Edwards Critical of Dean Over Race Remark

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54160-2003Sep10?language=printer

Democrat Howard Dean's claim that he is the only white politician who talks about race to white audiences drew criticism Wednesday from one of his presidential rivals. Sen. John Edwards said the entire field discusses racials issues on the campaign trail.

"I think what Howard Dean said last night does a disservice to everyone he stood next to and all the people before us who have raised this issue over and over again in front of all audiences," the North Carolina lawmaker said one day after the nine candidates debated in Baltimore.

Dean, defending himself against criticism that his supporters are mostly white, told the predominantly black debate crowd, "I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences."

Dean was wrong.

Edwards urges racial tolerance in nearly ever speech he gives on the campaign trail, including addresses to white crowds. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut talks about his efforts as a student during the 1960s civil rights movement. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has discussed race and its role in his Vietnam service.

[Starpass]

1. This is the kind of stuff Dean has got to start

being more attentive to and not just shooting off his mouth. This might make his followers cheer but it's the kind of meat that's going to end up choking him in the big election if he gets there. He is just throwing stuff out for sound bites; and I'm afraid a lot of those are going to come home to roost. That's why he's had to change positions on everything from tax repeal to ss retirement date, etc. The hawks circle and pounce and he forgets that they will forever be examining every thing you say on the national stage.

[Rooktoven]

2. Agreed--

That's my concern about Dean, the off the cuff manner that serves him well could bite him.

[copithorne]

3. I'm a Dean supporter...

And yes, he should get criticized for this remark.

He had a good point. But he shouldn't have said he was "the only" one of the candidates to talk about race in front of white audiences. I've seen other candidates do that too.

Dean should break the habit of comparing himself to other Democratic candidates. It no longer serves his campaign.

[StopTheMorans]

5. just criticism

and I'm a Dean supporter. He shouldn't have said it, and I agree, he needs to stick to his "i'll be a better pres. than shrub b/c <insert stance on issue here>". So now another question (sorry for potential threadjacking:): Where are all the people who say Dean's supporters can't handle criticism of him:) ?

[tjdee]

6. Well, this thread doesn't seem to be getting much attention, LOL.

Eh, maybe it's early.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

62. It was a stupid condescending thing to say

and I don't like to use the "s" word too often.

[PurityOfEssence]

85. Your response is not the norm; the norm is "Dean bad? Must destroy."

In any thread critical of Dean, there will be an avalanche of responses, and some of them will be calm and dispassionate. The great majority will be reminiscent of a door slamming shut, and a sizeable group will be shrieking attacks of the religious partisan type.

I do not use the religious anology lightly: people feel freed from the constraints of normal comportment and coexistence when their belief is threatened, and this tone is starkly present in many Dean supporters. As I've annoyed constantly of late: what is charming fervor from supporters of an underdog seems more like crushing intolerant groupthink from the front-runner. How DARE you question him?! That's the tone forthcoming in virtually any situation like this. Were he someone who didn't deliberately attack and deride his fellow Democrats, I might be more understanding of the true believers being unwilling to hear criticism, but he's not. He's not by a very long country mile; he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, so the rest of you toadies, lunkheads and tools of the establishment are irrelevant.

This statement was ridiculous and fatuous. It simply isn't true. To say something like this to professional progressive politicians from former slave states is a slap in the face: pols from those necks of the woods have to walk that tightrope with every public breath they breathe, and to insult them as being just opportunists about it is vulgar. Edwards, Graham and Gephardt come from former slave states of the old Confederacy, so fully a third of the candidates on the stage had to stand there and hear what cynical, filthy users they are in front of a black panel in an event sponsored by an organization of black politicians in a former slave state. He needs to watch his mouth.

Why don't I like Dean? It's this kind of stuff. He's not the only ethical person. He's not the only one without sin. He has no right to sling invective and self-glorification without taking heat for it.

You are a gentle poster, but read how this and other threads develop.

"Ug. Dean good. Him say Dean bad; must crush now."

Do you want a reckless snot like this as president? Not me. Mercifully, he's smart enough to learn and he does have his heart in the right place, but he needs to learn that there are some truly decent sorts sharing the contest with him, and this is unbecoming.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

88. excellent, thoughtful post PoE

it takes a few dozen or so but they surface here from time to time. Thanks for elucidating so well what I couldn't do or had the time to do myself.

[blm]

94. Excellent point.

I'm in SC and it is no small thing for progressive Dems to step up and hold a mirror up for their fellow citizens. Their battles have been fought in terms of decades not months.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. who else is he going to talk about race with?

since it seems he's attracting mostly white people, of course he's discussing race with them.

he shouldn't have said he was the only one though.

[TLM]

39. You keep repeating this talking point...

as if nobody can go to meetup.com and look at pictures of meetups to see that the people Dean is attracting are of all colors and ages.

Did you see his rally in new York, where after the thing he walked through a mass of people of all races and age groups?

Why do you persist in trying to act as if Dean only supporters are young white males?

[AP]

46. And some Dean fans keep repeating THAT talking point.

The Dean organization admits that Dean is having a problem attracting non-white, non-middle class, non-internet obsessed voters. People here describe how, at meet-ups, they talk about what they need to do to broaden their appeal. If the pictures reveal such a diverse audience, then why are they so concerned?

Also, I read a very humorous post from a Dean fan about that New York rally. It said that Dean isn't having a problem with attracting a diverse audience because there were a few people who weren't white. It's hard to go into ANY public space in NY in which the people around you aren't mostly white. When you can attract only a few people who aren't white to rally in NYC...well, then you have to start to talk about what you need to do about it at your meet up.

Also, I saw coverage of Dean at Zoe Lofgren's house, and not only did I not see ANY black faces, I had a hard time picking out any non-white face at all. This is in N. California, for crying out loud, at a Democrat's house!

In fact, I don't think it was a coincidence that the camera hung on this scene and then cut to coverage of Arnold doing something at an hispanic community outreach.

[sangh0]

100. In NYC, *I* could attract a multi-racial crowd

All I'd have to do is go out on the street and say something. ANYTHING!!

NYC *is* multi-racial. Whites are a minority here.

[TLM]

119. Oh Dean has had trouble reaching the minority communities..

the digital divide is a big issue, and we've had to address this on the ground with outreach programs. However they are working well, and the idea that only whites are interested in Dean is just dumb.

[bearfartinthewoods]

156. who are you talking too?

HUH? when have i EVER MENTIONED Dean and race relations before?

is this some sort of strategy now? try and make any casual critique of Dean appears as some sort of a long term vendetta?

jeezze louise, you Dean people need to get a grip.

[TLM]

165. Sorry but run a search and you'll see that Dean bashers

continue to use the "all white" talking point you just used.

[bearfartinthewoods]

172. thank you for the apology but i didn't even use the phrase "all white"

i said 'mostly white".

and my opinion that some Dean people need to get a grip still stands.

you have to stop lashing out when it isn't warrented. i know there are people who are equally devoted to other candidates and the admonition goes to them as well. we are all in this together. defend or criticize the candidates as you wish but use a fine point pen against the arguements instead of a broad brush on fellow DUers please.

[tjdee]

4. You know Dean's pissing people off when Edwards makes a remark.

Edwards has been far, far above the pettiness going on--even now he's only defending not only himself, but everyone else.

Howard Dean needs to get his mouth under control.

[jaysunb]

7. IMO

Dean said exactly what the FACTS are, " White people need to be talking to other white people,about their attitudes and not lecturing or patronizing Blacks " !
And I whole heartedly agree!

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/cartoon.htm
>

[tjdee]

10. Just skim right over the LIE he told though.

To a room full of black people, he said he was the *only* white candidate talking about race. Lie.

Maybe Dean should just stick to his own opinions instead of worrying about everyone else. If Dean doesn't know what the other candidates are doing, he should keep his mouth shut. He is forming a pattern of misspeaking, which isnt helpful to anyone.

[Rooktoven]

11. That part is true, but--

He said he is the only one of the candidates talking to white people about racial issues and that is patently false--- Edwards should know.

Don't get me wrong, I like Dean (Edwards more, though), but he has to watch the quick jibes to score debate points that may bite him in the ass later.

Remember, _all_ a candidate says will be part of the public record.

[TLM]

44. Dean is the only one really talking about race...

From what I have seen of the others, their addressing of racial issues in front of white crowds has been limited to a few talking points... affirmative action is good, racism is bad, can't we all just get along, etc.

I've not seen any of them really talk about race, rather they just kind of peripherally address a few issues that involved race. I've not seen them cut through the PC crap and flat out say republicans are using race to divide poor communities that would be very powerful if they could work together for their shared interests.

Dean may not be the only candidate talking about race issues, but he is the only candidate talking about race in a very blunt and honest way. Dean talks about race issues to whites, the way sharpton talks about race issues to blacks, in a very clear and blatant way, rather than being all timid and worried about offending someone.

I like that... cuts through the bullshit.

[Rooktoven]

47. Define blunt and honest.

Dean doesn't have a corner on that. Jesus, the guy mis-spoke and now it's the honest to god truth somehow. I like Dean, but he was WRONG to single himself out. It was a self-serving statement that hurts the party.

[onehandle]

8. My mouth dropped open when I heard this...

I had to read it online later to make sure I heard it right. I wonder if an advisor told him to say this? If not...It made him seem a bit desperate.

