Why did progressives support Howard Dean??

[kentuck]

He certainly was not known as a liberal or progressive. Actually, he was considered "conservative" in some of his political viewpoints, especially on the economy.

But many progressives supported him? Why?

In my opinion, they thought he was a straight shooter in regards to what the Republican policies were doing to our country. He was honest about where we were at and about how we got there. He had actual ideas about how to fix our problems.

Although he may not have been the ideal progressive, most of his support came from progressives. He was far from perfect but I still believe he would have been the best man for the job when he ran.

[geek tragedy]

1. He reminded some people of themselves. nt

[Wella]

2. Dean was crucial, which is why the press had to trash him with the Dean Scream

When the press goes all out to destroy someone's chances or credibility, that's a key person.

[Legalequilibrium78]

13. Howard Dean was a terrible candidate period.

He is feisty and yes he can go toe to toe with Repubs, but that does not mean his ideas resonated with the rest of America. To you yeah, he seems your ideal candidate based on your already biased stance on issues that make you Democrats or at least support the Democratic Party.

Howard Dean, was from a fairly liberal tiny state of Vermont. Texas ain't Vermont, Virginia is not Vermont, etc. You should get where am going with this.

[Wella]

14. Your bias is noted.

Have a nice day.

[hfojvt]

16. I don't get where you are going

Kerry didn't win Texas or Virginia either. Obama didn't win Texas either time. He won Virginia, somehow, but didn't need it for his win. Even Clinton and Carter didn't win Virginia.

And speaking of Clinton, the six electoral votes of Arkansas are not that much more significant than the three of Vermont.

Oddly enough, I think what killed Dean was standing next to Kerry in the Iowa debate. He just didn't look presidential with Kerry towering over him.

[Odin2005]

49. Bullshit on horseshit.

[Odin2005]

50. The Dean "scream" is what destroyed 18yo me's faith in the MSM.

[brooklynite]

63. AFTER his campaign was already collapsing (3rd place finish in Iowa)

[Rex]

3. Because he wasn't a corporate sell out.

Is my guess.

[JI7]

6. if Dean isn't a corporate sell out then neither is Hillary Clinton

[Rex]

7. Never said she was.

[geek tragedy]

21. Sadly he is one now. Works for Big Pharma. nt

[Recursion]

4. He showed up on stage with a baseball bat when netroots people asked him to

That's what I remember "the moment" as being.

[JI7]

5. i didn't support Dean for same reason i didn't support Hillary

both are pretty much the same to me.

[hfojvt]

17. Well

Dean was strongly against the war that Hillary voted for.

Dean wanted to get rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts. Hillary, on the other hand, objected to raising the cap on social security taxes, because increasing taxes on workers making over $97,000 a year would be, in her eyes, a tax increase on the middle class. In her 2008 campaign, Hillary proposed a number of tax credits which would mostly benefit - those above the median income.

Who knows though, maybe some of the benefits would trickle down below the median income.

[joshcryer]

25. That raising the cap talking point is such BS, too.

Clinton needs to drop it, it only raises taxes on the top 5%. The top 5%. 95% wouldn't be affected and it would make SS safe forever.

The problem unfortunately is that Americans think they're richer than they are, so when they hear that the top 5% are the "middle class" they believe it, when it's far far from the truth.

[hfojvt]

67. seems to be a moot point anyway

Raising the cap is off the table as long as Republicans control congress. Obama's big plan was his bi-partisan "Catfood Commission" which suggested a fairly large increase in the cap (as well as a key, changing the bend points (meaning that it reduces how much those high earners will be paid)).

I don't believe there is a huge public opposition to raising the cap, although doubtless, it too could be demagogued on TV ads as a "huge tax increase". I expect that from Republicans, who always fight for those at the top, as they are paid to do so.

Democrats, however, are supposed to be different. Hence, my disappointment with Clinton, as opposed to some other (still imperfect) Democrats like Dean, or Obama.

[Ken Burch]

8. I think some of them saw him as the electable peace candidate.

And he did bring more passion to the race than the "approved" frontrunner that we were all put under heavy pressure to get behind while the primaries were still going.........

