roll at this point] that you couldn't see the humor in the piece.

      If you don't have time for content-free crap, what the hell are you doing paying attention to politics, anyway?

      Now drop and give me 20, soldier.  

      We need a better president.

      by Mike in Ann Arbor on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 10:34:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (none / 0)

    Mike - neglected to compliment your post.  Very funny.  You nailed this one.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 03:59:33 AM PDT

  •  Re: DEAN, THE ANGRY CANDIDATE? (3.50 / 2)

    And if you're not angry, well, you're just not paying attention.

    Well you got that right.  I didn't even know the Burlinton Coat Factory was based in Burlington, New Jersey!

    Now that i know, I'm Really, REALLY MAD!  What does the Burlington Coat Factory have against Howard Dean?!

    later

    by Randomtask on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 04:01:25 AM PDT

Permalink | 36 comments