[Rooktoven]

13. I was shocked he wasn't called on it, but

the debate was hardly organized (or controlled) well. And I'm sure no one else wanted to look rude like Holy Joe.

[AP]

14. The strange thing is, he made a similar statement at NAACP convention

and a reporter said the (mostly black) audience murmured in surprise and disagreement. (Am I remembering this accurately.) I believe that people here argued that the audience didn't murmur and that the reporter was biased and lying.

I suspect that people did in fact murmur.

I wonder why Dean would try this line again when it worked so poorly.

Why is he being stubborn about this? This is the kind of thing that the right tries to do with black voters -- they try to drive the wedge, try to emphasize the notion that the democratic party is not responsive to black issues.

[tjdee]

16. I noticed this.

Thanks for bringing that up, I'd forgotten.

If Dean says it again, I hope Edwards says something. I know he doesn't want to get into the petty back and forth, but it really is a divisive and FALSE thing to say--especially since he's using it to play himself up as some kind of diversity master.

[AP]

21. And if Dean doesn't get the nomination, where does a statement like this

leave the black audience to whom he keeps making this point?

It leaves the impression that the other candidates aren't interested in them.

Why try to sabotage the other candidates.

Edwards is right to make a point of this.

[tjdee]

28. Exactly.

The other candidates need to bring this up when they're all together.
I don't know why they've not done that already, but they'd better.

Maybe they think it's not important? As in, it's not like Dean has the African American vote sewn up anyway?

Dunno.

[TLM]

45. Good, then maybe they'll have to worker harder

on addressing issues of race, rather then just giving lip service to them in the campaign then forgetting about them until the next election.

[Rooktoven]

50. Oh come on,

Dean has not cornered the market in talking about race. He had a good point going and then stepped on it with a self-serving mis-statement. I forgive the guy (and I expect he will "clarify") but to imply the additional frosting is true doesn't mesh with the facts.

[TLM]

64. Understand what I'm talking about here...

There's talking about race in the sense that you express some generalized idea that racism is bad and that affirmative action is good or that we all need to get along etc. While yes that is technically talking about race, it is not really talking about race because it is a way of avoiding the real hard to face issues of racism.

It is like if your girlfriend asks you if her butt looks fat in her pants... she's not really talking about the pants.


Saying you support civil rights or that you support AA is not talking about race, as much as it is talking about a few generalized points that address race in a peripheral way.

Dean isn’t doing that… he is flat out talking about race in a direct and matter of fact way that I do not see from the other candidates.

[AP]

71. I don't think that's accurate. Dean BLUNTLY criticized the other dems

but, when asked to state his position about race, he said that white people should know that racism holds them back too. If that's blunt, than Clinton bluntly talked about race for 8 years, and Edwards talked bluntly about race whenever he was asked about the U of M cases.

[Rooktoven]

72. Examples please,

especially of Dean's direct manner that the other candidates supposedly don't show.

[AP]

77. I think there's a tendency to confuse bluntness with policy among Dean...

...supporters. Being blunt is NOT a policy statement.

[AP]

54. Edwards has made two statements about race which I think hit the nail on..

the head.

During the whole U of M thing, he made the point that affirmative action isn't about giving someone a chance who doesn't deserve the chance. He made the point that it's about taking the barriers away from talented people who want to contribute. He told a story about how a friend of his, who was valedictorian of their law school class, wouldn't have been in law school if not for affirmative action. Edwards made the point that racism is a subsidy for people who don't want to compete with people who want to work hard and want to contribute to society.

In the second last debate, Edwards told the story about how the racial demographics of Robbins, NC have changed in the last 30 years, but the people who go to Robbins today go for the same reasons his father went there 40 years ago -- to have a chance to make their lives better. This is an allegory about opportunity and what it means to be lower class in America, and about how that overlaps with race.

These two stories represent a very sophisticated argument about race which you don't miss if you've experienced what Edwards is talking about.

It's way more sensible than any 'blunt' talking or any mischarcterizations of what the Democratic Party has been doing in the south for the last 40 years.

[TLM]

70. I agree those were good points...

"In the second last debate, Edwards told the story about how the racial demographics of Robbins, NC have changed in the last 30 years, but the people who go to Robbins today go for the same reasons his father went there 40 years ago -- to have a chance to make their lives better. This is an allegory about opportunity and what it means to be lower class in America, and about how that overlaps with race. "


But you make my point for me. WHile this was a good point, and it did address race somewhat... it was an overlap, as you say. It was really more of a labor point that kind of addressed an issue of oppertunity that is important to a minority group.

It wasn't directly talking about race to white communities in the sense that Dean is talking about. But it was probably closer than any of the other candidates have gotten.

[AP]

75. I think what Edwards says is a very powerful statement about race.

If you aren't white, and you're being held back from competing and participating in the economy, and you know all you want is the opportunity, this is a powerful statement.

Meanwhile, what does Dean's statement about how the key is to talk to white people about race offer people who are racially discriminated against. Think about it.

It might be interesting to compare the passionate applause that story got from the latino audience to the murmurs that Dean's statement about talking bluntly got at the NAACP convention.

[AP]

80. So, 80 posts later, what is Dean's bluntly stated position on race?

I would hope that, since I try to read about and listen to Edwards as much as possible, I've been able to convey his message about race relatively accurately. In other words, I think I'm reading the message he's trying to send fairly accurately.

Now, I'm wondering, what is Dean's bluntly stated message about race which nobody else is willing to deliver to those separate white audiences?

[sangh0]

81. In a word or two

"Be blunt". His blunt policy on race is to be blunt.


:shrug:

[AP]

82. Sure, but can you eat blunt? Can you feed your kids with blunt?

Can you smoke blunt?

[sangh0]

84. I can try

but I bet I'll be hungry again in 30 minutes

[VermontDem2004]

111. He said it before

and I haven't heard the other white candidates talk about race unless they were pandering to a black audience. Dean quoted MLK in he officially announced his candidacy and when he quoted him it appeared to me that it was something he normally did. He does talks about racial issues to a prodimintly white audience. I seen Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards speeches and I haven't seen them do it unless it was to a black audience. Kerry talked about a black soldier who served with him in the same unit in Chicago in a NAACP forum, but I haven't heard him mention his friend to a white audience. Lieberman talks about his march with MLK everytime he speaks to majority black audience, but never mentions it to a white audience. Someone please prove me wrong with quotes.

[AP]

115. Edwards (and all the candidates) talked about race alot in re U of M

If you don't remember these moments, it might be because you don't find the issue significant, and therefore, you don't note references to it? Maybe?

[VermontDem2004]

118. AP, hello? You still there?

I didn't see U of M.

but please do provide sources. Please don't assume I don't find the issue signifcant, I just don't recall any instances in which the other white candidates did talk about issues that involve race.

[AP]

131. www.johnedwards2004.com

They have lots of stuff there. Google "Eye on Edwards" -- the Raleigh paper has a lot of archived stuff on him.

Do you remember the story he told several times about his law school classmate?

[VermontDem2004]

140. Thanks

I haven't seen any mention of race but in alot of cases you don't have to like this one.

HEALTH-CARE PLAN FOCUSES ON CHILDREN
(07/28/03) U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina today will propose a new set of tax breaks and other initiatives to make it easier and more affordable for parents to provide health insurance for their children -- and require that they do so.

As part of his long-awaited health-care plan, the Democratic White House aspirant will suggest during a speech today in New Hampshire that the government should force parents to provide insurance to all children under age 21.

"When parents bring a child into this world, they have a responsibility to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and love," Edwards says in remarks prepared for delivery today at a community health center in Manchester. "Every parent wants to do the right thing for his or her child. I believe health insurance should be one of those responsibilities, and I want to help parents fulfill this new requirement."

Edwards' plan, which also includes new government subsidies for adults with modest incomes, would help an additional 21 million Americans get insurance at a cost of $53 billion per year, his campaign said. His plan is both less costly and claims to cover fewer of the 41 million uninsured Americans than those put forward earlier this year by some of his rivals.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/latest_all/

Like some things, they matter for all people not only people of color which are the proposals I like.

I liked this too

EDWARDS TO ATTEND NAACP FORUM
(07/14/03) Yielding to pressure from black leaders, U.S. Sen. John Edwards reversed course late Sunday and decided to attend an NAACP forum for presidential candidates today in Miami.

Edwards had hoped to spend much of Monday campaigning in Iowa and make an appearance at the NAACP convention on Tuesday, said his campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri. Several other White House hopefuls are skipping the Monday forum.

But "yesterday it became clear that Monday was the only day that would work for the organization," Palmieri said. "The NAACP is a very important group."

Black voters could account for half the voters in South Carolina's Feb. 3 Democratic presidential primary, which is considered a must-win contest for Edwards. Black turnout is also expected to be a significant factor in early primaries in Tennessee, Virginia and Michigan.
--John Wagner

Don't get me wrong, Edwards is a good candidate but because of his war vote and his early strong support for the war he is not my #1 candidate. Also, I never heard about the story about his law firm partner, what is it?

[AP]

145. try to googel valedictorian law school edwards

and you maybe you can find an article about it.

[uptohere]

9. (you knew this was coming) all Dean's audiences are white

and I was surprized that this issue was not confronted last night and shown that the only reason he does speak of it in response to the claim that Dean crowds are largely deviod of color and that he needed to show more interest in gaining a diverse base.