What I still don't get is why, after Dean withdrew from the race, his supporters didn't switch to Dennis Kucinich, just to make sure there'd be SOME antiwar presence on the convention floor. It was kid of pointless of them to just keep voting for Dean after that.

[JI7]

11. didn't Dean do better than Kucinich even after Dean dropped out ?

[Ken Burch]

27. That's what I was saying.

It made no sense to me that they kept voting for Dean after he'd dropped out, when there was another peace candidate who was still in the race.

If they really wanted to help flip the party's position on the war, sending as many Kucinich delegates to the convention as possible was going to be a far more effective way to do that than continuing to vote for a withdrawn candidate.

I get it that they liked Dean, but...he was out. It's not like continuing to vote for him was ever going to get him back in.

[JI7]

29. wouldn't it have made more sense for Kucinich to endorse Dean because Kucinich was so far down

in votes ?

[Ken Burch]

34. Not AFTER Dean withdrew.

Remember, Dean's candidacy ended after Iowa.

[JI7]

40. maybe Kucinich should have given voters a reason to vote for him

he even lost his congressional seat.

[Ken Burch]

42. Years later-AFTER being gerrymandered into the same district as another Dem. n/t.

[JI7]

43. so he couldn't even win a Dem District ?

[JonLP24]

45. Mary Kaptur's disctrict & Kucinich's district were combined due to gerry mandering

He lost against Republican Kaptur who beat Joe the Plumber in the primary.

The new 9th district has been called "The Mistake by the Lake" and one of the "Top 5 Ugliest Districts" due to gerrymandering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s_9th_congressional_district

[JI7]

46. Marcy Kaptur is NOT a Republican, she is a Democrat and she beat Kucinich in the Dem Primary

and went on to win the seat.

btw Kucinich supported the republican redistricting plan which resulted in that district.

[JonLP24]

47. I got the facts mixed up but believe it or not I knew Kaptur well (from the bailout crisis)

when I typed it. Whether Kucinich did support or not didn't make it a good idea which seems odd because most of it was Kaptur's district that stretches from Toledo to his portion of Cleveland. I'd post a picture but afraid the image would come out too large.

It was unlikely he'd win a district which features most of the land that Kaptur held in 1982.

Whatever it is, the problem is national prominent Democrats were redrawn to face each other thanks to a Republican controlled house drawing the lines. If Kucinich supported it, well he was wrong to do support a bad choice.

[Warpy]

9. Oh, he was definitely the best man for the job.

He is far more conservative than I prefer, but he was(is) a pragmatic conservative who knows which ideas have been tried and have not worked. He is not an ideologue. He's someone who can admit when something isn't working and he's not too proud to ask other people what else can be done.

That's why progressives supported him, his pragmatism.

[kentuck]

10. He was a Democrat but he wasn't pure...

Your Honor, Exhibit A...

[sendero]

66. I see...

... what you are doing here

FWIW, I liked Dean a LOT and while he might not be a progressive dream candidate I can say without reservation that he was a helluva lot more progressive than Obama turned out to be.

[Cleita]

12. He held the best ideas on universal health care and in having

having transparent and verifiable elections. That's why I supported him.

[oldandhappy]

15. Maybe it is a looking back thing.

He seems really effective from 2014. Donno.

[Beaverhausen]

18. He spoke out strongly against the war and he implemented healthcare to his state

Remember, this was 2003 with 9/11 still fresh in the national psyche. Being against the Iraq War at the time wasn't considered 'patriotic' and Dean was the primary candidate who spoke against the war the loudest.

He also implemented healthcare to all children in Vermont when he was governor.

These were the talking points I used when volunteering for him back then.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Yes, but like Obama, two issues doesn't make him a liberal. Those are TWO issues!!

Look at the ENTIRETY of his record. Many of us examined Obama's ENTIRE record. We read his books. We listened to his speeches. We knew fully well that he wasn't liberal.

The charge that he "posed as a liberal" is bullshit! He never did! But between his and Hillary, he was the preferred candidate in my view. Why? Because Hillary ran on her husband's record!

[JonLP24]

35. You should see Candidate Obama vs President Obama debate

Jon Stewart did a bit that showed this which I'm having a hard time finding (video was made before his second election). I can't even find the epic Candidate Bush vs President Bush one either.

The major differences involve war on terror policies. I remember the very first thing he done that I had a problem with and noticed that is where the rift began was when his Justice Department used the very same Bush-era arguments to block the release of torture photos. While the debate was "why would you want to see them?" I preferred the ACLU's reasoning -- https://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-reverses-promise-release-torture-photos

While I can't find the video promise meter does a pretty good job -- what method the use to determine "in the works", "stalled" or "broken" may be flawed it isn't a secret that he ran & criticisized Bush for "war on terror" policies that he enacted which he continues.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/181/restore-habeas-corpus-rights-for-enemy-combatants/

Most promises listed were either kept or "in the works" so overall he did most things he said he would do. Some of the broken promises were unrealistic to begin with which raises the question as to why make those promises but I don't fault him over those.

I will say one thing that is conservative policy that he hasn't changed before or after the election was corporate reform of public education. He never did take the traditional Democratic party platform on that one.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. Polifact is full of shit. Go look at the actual record. I think what helped me understand Obama

was reading Audacity of Hope, which helped me understand his pragmatism and how he had to maneuver in the IL Senate on policy positions. How the Republicans would attach non-germane riders to bills and force Democrats to vote for entire bills that had these horrible riders added to them that they didn't agree with, but they had to vote for the bill because not voting for them would be worse. The battle between the liberals, moderates and conservative Democrats in the state legislature--no one could ever agree on anything. Republicans knew this, so they would interject abortion issues into debates and exploit people's votes. So when Obama took "Absent" votes (remember that controversy?), it was to avoid seeming as though he was anti-choice or anti-gun regulation or whatever.

He had to be pragmatic. But in his book, he complained that liberals were never satisfied with a liberal position that was never "liberal" enough. And conservatives was never satisfied with a position that was never conservative enough. So he was often more attractive to the "pragmatist center," and often that was more liberal depending on the issue because it was more reasonable of a position. But sometimes, he believed that the more pragmatic answer was more moderate, even conservative.

Obama was and is for charter schools, for example. I am not and never will be. But he believes that's the pragmatic alternative to a faltering public school or voucher system.

He also wavered on free trade and was never clear in debates with Hillary. I think he and she were closer on that issue than they were apart.

And really, the only issue that she seemed more liberal than he was is on the issue of the individual mandate, where again, he wavered or vacillated, which drove me crazy.

Had it done been for her running on her husband's record and resorting to racist rhetoric, I would not have support Obama, either.

But other than his stance on the Iraq war--and remember, he told us over and over again that he was going to Afghanistan, he never presented himself as a liberal. And when liberals assert that he did, I'm sorry, but that's just not true. I think they wanted to believe something so much that they forced themselves to believe it without listening to the content of what the man was saying or paying attention to his platform.

There's nothing at all liberal about supporting charter schools, not supporting gay marriage, invading Iraq, free trade/NAFTA-like agreements, and health care mandates. That liberals didn't listen should not be blamed on Obama. They ought to assume some responsibility in that.

[JonLP24]

56. Actual record is where my differences lie

War on terror policy (I'm not talking Afghanistan when I say this) shows very clear differences to what he said and what he's done. This area really features my own problem with his Preisdency.

He actually waffled on gay marriage.

In 1996, Obama, then an Illinois state senate candidate, seemed to back marriages for same-sex couples when he signed a statement in response to a questionnaire that read "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." The statement was later publicly disavowed by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who claimed in June 2011 that the questionnaire was "actually filled out by someone else."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-obamas-evolution-gay-marriage/story?id=18792720&page=2

That 96 opinion was fairly well known when it came to debates over his stated policy during the campaign.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. The gay marriage issue was never resolved. But, why during a DEMOCRATIC primary

take the unpopular, non-liberal position and be AGAINST gay marriage? That does not make sense!

Why not distinguish yourself from Hillary Clinton and come out FOR gay marriage? He didn't, regardless of what his questionnaire stated in 1996 or whenever.