[TLM]

48. This is not true... Dean crowds are all white...

How many Dean events have you been to?

I took this picture at a Dean event in san diego at 8 in the morning on a friday. There are old, young, black, white , latino, asian... a very diverse crowd. So where is the all white crap coming from?

[uptohere]

55. while it was intended as satire

I don't see much non-white crowd in these lovely pictures. Anyway, that was really not the point.

It was widely reported that, after the murmor of this "whiteness" thing started, that Dr Dean started making more of a point of interjecting minority rhetoric into his stump speaches in an effort to draw minorities into the process.

I was pointing out that this point would have been makable were anyone to want to use it as opposed to just pointing out the embellishment of the facts.

[TLM]

97. The crowd is like a quarter latino...

"I don't see much non-white crowd in these lovely pictures."

Then you're not looking. Granted most have their backs turned, but they are there. Our meetup in san diego has a latino outreach that has worked great.

[uptohere]

101. OK, I'm not good at spotting latinos from behind

just another person with dark hair. Lots of people have dark hair. And an olive complexion is common where I live and not many are latino.

[TLM]

114. Yeah and it is hard to tell a tan white guy from a latino

when they have their backs to you.

[AP]

12. Last night, I wrote here that...

as for the Democrats in the south not talking about race. Does this guy want to alienate people like Bill Clinton, and people who
look favorably on democrats like LBJ who did talk about race. One of the most powerful speeches I've ever heard on race was JFK
talking about Oxford, Miss., and JFK was hardly the Democrat farthest out on the edge of this issue.

However, I agree with his idea that the argument about race to make (and you don't just have to direct it at white folks) is that
racism holds us all back, and that's almost a direct quote from Clinton, and he was making that argument to people in 92.

And Edwards is right that the current crop of Dems talk about race all the time.

[dean4america]

15. Dean is right on this issue

I already posted a comment in the other forum about it, but it bears repeating. First, Dean has been using this line since at least March 15 - it's nothing new and no one has bothered to call him on it until now. He said THE SAME THING during the Children's Defense Fund debate, and Carol Mosely Braun was nodding her head in agreement. Second, he's also right. White politicians DO need to have an honeset discussion about race with white folks - and that means talking to them about affirmative-action and so on, not just saying "i fought for civil right" etc. Even though Clinton was off-the-charts popular in the Black community, the only times he ever talked about race was when he was talking to black audiences.

Edwards is making a big deal out of nothing.

[Rooktoven]

17. Dean said he is the only candidate who talks to whites about race

and that is flat out not true. He is correct about the need to do so, but he is wrong about himself being the only one who does it.

[TLM]

52. Those other guys up there talk about race...

in the same sence that some white guy says "I have a black friend" to show they are racialy tolerant.

Those others say thing like they fought for civil rights or that racism is bad or that AA is good... but they do not really talk about race.

They talk about side issues that envolve race, and issue they think will play well with minority voters... but I've yet to see them really get down and talk about race the way someone like sharpton does.

[Rooktoven]

57. That is a generalization. I think we need quotes from all candidates

before we just say "they're" all like that, _except_ me. And besides-- what entails "talking about race"? Does it have to be in a negative tone? Do voting records come into play here?

Dean overreached to his audience by casting aspersions on his opponents' sympathies with said audience. It happens, he's a politician and he "goes with his gut". But that does _not_ make what he said factually true. And to argue that it does undermines the credibility of his campaign.

I think most Dean supporters would agree it was a mis-statement. All candidates make them, but the sign of a good leader is to admit the screw up and move on..

[AP]

68. Actually, they don't.

Most are not so stupid as to spew that cliche. However, I should say that Gephardt had a very awkward moment in the second last debate when he was trying to relate to the latino audience. I can't remember exactly what he said, though.

I once read about last time he ran that Gephardt was unusual for a southern politician in that he had almost no non-white constituents (I think it was in Harpers) and then the article spent a few minutes explaining how this played itself out in some of his policies. I'm sure he probably has a better record on race since then, but I immediately thought about that article when I heard him give the updated, stilted version of "some of my best friends".

But then again, he's getting union support (white and minority) regardless, so what does he have to worry?

But as for the candidates who aren't black, you know, Lieberman has a great record and philoshopy on race which he talks about, and I have no doubt that it's totally sincere. His committment to racial equality goes back to law school. You don't spend your time in law school doing things you don't believe in. Your time is too precious. Edwards has a message about economic opportunity that not only includes a racial element, it DEPENDS on a racial element (he says that racism means that entire communities are held back). I don't know what Kucinich has said specifically about race, but I'm sure he combines Edwards's grasp of the political-economic angle on race, with Gephardt's union appreciation of race, and perhaps Lieberman's history supporting racial equality (or, I should say, I wouldn't be surprised if he did...but, because he doesn't get the press coverage, I'm not sure what he says about race).

[tjdee]

18. Uh, that's not the issue.

The issue is that Dean is saying he's the only white candidates who talks about race to white audiences.

Lie. Plain and simple.

Edwards isn't making a big deal, he's saying that the comment is divisive (which it is) and also, false. Which it is.

[AP]

20. to emphasize the devisiveness, DU'ers here had the sense

to view Fox's post-debate interview with Sharpton for what it was. They pressed him into suggesting he'd run as a third-party candidates. Why?

Because they want to make any black viewers of Fox believe they don't have a voice in the Democratic Party if not for Sharpton.

When Dean says he's the only one raising the issue of race in front of white audiences, the implication isn't much different from the implication Brit Hume and Tony Snow (or whoever was interviewing Sharpton) was trying to make.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

73. It's not so much a lie as ignorant fantasy

it's plain old dumb and devisive and he should apologize.

[AP]

19. You're ignoring the point Edwards was making. Dean says he's the ONLY

Dem to do this. That's an insult even to Joe Liebermann who makes this point to white audiences, Jewish audiences, every audience. So does Kerry and Edwards and Kucinich and Gephardt. All the white candidates confront this issue head on.

It's also an insult to Clinton who repeatedly made the point to white audiences that racism holds us ALL back. It's an insutl to LBJ who got the white audience of the US Senate to vote for a Civil Rights Bill that has real power today. It's an insult to JFK who made a speech on national TV about Oxford, Mississippi that is still powerful and relevant 40 years later (how many statements of policy can you say are as brilliant today as they were when they were first spoken?), and it's an insult to Elanor Roosevelt, who was deeply concerned about race at a time when racism was at its most viscious in modern America.

[dean4america]

22. again, i will reiterate

Speechifying in front of white audiences that "we all need to get along" is not having an honest discussion with race in America.

Using examples from history, while true, do not bear out in today's racial climate. When Gephardt stands in front of a white southern audience and says that we have a dire need affirmative action, talks about race-baiting language of the Bush admin, etc., give me a call.

Also, I will point out again - WHY has Edwards (or any of the other candidates) called Dean on this "outrageous" point before? He said the same thing to the Cal Dem's on March 15, uses the same line in nearly all of his stump speeches, and said something of similar effect at the Children's Defense Fund event (where CMB nodded her head in agreement).

And don't even get me started on Clinton and race...

[sangh0]

25. And again, you avoid the issue here

Dean lied, and said he was the ONLY DEM doing this.

[tjdee]

26. I've only heard him do it twice.

Had I known that Dean does this virtually all the time, as you say, I would be a lot angrier. As a black person who hopes to get people interested in what my candidate has to say, it is very irritating to hear Dean projecting himself as "Mr. Diversity Man" at the expense of everyone else (I also don't believe for a minute that his FAVORITE song is by Wyclef Jean. Don't believe it for one single second).

Maybe Edwards is getting sick of hearing it and finally had enough. Edwards isn't given to just talking about Dean for the hell of it, and this is indeed a valid criticism.

I don't know what difference it makes that no one has said anything about it before this--does it make Dean's statement any more true?

[AP]

29. Rodney King, a black man, is the person who said we should all get along

Rodney King is not a politician, and I don't even know if he's a Democrat.

Bill Clinton, a white man, said to an American audience that racism holds us all back, black and white. He then persued policies which allowed both black and white Americans to realize the fruits of their labors.

To claim that white Democrats don't do this is an insult.

[TLM]

59. Ummm last time I checked... Clinton and Kennedy and Roosevelt

were not running for the nomination.

Dean was talking about the other candidates... not saying he's the only white guy ever to address race in a direct and matter of fact way, instead of simply giving lip service to some talking points.

[Rooktoven]

63. He said he was the only candidate talking to white auduences about it.

Which is not true.

[uptohere]

24. the most incredible thing is the press giving Edwards any print at all !

but... as long as they spell the name right...

[tjdee]

27. That's only because it concerns Dean, LOL.

Had Edwards been talking about Gephardt, we never would have heard this.

[blm]

38. *snort*

Dean, Dean, Dean , Dean, Dean.

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Who's playing pinball?

deandeandeandeandeandeandeandean

[KaraokeKarlton]

30. In all fairness...

I don't recall any of the other candidates talking to white audiences about race in any of the events where all candidates were present. How on earth can Dean know what they are all saying on the campaign trail? He's got to be talking about what he's seen. Sure, it was kind of careless for him to assume that just because he hasn't heard them talk about it that they aren't, but no one can expect him to know what the others say all the time, either. This is part of his character. If he discovers he's wrong, he'll apologize for it. Admitting that you were wrong is one of the best qualities a leader can have. It's much better than what Bush does when he's wrong. Personally, I think there are much bigger political nits to pick than this...like whether or not Congress is going to fork over more money we don't have for Halliburton.