Again, doesn't make sense.

And what about the other issues I addressed? Charter schools, free trade, him not being against ALL wars, just "dumb" ones?

And what's so funny?

(Pardon all my typos, too)

[JonLP24]

59. White House communications & press secretary crack me up

with some of the lies they come up with. "actually filled out by someone else." Strikes me as a lie -- here is a copy of the signed statement "filled out by someone else" http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-14/current.pdf

Obama clearly stated that lack (in 2004)
of support for full marriage equality was a matter of strategy rather than principle, but in even
more recent comments, it appears he is backing
off even further, saying it is more of a religious
issue, and also a “state” issue, so he favors civil
unions.

He still had a general election to worry about to me it is telling his "evolving" on the issue evolved with the poll numbers. Again, this isn't an area where I have major policy differences with Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Can you answer the full question please?

The gay marriage issue is a road we've already traveled many times.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Yes, kentuck! YES!!!! I've been saying this for YEARS!! Yes!! Liberals blindily support Dean...

...and don't even know his record. In fact, he nearly was DLC! Yes!!

They never answer the question why they support hm! Even when asked. Even when showed his record.

He's not that progressive. And yet he gets a pass.

Now, don't get me wrong, he's come around on some issues. As as a governor, he's had to be more moderate on some issues, that's for sure. But, his 50 State Strategy is certainly NOT a liberal strategy. Nowhere near it!

But liberals--not fully understanding his record or the 50 State Strategy--don't seem to hold Dean to the same "Liberal Purity Test" as they hold other Democratic Party leaders, especially President Obama.

Yes, you are so right! Thank you!!!

[joshcryer]

23. Most change for the top Dems is following the polls.

They may or may not be ideologically very liberal but openly they do what the polls say the American people want. You see this with Obama's shift on gay marriage and marijuana. I think personally, privately, Dean is probably more liberal than people give him credit for.

That does not mean that I don't acknowledge that Dean ran on a rather center-right platform.

[JonLP24]

31. center-right platform?

He ran on a near universal health care proposal, no vouchers for education, middle class tax cuts combined with tax raises on the rich, opposition to Iraq. He didn't favor gun restrictions but didn't make it a focus of the campaign (I'm sure he would have played it up in the General though).

He ran on a balanced budget based on his success but I don't know how that would be considered center-right since fiscal conservatism is tax cuts for the wealthy combined with a slash of safety nets.

Gay marriage was an issue where he was center with his leave it to the states approach. He mentioned he'd worry whether a civil unions legislation would be constitutional the federal law which would make sense why he'd feel that worry with the situation in Vermont, he said states that did have the civil unions or marriage should be afforded the same things a marriage does at the federal level.

Even on guns was a leave it to the states approach. If the platform was center-right, I just totally did not see it.

[joshcryer]

39. I considered his gay position right wing.

The health care position was the same as Obama or Clinton's in 2008, and we have DUers saying it was a Heritage foundation formula.

His position on tax cuts and the Iraq war were his most liberal positions.

But, you have to recognize that after he was DNC chair he got elected a bunch of Blue Dogs. So there's that. He also had pro-red-state commentary that allowed him to come off as more moderate / conservative.

Guns are a coin toss. The Vermont Democrats have disavowed the Platform's gun regulations. So there's that.

[JonLP24]

44. When Blue Dogs take the DNC chair

They focus the money on tightly contested contests. Rahm criticized Dean saying they could have won more seats in 2006 if he focused on the tight races. So there's that.

I'm trying to find detailed information, I find a subsidy was similar but expanding Medicare was a major focus, he wanted universal for children. "Medicare passed without 1 Republican vote" was often said when describing his position. Dean said his focus was on the uninsured then reform.

If I find the time I can read every public remark Dean made from 2004 - 2007 http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Speeches.htm

I will say he did make recent remarks such as "I wasn't a fan of the bill - It didn't have a public option" when he said on his appearance on Real Time he pointed out everything he liked about it. There are other stuff in there he doesn't like.