[AP]

33. He was speaking historically and specifically, and there

are plenty of white southern democrats who have talked passionately about race.

And if he's talking specifically about this year's crop, Edwards talks about race. I've heard him talk about race. He tells that story about the valedictorian of his law school class who wouldn't have been there if not for affirmative action. He told this story to all kinds of audiences.

[PurityOfEssence]

105. If he's ignorant, why does he pronounce his knowledge?

If you're going to say you're the only one possessed of a certain virtue, then obliviousness to the actions of the others is not a defense, it's further proof of recklessness. What is this, the Bush administration? "I say it, therefore it's true?"

"How on earth can Dean know what they are all saying on the campaign trail?" Good point. Then why does he make flat ABSOLUTE pronouncements on the subject? If one is going to do that, one is implying that one's very aware of what all of the others are doing--thus displaying another of one's virtues that doesn't quite exist--in the process of slagging one's opponents.

This is a ridiculous offense. It's like Bush saying he knows there were deployed and active WMDs for an absolute fact, but then saying that one can't just be aware of everything. Gosh.

[AP]

120. Incidentally, they do know what other say. "Opposition Research" is the

name of the job, and every campaing has Oppostion Researchers. Dean does know what the other canidates are saying about race. I guarantee yuo they have a whole folder labeled 'race' and they have a member of staff whose remit includes 'race' and Trippi and Dean sit around and strategize on what they're going to do about 'race'.

If they get it wrong, they'll change it, probably. But I'm sure they're saying and doing things they mean to do and say. And for some reason they think that what they're doing on this issue (trying to make the other Dems look bad to black voters) is going to win them the primary.

[PurityOfEssence]

129. Indubitably

Everything is political. Some have more heart than others, but I credit them all with some soul-stirring ethical mission, while not dismissing elements of vanity and naked calculation.

My post is just to prove the ridiculousness of such a defense.

There is a ruthlessness apparent in the Dean camp on more than rare occasions that deeply troubles me; it reflects personality issues I don't like. Much is charitably dismissed as the fervor of the downtrodden and the heat of the moment of an outsider riding a wild wave of unexpected triumph, but much is sanctimonious and semi-scrupulous at best.

The worth of a human is shown by how he/she behaves when things are going badly AND when things are going well. From my worldview, the scrappy outsider is more understandable for making pronouncements that all of the competition are fools or tools when jockeying for position near the back of the pack, but if one is still doing this as the leader, it shows character issues beyond mere "edginess".

I haven't heard anyone mention Dean's comment about LaRouche, either; that's very telling. It's the kind of comment a priviliged and abrasive person would make. (Someone said: where's LaRouche?, Dean quipped "probably in jail". That's ridicule and the enjoyment of dismissing individuals. LaRouche is the bete noir of the party, but he's not as insane or "criminal" as one would believe.)

Do we want a reckless, combative and abrasive person as President? Disturbing personality traits keep peeking out the more I watch this guy. At least he's on the right track overall, but I like a little warm and fuzzy from my candidate. That's why I liked Carter so much. The recklessness is a huge issue: people are thinskinned and have axes to grind, this guy could wind up spending too much valuable time explaining controversies stemming from his ill-chosen words.

[AP]

31. Edwards is responding now because this was a direct insult

to him and Graham (and Gephardt too, I guess).

I believe Dean said that southern Democrats don't talk to black audiences about race.

Edwards is from NC and Graham is from FL. One of them had to take this up.

[Oracle]

32. Fuck Edwards!

I'm not a Dean supporter...but it's quite obvious the little slimy worm Edwards, is just trying to get some press so as he can be noticed. He's not noticed for a reason...no substance with the same bullshit the rest of the canidates are spewing...unlike my man Kucinich, whom the press ignores because he's a true liberal and his message to the American people is dangerous to the ones in power.

[AP]

34. You are very confused.

And, incidentally, your man Kucinich thinks Edwards is a pretty good guy.

[Terwilliger]

36. I have no problem with Edwards here

we've seen that Dean tends to make shit up, so it's only reasonable that Edwards would have to stand up and say "Now, wait a minute Howard...stop saying things you can't prove."

At the same time, I don't think any candidate really expresses to white voters how horrendous racism and prejudice is. If they did, we wouldn't be in Iraq rightnow, and your boy wouldn't have support the Racial Profiling Act (Patriot Act) that he seems to think is very important.

[JohnKleeb]

92. yep and I like your guy as well

Both of our guys have something I think very much so in common, they both know what being on the lower rung of society is like, yet they were determined young men and look where they are now.

[Sophree]

135. It meant a lot to me

That Kucinich said out of all the other candidates, he liked Edwards the most- kind of confirmed that I had made the right choice in which candidate to support. Kucinich is the choice of my heart, Edwards is the choice of my head. I respect DK as a man of integrity and honor- And I agree that they have much in common. :-)

[Sophree]

137. The "no substance" comment

Gives it away. Edwards has so much substance.

[PurityOfEssence]

110. You're the first Kucinich supporter I've ever heard to be vituperative

Up to now, his supporters have come across as quite decent. How do you explain that, of all the other candidates, the one Dennis likes and respects most on a personal, ethical level is Edwards?

Edwards is a deeply decent, warm and inclusive human being.

This is not oppotunistic, calculated grandstanding; it's a personal affront and cannot go unanswered lest people take the accusation as truth.

[diamondsoul]

116. Um, Dennis says he LIKES John Edwards, so what's your beef?

Edwards is not a "slimy little worm" he's a perfectly decent man with similar values to Dennis Kucinich. They disagree to some degree on methodology but the issues that concern them are just about identical. Edwards deserves to be heard and his message is so similar to Congressman Kucinich that I think it's rotten for you to insult him this way.

He called Dr. Dean on an outright falsehood, nothing more, nothing less, and it's about time someone called him on it.

[Terwilliger]

35. racial tolerance?

white candidates need to go to every white audience they see and call them racists. That's the only way you'll actually get anybody to really think about the racial prejudice that still pervades this country

[Oracle]

49. "Still prevades" ????

It's as bad as I've ever known it in my lifetime and getting worse, with these outright racist republican talking heads, Limbaugh and the rest telling all who listen..."they" are out to take your job and your women and it's OK to hate them...and this fascist Bush regime reinforces those thoughts to the letter and uses them to to create policy... (which is their ideology and agenda in the first place...fucking fascist!)

[TLM]

37. I think Dean is right, and the post piece shows it...

What I mean is that Dean talks about race in a very blunt way. Most politicians do shy away from doing that for fear of being accused of racism or pandering.


"Edwards urges racial tolerance in nearly ever speech he gives on the campaign trail, including addresses to white crowds. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut talks about his efforts as a student during the 1960s civil rights movement. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has discussed race and its role in his Vietnam service."

No, talking about racial tolerance or nam or Dr. King is not the same thing as taking about race the way Dean does. Saying we should all get along and that civil rights are a good thing etc. these are "safe" topics that don't get into real race issues. They just kind of skim along the surface of the issue and give lip service to the general idea.

What Dean does is talk about race in the same way that Sharpton talks about race. When have you seen any of those guys up there say they are going to talk to whites about how they've been divided in the south by race by republicans for 30 years... or that we need to address the fact that this party often talks a good game, but when it comes to supporting our minority party members, the dems have really fallen behind.

When Dean talks about race, he's not trying to pander to either group, he is attacking the aspects of racism that are hurting everybody. He's the only guy I've seen say that we need affirmative action because human beings have an inborn tendency to surround themselves with people that look like us.

[blm]

40. So he SAYS.

He has never deigned to consider it much in the past, but, NOW he does? And has the gall to say he is the ONLY one to do so?

[AP]

41. OK, what EXACTLY does Dean say about race? Give me an example of what Dean

says, and we'll compare it to the way Edwards has talked about race.

[TLM]

106. probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head...

was his comments about going into white communities in the south and talking to people who have the stars and bars decal on their pick up trucks, about how the republicans have been using race to divid poor communities in the south for 30 years, and what has it gotten you? What has 30 years of racial fear from the right gotten you?

He talks about the number of uninsured kids in states like SC and points out most of those kids are white, health care and good schools are not minority issues, they are issues that hit all of us.

Talking about race doesn't just mean saying good things about Dr. King and affirmative action. It means talking about the real heart of the problem, and how republicans have used race to split us apart.

[AP]

127. Both of those examples are merely observations.

The two things I cited about Edwards's position on race are (although, I grant, very allegorical) taking the issue to the next step. They are not simply observations of inequality.

Granted, this is largely a matter of impression and depends on the listener's respons to the message. But here we have you, a dedicated Dean fan who thinks the most significant thing he has done is merely observe inequaltiy. And, of course, as with any good Dean story, there's this element of bluntness and courage -- Dean was willing to go up to a redneck and tell him something that might make him angry. Wow. How presidential!

Do you see how what you've said emobies much of the criticism leveled on Dean here: that he wants to talk, and that he's blunt, but that he's really not taking that to the next step with a real political-economic plan that's going to make a difference in the lives of people whom Bush has hurt so badly?

Compare that to me. I have heard Edwards talk about his law school classmate, and about the demographics of Robbins, NC, and I hear a different message. I hear a political-economic philosophy. I hear about HOW affirmative action lifts up everyone. I hear a message about how, when you're fighting for your own economic betterment, you need to fight for your neighbor's empowerment, and you need to lift up the lowest among you, if you're really committed to improving yourself.

Get it?

[TLM]

157. You just made Dean's point, and mine.

"I have heard Edwards talk about his law school classmate, and about the demographics of Robbins, NC, and I hear a different message. I hear a political-economic philosophy. I hear about HOW affirmative action lifts up everyone. I hear a message about how, when you're fighting for your own economic betterment, you need to fight for your neighbor's empowerment, and you need to lift up the lowest among you, if you're really committed to improving yourself."


You see, you hear a lot about issues around race, but the bare bones race issue itself is skirted around. Now i have heard dean address a lot of issues and social/economic plans as well. However that's not what you asked about. You asked about the blunt straight forward ways that dean has talked about race.

And you respond by saying that your guy talks about all these issues that have to do with race.

Do you see the point being made?

[AP]

159. But if THAT'S skirting around the issue, then what the hell

is Dean doing. He's skirting around an doing pirouettes and waving flags and hoping you don't look past the fact is that all he's selling you is some illusion that bluntness carries the day, and that he's got a pocketfull of blunt.

Both of these guys are telling stories to get accross an idea. Allegory and analogy is how EVERYONE tells you about their ideas and what they stand for. MLK did it. Malcolm X did it. Everyone does it. Stories are very powerful. In many ways, these stories tell you more than the simple statement, "I'm for AA because it's good for everyone."

Edwards's story about race is very powerful to me, because I find that it suggests a highly intelligent, historically appropriate, left, liberal, progressive policy attitude that grasps the political and economic reality of racism.

Dean's story about blunt talk directed at red necks tells me that he wants you to believe that he's blunt and that he has the cajones to confront rednecks. It tells me nothing about his grasp of the political and economic realities of racism. In fact, if his stories don't start to include an economic component which acknowlegdes that solution includes getting people who are discriminated against into the middle class, even if it costs a few rich businesses a little in labor costs, I'm going to get very confused about where he stands on the liberal spectrum.

And, by the way, were are those economic plans? I read his WSJ thing and that, to me sounded like a paliative aimed at big business, and I spent yesterday explaining why I thought tax 'reform' aimed only at the poorest and not at the middle class isn't my full cup of tea, as a Democat.

[TLM]

164. You are trying very hard to mix two things...

that being talking about race in a blunt and direct way to white audiences.

And talking about issues that peripherally involved race or that are important to minority voters.

You ask about one, then act as if since I addressed your question, that must mean the other issue is ignored by Dean.


"He's skirting around an doing pirouettes and waving flags and hoping you don't look past the fact is that all he's selling you is some illusion that bluntness carries the day, and that he's got a pocketfull of blunt."

Wrong, he does both. Dean does not just talk bluntly about race to white crowds, he also talks about the issues as well. But as I said you only asked for an example of the blunt talk I described... then act as if blunt is all there is.

No, blunt is simply all you asked about.



"Both of these guys are telling stories to get accross an idea. Allegory and analogy is how EVERYONE tells you about their ideas and what they stand for. MLK did it. Malcolm X did it. Everyone does it. Stories are very powerful. In many ways, these stories tell you more than the simple statement, "I'm for AA because it's good for everyone."

There is nothing wrong with those kinds of stories... the problem is when those kinds of stories are all the guy has and they are used to avoid addressing the real heart of the problem of race relations and the ways race is used to divide poor communities.



"Edwards's story about race is very powerful to me, because I find that it suggests a highly intelligent, historically appropriate, left, liberal, progressive policy attitude that grasps the political and economic reality of racism."

It is a great story, that is true, but it is far from being the kind of direct and blunt addressing of race that Dean does in addition to use of such stories.


"Dean's story about blunt talk directed at red necks tells me that he wants you to believe that he's blunt and that he has the cajones to confront rednecks. It tells me nothing about his grasp of the political and economic realities of racism. In fact, if his stories don't start to include an economic component which acknowlegdes that solution includes getting people who are discriminated against into the middle class, even if it costs a few rich businesses a little in labor costs, I'm going to get very confused about where he stands on the liberal spectrum."

You ask for something specific then complain when my answer does not address something completely different than what you asked.

If you wanted examples of Dean race policy ideas and issue positions, you should have asked for those. Instead you asked for an example of his bluntness on race.


Here is an example from his site of more general addressing of civil rights.

One of the reasons that I am running for president is to restore the ideal of the American community. Unfortunately, this ideal is under assault by the current Administration. The President pushes forward an agenda and policies that divide us. He divides us by race by using the word quota. He divides us by gender by attacking a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. He divides us by sexual orientation by supporting senators who have slandered gay Americans.

This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere. It is a call to every American, regardless of party, to join together in common purpose and for the common good to save and restore all that it means to be an American.

We seek an America where it is not enough to protect our own rights under the law, but where it is a duty and an obligation for each of us as Americans to make sure every American is equal under the law.

We seek an America where it is not enough to proclaim the words freedom, self-government, and democracy, but where it is a duty and a responsibility to participate together in common purpose with the sacrifice required of each of us to give those words meaning.

We seek an America where it is not enough that our own children have health care and good schools, but where our neighbors’ children do as well.

This campaign is about who we are as Americans. It is the ideal of the American community that we seek to restore.

Fundamental to the restoration of the American community is the reaffirmation of the principles of Civil Rights and Justice. As President, I will work tirelessly to promote these principles:

I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity.

I will unflinchingly defend a woman’s right to choose against those who would take away this right.

I will nominate federal judges with outstanding legal credentials, records of professional excellence, and demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy.

I will work to expand equal rights to same-sex couples and ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence, give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries, remove bias from our immigration laws, and end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I will work to ensure that racial profiling ends and I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws the 1964 Civil Rights Act to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from state and local law enforcement that violate those regulations.

I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not just as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together.

I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.

I will put the weight of my office behind the Innocence Protection Act, proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy, which would expand access to DNA testing and strengthen the quality of lawyers for defendants facing the death penalty.

I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.

I will work for federal legislation to restore the right to vote in any federal election for ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.

Together we have the power to halt this President’s divisive, destructive polices. Together we can restore the ideal of the American community. Integral to this restoration is the reaffirmation of the shared belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or immigration status is entitled to equal protection and justice.



Here is an example of some of his positions of race issues...



"Wrongheaded" initiative will imperil struggle against racial discrimination.

I am running for President to take back America from those who are trying to divide us, and to restore the ideal of the American community. Unfortunately, this ideal is under assault by the right wing of the Republican Party. Pushing forward its agenda of division, the right wing has now launched another ballot initiative in California: the “Racial Privacy” Initiative. The proposed law, which purports to make California colorblind, would just make the state blind.

The initiative is not about privacy, it’s about stopping people from collecting data that is essential to preventing and remedying discrimination. The initiative prohibits the state from gathering traffic-stop racial profiling data. It precludes social service agencies from collecting information necessary to determine whether minority populations are receiving government services. It prevents researchers from tracking racial data on social conditions, such as marriage and schooling patterns.

As a practicing doctor, I needed to have the right information to diagnose and cure my patients’ ailments properly. In just the same way, we need to be able to collect the right information to diagnose and end discrimination. This initiative would effectively tie our hands. It is wrongheaded and I oppose it.


and a little more...


Dean Statement on University of Michigan Decisions

I am delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld the principle of affirmative action in education. This was a victory for the civil rights of all Americans. The Bush Administration had urged the Court to reverse course in the nation’s historic march to equality, but the Court’s majority wisely refused to do so.

When President Bush used the inflammatory word “quota” to describe the Michigan program, I criticized him for distorting the facts. Now, the Supreme Court has rejected that misleading label. It is time for the President to stop using code words that divide Americans by race, gender, income, and sexual orientation.

As President, I would pursue policies that encourage racial diversity on college campuses because I know that diversity serves important goals -- it produces benefits for all students, and for society as a whole. The Supreme Court decision clears the way for policies that advance both equity and excellence.

In her majority opinion Justice O'Connor suggests that race-sensitive affirmative action will no longer be necessary in 25 years. If Justice O'Connor is saying that these programs should fade away when they are no longer needed, I agree wholeheartedly. If she is predicting that the need will disappear within 25 years, I hope she's right, but we should wait and see. If she is setting a deadline, regardless of realities, then she is mistaken, and perhaps a future Court will make an adjustment.

But even now, with the ink barely dry on the Court’s decision, extreme opponents of affirmative action are promising to make the dismantling of these programs a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations. President Bush should speak out against such demands from his right flank. He should commit himself now to seek nominees who will stand in the mainstream, committed to progress not rollback.



and lastly on immigration...



America is an immigrant nation. As President, I will recognize and respect the vital role immigrants have played in building the American community.

Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican, supportive of immigrants and their desires to achieve the American Dream. Candidate Bush promised to revamp the naturalization process so that immigrants who met the requirements could obtain their citizenship in six months or less. In 2001, President Bush said he would work with President Fox of Mexico to develop a new immigration policy that recognized the economic contribution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and that would respect the human rights of these migrants.