Even Obama & Clinton differed on the mandate so when I have time, I'll dig. Just for the curiosity of finding out everything he said in those 3 years.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. On LGBT equality Dean was a dishonest conservative and thus not at all to my liking

He went on TV, as Chairman of the Democratic Party, and claimed that our Party Platform had a plant against what he called 'gay marriage'. The interviewer doubted this because of course it was not true. Dean, Chairman Dean, insisted that our Party had created an anti equality plank and put it in our platform.
He was either unaware of the platform of the Party of which he was Chair or willing to simply tell lies about our Platform and our Party, lies which exploited an important civil rights issue in the most vicious way.
When I called his office about it, they acted as if it was hilarious. Goddamn liar. He refused to make an on air correction or to announce a correction.
He's one of the reasons I make no compromises on LGBT rights. He was fully willing to sell us all the way down his rhetorical river, casually, voluntarily and while the interviewer tried to correct him.
Blech.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I think many Dems are more personally liberal but can't be publicly as liberal.

But again, there's a double standard that is placed on some like Obama that is not placed on others.

[joshcryer]

22. I wanted to beat Bush.

I saw Dean as the only one who could do that.

I recognized he was center-right, though he did have a message that spoke to the red states (which caused considerable debate in the party).

[JonLP24]

30. The debate was over the "confederate flags on pickups"

I understood what he was trying to say his opponents took advantage of the gaffe though it did also raise concerns of pandering to those who don't support us because of civil rights.

You're correct though about the considerable debate as the context was growing criticism from his opponents for not supporting the assault weapons ban (on the list of things I support, gun control is very law. The AWB is even lower because it prohibits weapons while weapons that have more power or range weren't banned) but the context was lost with the confederate flag remark.

Also the remark came across as pandering rather than a message. I do think he was pandering but to the base instead of explaining his differences on those issues - like I support these issues such as opposing in AWB 1994 to appeal to Southern voters in 2004.

The confederate flag remark clouded whatever message it was (I dug for the context because context is important) and people had a right to call him on it (not referring to opportunistic opponents) such as the NAACP.

[joshcryer]

38. Yep, Dean was inarticulate.

I understood where he was going, didn't like the implication, but tried to still support him in spite of it. He basically was a Blue Dog supporter (and it's why we won back Congress in 2006, despite the anti-Third Way / anti-Blue Dog naysayers, it's just how it was).

I still feel had he not been railroaded by the MSM he would've beat Bush. I think he would've trounced Bush in the debates. Completely obliterated him. Just my opinion, I know we can't change history.

[JonLP24]

41. It just depends on who and how the political discourse is controlled

Kerry the flip flopper is where it was controlled which sank his campaign which was baffling because Bush "no nation building" was worse. Kerry's confusing statements didn't help so the important thing is to avoid gaffes which is why I don't think Hillary Clinton is as electable as people perceive her.

[JonLP24]

24. Moderate was the image

Because he inherited a budget deficit and turned it into a surplus. Gun rights were another but Vermont is one of those states that have the softest gun restrictions and fewer gun crimes.

He was one of the first to address the issue of gay rights. Vermont Supreme Court said same-sex marriage ban denied rights provided by the state constitution so they ordered to either amend it or provide an alternative that affords the same rights. Dean choose the latter which led to the "Take Back Vermont" where the Republican briefly won the legislature. Dean won reelection with a "Move Vermont Forward" campaign.

He really wasn't all that moderate as far as moderates go. I did support him but I felt Sharpton and Kucinich won all the primary debates.

[bigwillq]

26. My views are/were kind of the same as Dean

so I felt like I connected with them. He was a social liberal, imo, and a fiscal "conservative", imo, and I kind of feel that's how I am.
I liked how he spoke the truth, said what he believed, and didn't care who it offended.


Dean is/wasn't perfect, but he made me believe that government can work for the people. I still believe it can, but Democrats haven't been doing a good job of selling that to the American people, imo.

[flamingdem]

28. And now he's working for Hillary

I love Howard and hope he gets something out of it when she takes office.

[LostInAnomie]

32. Howard Dean is a brilliant man, a fantastic governor, and a damn good politician.

He isn't a "pure" liberal by DU's standards, but you can't argue with his accomplishments. As governor he balanced the budget 11 times after facing a $60M deficit. He cut child abuse and teen pregnancy rates in half. He insured every child in the state. Signed the first civil union legislation into law (at a time when it was near political suicide).