Unfortunately, President Bush has not kept these promises.

While he made these promises and invited mariachis to play at the White House, his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was deputizing local police authorities as junior INS agents to track down undocumented immigrants. Instead of exercising leadership to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush has turned his back on Mexico and other Latin American countries. He has ignored the dreams of millions of immigrants to become a legitimate part of our society, and not simply its unseen workforce. Instead of revamping and streamlining the immigration agency and its processes, the President has allowed the agency to be swallowed up into the Department of Homeland Security, where immigrants are routinely treated as terrorists until proven otherwise.

We need a White House that will lead Congress to enact real immigration reform. As President, I will work tirelessly to achieve that goal.

I will work to ensure that people who work hard, pay taxes, and otherwise obey the rules can become full participants in our society, including becoming citizens.

I will work to regularize the inevitable future migration of labor in a way that makes economic and humanitarian sense. Deaths in the desert do neither.

I will propose reforms that ensure we can meet our economy’s need for workers at all skill levels, without pitting foreign workers against U.S. workers and while respecting workers' rights including the right to organize.

I will work to forge stronger partnerships with countries from which immigrants migrate -- especially Mexico -- so that in the long run, fewer people will be driven by desperation to break laws and risk their lives for basic opportunities that every human being deserves.

I will work to ensure that immigrants who are detained by the Department of Homeland Security are afforded their basic civil rights and that our concern for national security does not become another excuse for racial profiling.

I will build on our country’s long history of welcoming immigrants in ways that reflect our need for security but do not sacrifice the basic ideals upon which this nation was founded.



"And, by the way, were are those economic plans? I read his WSJ thing and that, to me sounded like a paliative aimed at big business,"


How so... it was aimed at small business.



"An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states -- for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet -- not those whose needs are well provided for."


" and I spent yesterday explaining why I thought tax 'reform' aimed only at the poorest and not at the middle class isn't my full cup of tea, as a Democat."


Well then you should like Dean's plan that focuses on small businesses and the middle class, while closing tax loopholes for big business.

[AP]

169. If you want to know what's important to minority audiences,

I think you have to wonder why Dean got murmurs and confusion when he told his story about talking bluntly to rednecks at the NAACP event, and Edwards got applause when he told his story about Robbins, NC.

An what I asked you was what you remembered from Deans campaigning on this issue. That those two stories stuck with you is very telling (I'm arguing).

As for the rest of the stuff, thanks for that. This is a tangential point: in my opinion, Dean frames the issue in terms of "assaults" on civil rights. It almost sounds like if Ashcroft and Bush were gone, everything would be hunky dorey. My opinion is that real issue is about economic opportunity. Even without Ashcroft and Bush, we'd still have to take steps towards ensuring equality of access to economic opportunity. That's what Edwards is talking about. It may not sound 'blunt' because it doesn't lend itself to the 'assault' and 'threat' imagery to which Dean's talk lends itself. But I think Edwards is closer to the crux of the matter. And that's why I think the Robbins story is much more powerful than the confronting rednecks story.

Incidentally, I've made my comments about this WSJ piece in another thread.

[Rooktoven]

42. Dean would be right if he hadn't singled himself out

Or does everyone have to talk about race in and off the cuff manner?

I agree with an earlier poster. Edwards won't jump on people typically-- and it's not because Dean is the front runner, it's because by proxy, it is an attack on Edwards (and the rest of the field).

I give Dean credit for bringing up the issue. But the flip unsubstantiated remarks are his weakness, and are the main reason he isn't my first choice. I hope this behavior by Dean is carelessness and not a habit, because he brings alot to the table in the form of passion and organizational skills

Why on earth does a front runner need to make an ad hominem attack like that? I'm sorry, I don't think the attack on the other candidates is defensible.

[AP]

51. Well, part of the reason he might do it in front of black audiences

is because he's TRYING to peal off black support for his competitors.

If you resign yourself to not being able to muster support from that very loyal demographic, one winning strategy is to do things to make them less loyal (which is the current Republican strategy -- they've given up on winning those votes, so you hear a lot of shit from the right about how the Democratic party doesn't care about black voters and that Sharpton should run as a third party candidate).

And that's why Edards HAS to respond to this (and he's the candidate, apparently, who has the most black support, including Sharpton).

Perhaps Dean thinks this is how he'll win the primary, and then he can make his appeal to non-white voters in the general election. Good luck with that.

[Karmadillo]

43. Speaking bluntly does not preclude speaking truthfully. n/t

n/t

[sangh0]

66. Unless you're Dr Dean

.

[TLM]

53. Just wondering... how many of you who are pissed about what Dean said...

are white?


From what I have seen in terms of reactions from minorities, even from Sharpton and CMB, is very receptive to what Dean said.

I don't think a lot of white folks really got what Dean was saying, but I think black and latino folks did. I think they're sick of seeing politicans talk about race issues and toss of the right buzz words or the right PC talking points, without really talking about race.

[blm]

58. Sharpton didn't sound complimentary to Dean last night.

He seemed like he was mocking what Dean said. I can only paraphrase but it was something about Dean only talking about race as an issue NOW as opposed to those who have dealt with it for many years.

[Rooktoven]

60. I'm white, and it annoys me--

Mainly because he denigrated my guy (and the others) with an untrue generality.

[tjdee]

67. I'm black,

and no duh white people need to talk to other white folks about race issues. I got no thing with Dean for that.

But Dean saying he's the only one who does it?

Wrong-o. And if he says it all the time, as someone above alluded to, I'm much more irritated than I was before this morning. It leads black people to think the rest of the candidates are mealy-mouthed on race, which is blatantly false (no matter what else they are mealy-mouthed about).

[sangh0]

74. As a white man

who comes from a multi-racial family, I think it's racist to assume that because someone is white, they have a different perspective on racial issues.

My opinion wrt race is in line with the opinions of minorities because my family is affected by these policies in the same way that the families of minoritities are affected.

I don't think a lot of white folks really got what Dean was saying, but I think black and latino folks did. I think they're sick of seeing politicans talk about race issues and toss of the right buzz words or the right PC talking points, without really talking about race.

I'm sick of white people like Dean LYING for political gain about the contributions other white people have made. I have listened as many different white people have done EXACTLY what Dean was talking about. Each and every time I've listened, it was to someone who wasn't Dean.

And now, Dean is going to lecture them!

[w4rma]

83. Dean said that white folks *need* to talk to other white folks about race

Dean didn't say anything about the past contributions of any white folks.

You are the one lying, IMHO, sangh0, to make an issue of this molehill.

[AP]

86. INcidentally, what is it that Dean want's white people to say to white...

...people about race. And, more importantly, how is that going to translate into policy which has any real impact on the way people experience life in America?

[sangh0]

87. Try reading

I was responding to TLM, who most certainly DID imply that white people have a different opinion than black people.

And Dean DID say that the white Dem candidates (who IMO happen to qualify as "white folks", but that's just me) haven't been talking about race to other white folks.

Dean is lying.

[Rooktoven]

91. Not a molehill--

And certainly not a lie to make an issue of it. Dean made a disparaging remark against his opponents to gain favor with those attending the debate. Can't we just agree that what he said was inappropriate and not true and move on?

[TLM]

126. I think Dean overstated his position to some degree...

but i do not think he was wrong in what he was saying, which was basicly that the rest of the guys up there, except for sharpton and CMB, are addressing race in the same typical way dems have for too many years. They talk around race, talk about AA or the civil rights movement or tell a story about a friend who was black or crap like that.

They do not get down and talk to white crowds about how race is used to divide them and how race is used to create fear in them. And Dean hits those points almost every time he speaks, talking about the use of the term quota by Bush and the fear mongering of the right wing in the south.

Dean is out in front on that, although to say nobody else is talking about race is misleading... they do talk about race, they just don't do so directly and effectivly, they tip toe around it.

[AP]

134. Well, if he's going to say that, he could at least contast

his feelings about race to what the other candidates are, in fact, saying about race, so we could decide for ourselves whether we agree.

Bluntness is not, in itself, a statement of policy.

I think I have a post above (#126 or #127) which summarizes what I feel is the difference between Dean's position and, for example, Edwards's.

[sangh0]

147. Dean supporters don't do "contrast"

In another thread, a Dean supporter claimed that NOW should have endorsed Dean instead of Braun, without posting anything about Dean's or Braun's positions on women's issues. I asked several times for this, and got nothing.

[Nazgul35]

56. I've noticed no disscussion...

about how the thread is titled....

Is this how the article was titled? Anyone glancing at this would assume that Dean had made a defamatory remark....

The original thread should at least make it plain that Dean's remark was about race relations....it's bad enough when the media plays this game...do we need to do it?

As far as the comment....I don't recall whether he said I or we....i'll at least wait for the transcript before I make up my mind....but I may have missed it cause I was still laughing at the Trent Lott comment he made....

Wasn't this also following Sharpton's remark about the dems deciding to marry or seperate? I am not sure....It's always nice to know the whole context in which the remark was made....I remember Kerry making a remark a while back that pissed alot of people off....and I was willing to wait to see what the whole statement was....truthfully, I didn't care enough to worry about it...much of this stuff is just silly...

I am not willing to reject a candidate because they misspoke or misframed their statement during a debate, a high enough charged environment under normal circumstances, but made even more stressfull due to the Larouche crowed interrupting....

Personally, I think this is nothing more then trying to score a few cheap...actually...really cheap deabting points because no one can seem to break into the support Dean has generated...I don't pay attention to this when Dean people say it about other candidates and I won't consider this nothing more than public masturbation now as well....

[Rooktoven]

61. The cheap debating point was by Dean

It was an offhand remark, unsubstantiated, and not true. It was not something aany candidate should do, let alone a front-runner who may have to unite the party.

[Nazgul35]

65. hey....you violated the ten

posts per day rule per thread!!!!

:evilgrin:

[Rooktoven]

69. This one goes to 11 --nt

[AP]

79. There's a difference between sexy and sexist!

Smell the Glove.

[TLM]

139. You know I think Dean hit a nerve with other dems

that have been pussyfooting around the race issue or only really addressing race issues with minority crowds then forgettign about them.


This is what sharpton was talking about... leaving with the one what brung ya to the dance. Dems seems to use minorities as a steping stone to get elected, then forget about them far too often.


I think Dean was wrong in that he's not the only candidate talking about race to white crowds, but he is the one out in front on doing so.

[AP]

144. This is not true. I haven't been in a 'minority audience' listening

to politicians talk since last spring (and they were congressmen and mayors and not presidential candidates) and I've had no problem figuring out what the candidates messages on race are. This is from national TV, and national papers, and not BET, the Amsterdam Press, or any other forum which was de facto limited to a black audience.

And, you know what, one of my biggest problems with Dean saying this is the implication that you REPEAT: more than anything, making this statement is a message to black audiences that those other guys, like the Democratic Party, are ignoring your interests. Why are you and Dean turning this into the same perception that Fox news tries to create by encouraging Sharpton to run as an independent?

I'm perfectly happy to have the debate over whether the Democratic Party ignores black concerns. But in this context, it seems self-defeatist. In fact, I would say that Dean trying to drive a wedge between black voters and Kerry/Edwards/Graham/Kucinich/Lieberman with a lie would be a pretty good example of a Democrat not being interested in the black vote, because it seems to be a sure fire way to keep one of those guys from beating Bush.

[TLM]

152. It is not that the dems ignore minority issues...

it is that they do not pay enough attention to them after the elections.

That's the point sharpton was making.

[w4rma]

76. The article in the WP uses this headline

And, I just noticed that also about the WP article's headline. :grr:

I was going to post that this is just folks Dean's competitors trying to parse his words for any small thing they can possibly criticise him on. This seems to be the best they can come up with, for now, so I'm not worried at all.

They were going to attack Dean on *something*.

[Rooktoven]

78. That's what campaigns are about--

Your presentation to the voters and how you contrast yourself with your opponents. My prediction is this will be the second time Dean apologizes to Edwards.

[Sean Reynolds]

90. You know - you guys make it sound like Dean brought over the plague!

IF this is the ONLY little thing people can harp on Dean for, I think he's doing DAMN good. This is politics, they often use the I word MANY TIMES. Does it make it right? No. But you're chastising Dean as if he's the only one that does it. He could have been as ruthless as Lieberman last night, he wasn't. How many times has Kerry misquoted what Dean's said? Should we all go picket and burn down Kerry's house too?

[Rooktoven]

93. It wasn't Kerry who called him on this.

In my view, if you are slighted and have not thrown any mud yourself (Edwards) you get a free pass to respond--Just like Dean did against Lieberman.

[Sean Reynolds]

102. I never said Kerry called him on it

I just said Kerry has misquoted Dean before......

And this wasn't even CLOSE to being as brash as what Lieberman said. Lieberman BAITED Dean out - TOTALLY bashing him. To me, they're not the same.

Also Braun misspoke about Dean in the debate too (his gun control stance) should we start a thread bitching at her too?

[Rooktoven]

108. No you implied that because Kerry made a mis-statement about Dean that

it is somehow acceptable for Dean to make a blanket mis-statement about the whole field of his opponents. Mis-statements will be called, whether Kerry, Dean, or even (smirk) Joe Lieberman makes them.

[Sean Reynolds]

109. No, I didn't imply that.

I implied other candidates always make these misstatements. It's politics. IF you're gonna go after Dean, go after them too!

[Rooktoven]

112. Why go after someone who didn't attack you?

Kerry, et. al. haven't mis-characterized Edwards (and in this case, everyone else's) actions.

[blm]

99. They have a right to defend themselves against Dean

who has misrepresented them MANY times, and has been since Jan.23. The others are still playing catch up to Dean's constant attack machine.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

[TLM]

141. BLM why do you repeat this lie, when I proved it false yesterday?

"who has misrepresented them MANY times, and has been since Jan.23. The others are still playing catch up to Dean's constant attack machine."

Here let me post the whole statement so you won't again lie and claim dean was talking about 2001 tax cuts, and not the tax cuts proposed by dems 2 weeks prior to Dean's statement.


"Our candidates think the best way to get elected is to talk to everybody about voting for things like the leave-every-school board-behind education bill, which is going to cost the New Hampshire taxpayers $109 million," he said. ". . . . I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said."

[PurityOfEssence]

160. That's not just nasty, it's wrong

I haven't heard that quote before, that's a classic example of nastiness and moral superiority from the Doctor.

". . . . I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America,"

First off, there are six people from Congress in the group, and secondly, this statement is to depict them as uniformly for tax breaks for the rich. This is deliberate, broad-brush demonization of them all as sucking up to the rich. Care to explain Kucinich's and Edwards'tax votes? Is this fair or accurate?

That's a nauseating quote. "Look everybody, I just want to see those cowardly prick stooges of the ruling class duck questions about their desire to fuck you."

As his presentation gets more controlled, the Doctor gets more appealing, but with each defense of him, I find more and more that annoys.

[TLM]

166. And the lie continues....

"I haven't heard that quote before, that's a classic example of nastiness and moral superiority from the Doctor.

". . . . I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America,"

First off, there are six people from Congress in the group,"

Yeah two from the house and four from the senate... and while they ALL voted for the dreadful no child left behind act which is what Dean is talking about in the first part of that quote, it was the dems in the senate that put forth and supported the 350 billion version of Bush dividend tax cut just prior to this statement by Dean.

And here's the vote results on that amendment from a month or so later in the senate.



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Breaux Amdt. No. 339, as Modified )
Vote Number: 76 Vote Date: March 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 339 to S.Con.Res. 23
Statement of Purpose: To reduce tax cut to $350 billion.
Vote Counts: YEAs 38 NAYs 62
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name

Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea



"and secondly, this statement is to depict them as uniformly for tax breaks for the rich. This is deliberate, broad-brush demonization of them all"

No, only four of them who after voting for the o child left behid act that cause property taxes to go up, turned around and supported a 350 billion tax cut that went mostly to the rich.


"as sucking up to the rich. Care to explain Kucinich's and Edwards'tax votes? Is this fair or accurate?"

Kucinich did not support that amendment as he was in the house, not the senate, and I doubt he'd have supported it anyway. However Edwards supported it and voted for it.


"That's a nauseating quote. "Look everybody, I just want to see those cowardly prick stooges of the ruling class duck questions about their desire to fuck you."

More like "I want those 4 guys to come up here and tell you why you should vote for them, after they voted against you."

[AP]

168. Now I'm confused. If Dean told them that their yeah votes

raised their taxes, how could that be if the Nays won the vote?

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.

And what were the rest of the votes on this. Did Democrats stick together mostly? Were there lots of crossover votes?

[PurityOfEssence]

171. This is a vote for a smaller tax cut

Would you rather lose resoundingly, or try to lose by less? They know they can't defeat the big tax cut, so they try to at least make it a smaller tax cut and for this they're filthy curs who are to be slagged as enablers for the pilfering class?

Is Dean's statement not meant to capitalize on the ignorance of the listeners and make them think that these guys are habitual "tax-cutters"? Is this not deliberately deceptive to create a false impression of these guys as users/liars/cowards?

It's all very easy to criticize the actions of people in the hot-seat who have to stand up and cast public votes on very specific legislation, isn't it?

As a Political Scientist friend of mine says: "A critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

[blm]

174. They voted NO on that taxcut...the vote YOU

are hawking dishonestly is one that brought down the total taxcut to 350 b. from its original point of 700. To vote AGAINST the 350 was a vote FOR the 700.

Dean's remarks on Jan. 23 were in regard to the 2001 taxcut and YOU can't admit that YOUR guy LIED.

[PurityOfEssence]

177. That's what I thought; Dean gets greasier the more one looks

Stopping to think about this for a second, this is despicable of Dean. To misrepresent valiant efforts to rescue something from a disaster instead of just giving up is disgustingly deceptive; to taunt the front-line commanders fighting a rear-guard action is a further example of poor character.

I'd like to hear a response from our chum on this...

[blm]

167. NONE of the other Dems voted for the taxcut.

Dean used the PERCEPTION that the Dems caved (12 Ds voted for it) to smear the other Dem candidates.

[AP]

107. This is a VERY important issue. The Dems will not win if they

have a candidate who doesn't have a message about race which is progressive, and liberal and democratic and which motivates people who vote on issues relating to race.

And the other important part of this is that it is part of something that is bigger.