At a time when criticizing Bush and the Iraq war was unthinkable for most politicians, he built a grass roots campaign against both. Because of this, he completely changed the landscape of the 2004 election.

As DNC Chair he implemented the 50 state strategy winning the Democrats the House and Senate for the first time in years.

He's a realpolitik kind of guy. I would vote for him for any office he runs for. Not because he is the most liberal, but because with him you are going to get results.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. When people brag about governors balancing budgets, it just gets under my skin!

Most state constitutions, if not ALL, *require* state budgets to be balanced. This is nothing commendable. Governors are supposed to balance the budget. It is their jobs. Either they raise taxes to accomplish this goal, or they cut programs. Oftentimes, it's a little bit of both.

And that's why good governors are fiscally conservative. They know that in order to be competitive and lure jobs and industry to their state, they have to strike a balance between keeping taxes low and attracting residents by having good schools and a healthy tax base/service delivery.

But balancing the budget? That's their job. He did his job, as governors are constitutionally required to do.

[JonLP24]

60. Vermont wasn't one of those states

I don't know if it has changed but it certainly wasn't the case. Dean opposed balanced budget amendments because he said they were political but with said that with Republicans we probably need one.

I do find it funny that in that balance, New York & California has the higher taxes and the biggest businesses.

On edit - Bush Sr raised that point when Clinton bragged about balanced budgets in Arkansas so when the moderator basically asked which one would you support if you were at home watching (pretty much) and he said it would be foolish to base the future on the county's decision based on the success of running an Arkansas economy and used a grocery store owner thinking he can run Wal*Mart.

[LostInAnomie]

64. Vermont doesn't have that requirement.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. Someone else explained it. Dean should brag about it, then.

[grahamhgreen]

33. Single Payer. Anti-war.

[DFW]

36. Howard wasn't looking at a checklist when he entered the national stage

He said what he felt and spoke his mind. Aside from Kucinich, he was the ONLY one out there in 2004 who didn't have to nuance his statements. He got some bad advice from Joe Trippi (who hasn't?), but he never tried to hide his positions, most of which were our own. Maybe the fact that the highest elective office he has ever held was Governor of Vermont freed him from some of the restraints someone in a more prominent position feels.

If he is currently supporting Hillary, and I have not discussed this with him yet, it could well be because no one else has made any credible noises about running. That is support that will be withdrawn if Hillary doesn't declare, and someone more to Howard's liking does.

By the way, Happy Birthday, Howard! He is 66 today.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

37. I supported him. Still do, actually.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Odin2005]

48. Because despite being a moderate he actually gave a shit about reforming the system.

Unlike the DLC hacks who he terrified.

[BeyondGeography]

51. He was feisty

And so few Democrats are. And he had the skills and experience to back it up. He was music to a lot of ears. His main problem in '04 was the lack of national security/FP experience at a time when Junior was staking everything on his C-in-C credentials (what a country...). That's where Wes Clark came from and why Iowa gave Kerry a second look.

[JoePhilly]

53. Because he didn't win.

Progressives tend to see what they want in a candidate. They block out the stuff they don't like while that person is NOT running the show.

Supporting a candidate is EASY.

Supporting a President is HARD because they will have to make actual decisions and compromise if they want to get anything at all done.

Dean never became President. He never had to make the really hard decisions and compromises. So it remains EASY to support him.

If Dean won, he'd compromise on one of the economic points you reference (to get something else), and then they'd hate him for being a sell out.

[brooklynite]

62. Answer: they didn't

Bottom line is that, while Dean's campaign style was attractive to a younger demographic, he couldn't convince people to actually VOTE for him. Iowa has always skewed progressive, but he came in third in the 2004 Iowa caucus, and his campaign collapsed shortly thereafter.

I think, to be honest, there's been a certain amount of retrospective history editing and progressives have decided that they WOULD have supported Dean, based on today's conditions.

[dionysus]

68. because he didn't bullshit people on where he stood.