For me, this issue and the issue about taxation are all part of a bigger issue. To me, the problem with racism in America relates directly to economics. It would take a while to develop this theme, but here's the short version: when you hold a part of society back, basically what you're doing is picking a segment of society who will be willing to accept less to do the same job as someone else. This drives down wage rates. In Alabama, the white guy on the bottom of the scale only gets paid a little bit more than the amount of money a black guy is willing to accept, and he's willing to accept very little because racism has made his life miserable, and he'll take whatever crumbs he can get.

The other side of this is that many of the same policies which help break down race discrimination are the same policies which lift up entire communities of white and black people. You spread money among the middle and working class, you give EVERYONE an equal opportunity, and you start lifting everyone up. One of the lies of racism that maintains the wedge, which holds everyone back is that when a black person gets something, a white person gets less. That's the exact opposite of the truth.

And why does the lie get perpetuated? Well, because there's so much profit for people higher up the income ladder. Big business benefits from low wage rates. Big business isn't using the low wages to compete on price, and pass some of the ill-gotten gains on to consumers. They're taking the profits, concentrating their wealth, and forcing poorer working class people to go into debt to buy the consumer goods manufactured with wages held artificially low by the irrationalities of racism.

And, the bottom line here, is that Dean doesn't seem to be on board with a message about building up the middle class, whether it's in the context of a progressive tax code, or in the context of making a concrete statement about race in terms of giving all people, regardless or race, a chance to enter the middle class, and, once there, to reap the full rewards of their labor.

Talking about race bluntly amongst white people is still just talk, even if it's blunt. And trying to make Democrats look bad who are willing to talk about the political-economics of race and racism in sensible terms definitely isn't cool. And talking only about how you're going to help the poor keep their heads above water, but never talking about how your going to tip the balance back in favor of the working and middle class (to the detriment of big business whuch is profiting hugely from this uneven balance) is defintely very uncool, especially for a Democrat. In fact, this paragraph pretty much sums up what 'compassionate conservativism' was all about.

[CWebster]

95. It used to be that Dean was criticized for making this statement

Afro-Americans might be offended, Now they are all whining that they also discuss race when they aren't pandering specifically to Blacks. Dean is the one who makes the claim that it is an important enough issue to target white audiences with. That is the difference

[Rooktoven]

96. But he _isn't_ the only one doing it.

That is the root of his mis-statement.

[CWebster]

98. He is the only one

talking about the significance of it.

[Rooktoven]

104. Oh come on.,

Dean: Race relations is a very significant issue.

Edwards: Here is what I would do to help race relations and to lift up minorities in America.

You are claiming that Dean is somehow making a bold stand by making a general statement, because he is the only one using that combination of words to say it. He would have been fine if he hadn't thrown in the (untrue) cheap shot.

[CWebster]

123. It wasn't the first time he said it

and it is all about what he said. Bringing into consciousness the importance of white leaders discussing the relevance of race to educate white audiences. E Cummings from the congressional black caucus discussed the significance of Dean's perspective after the debate. The idea-- THE IDEA wasn't lost on him.

But this isn't really what it is about---this is just another attempt to scrape the barrel in order to create an issue where there isn't one.

[TLM]

142. And i also like the fact that Dean is causing the others

to step up with a more direct addressing of race policy, just to show how they can be as good as Dean has been on the issue.

Dean is pulling the whole pack in a good direction.

[CWebster]

176. Notice the others claim their discussion is about civil rights

and not race? Talking about race, the tradition, the psychology, the attitudes, the conventions of entrenched institutional racism and race relations historically is much broader and more significant than the aspects of civil rights.

[AP]

113. 110 Post later, what is Dean's argument about race?

I am still not clear what it is, beyond that he wants to blunt about it.

I'm noting even talking about concrete things. I don't even know what his meta-message is about race. I know what Clinton's was, and I know what Edwards's is. But I'm not clear what Dean's message is.

[TLM]

143. I've already answered this question and you seem to have ignored it

Dean has been addressing race in every speach and talking about going to white communities to point out how the right has used race to divide poor communities with fear and hate and Dean wants to stop that... to askt he guy with the stars and bars decal in his pick up window what race baiting and voting repuke has gotten him.

Dean has also been addressing issues of race by point out that white kids as well as minority kids need ehalth care and good schools, and these are not race issues, but issues of community and of progress for all.

[AP]

148. Do me the honor of replying to post 127

Thanks.

[GreenArrow]

103. That SON of A BITCH!

How dare he impugn Dr. Dean.

[opstachuck]

117. Is there anywhere on Edwards' website that...

specifically addresses affirmative action or race? from a quick skimming i didn't see anything. i could be wrong. anyway, for what it's worth, i looked under the key issues section. That's not to say he doesn't speak about it, but if it's not listed as a key issue then i think that says something.

[AP]

121. You have to download 'Real Solutions for America'

It's in there.

[opstachuck]

130. thanks, but..

i can't find the link on his website. could you give a link? or directions?

[AP]

133. it's right there on the front page...

...

[opstachuck]

155. okay, here's what i found...

there is no mention of the word race, blacks, latinos, or minorities in the entire document. there is one sentence that says he is for affirmative action in colleges but that's it, no mention of affirmative action or minorities anywhere else. so, i would say one sentence out of 64 pages isn't really all that great.

[AP]

162. Here's my reading

To me, paragraph 3 on page 3 is all about race. I'll grant you that it may not be a blunt statement about race, but to me, this is the third paragraph of the opening statement of this document -- this is his meta message right here -- and it has a big component that speaks about equal treatment and equal opportunity. The first and last quotes on page 5 reinforce that theme.

P 35: "In America the color of a person's skin should never affect the quality of their health care..."

p 38: the quotes I think are, again, powerful if you care about race.

p. 42: "strongly supports affirmative action"

The whole thing, rather than coded language placating the hegemony, is coded language which, I think, if you're on the lower rungs of society you really understand. To be honest, when I read it the first time, the whole thing seemed to be about race and equality of opportunity, and it surprised to to see only the two overt references. That's very interesting. In his speeches and debates the references are much more race. I'll compare this to what other candidates put out.

[dolstein]

122. Next thing you know, Dean will be saying his sh*t don't stink either

First he says he says he's the only "real Democrat" ("I represent the DEMOCRATIC wing of the Democratic Party")

Then he says he's the only candidate who opposed the war in Iraq. (Later changed to only "top tier" candidate, a veiled swipe at Bob Graham).

Now he says he's the only white candidate who talks about civil rights in front of white audiences.

What's next?

[sangh0]

125. Wait a minute

Don't tell me you bought that PNAC propoganda about how Dean's shit does stink?

[TLM]

146. What's next?

Dean's election, that's what's next. And that's why everybody is having such a fit over Dean's statements.

Dean never said he is the only real democrat, but he did say he is for the dem wing of the party... not the pro war vote for Bush's agenda wing.

As for the war, Dean is the only top tier candidate who was against it... Kucinich, Sharpton, CMB, and Graham are at best contenders for the VP slot.

And again you change what he said, Dean did not say he's the only white candidate who talks about civil rights in front of white audiences. He said he's the only white candidate who talks about RACE in front of white audiences.

[sangh0]

149. Actually, you changed what Dean said

and that's pretty revealing, IMO

Dean said that he's the only Dem candidate who was against it. You said "Dean is the only top tier candidate who was against it"

He said he's the only white candidate who talks about RACE in front of white audiences

And that's a lie. I have seen both Kerry and Lieberman talk about that very topic.

[dolstein]

153. But he's not the only white candidate who talks about race in front

of white audiences.

This isn't a semantics game.

[Duder]

124. Seems that Edwards is a little slow...

As the best time to point this out would have been during the *debate*, imo. To wait until the next day gives the appearance of just trying to get some headlines. My advice to John is next time quit wasting time giggling at what Al just said and don't be afraid to speak up the moment you disagree with someone.

[AP]

128. Perhaps he was being a gentleman and giving Dean a chance to appologize?

Perhaps the time for Dean to appologize for this statement was immediately after he said it?

[TLM]

151. Perhaps he was afraid of Dean rebutting the silly accusation?

The last thing those other guys wanted right then was for Dean to drag out specifics about their shortfalls on race issues.

[Rooktoven]

154. I guess we want all candiadates to "be like Joe" --nt

[haymaker]

132. GRABBING AT STRAWS!

Again.

[AP]

138. see my post 107 above.

Which I repeat again.

If you think this is grasping at straws, I'd be greatful if you could tell me where I'm wrong in post 107.

[haymaker]

158. FOUND IT!

After extensive searching, I found post #107.

You make it sound like Howard Dean is against the middle class, or, err, what are you trying to say about Dean?

How all of you Dean bashers can look into Dean's soul from that one statement is amazing. To the average onlooker, Dean supporter or not, it looks like you are making a mountain out of a molehill for pure political reasons.

Why are so many here trying to make it suck to be a Dean supporter. What the fuck gives?

Again, grabbing at straws.

[AP]

163. This is what I think this is all about.

I think it's obvious that big business and very rich individuals have made huge gains in the last 25 years. Dean should know, because this is where he comes from.

I think big business is happy with the obvious gains in wealth and power they've had during that time, and everyone knows what they want. They don't want any of that burden currently on the middle and working class to be shifted back to them.

I think Dean's record in VT reveals a willingness to work with big business and he's carrying this over to the presidential campaign. I think he is very deliberately avoiding a discussion of taxes which includes an element of shifting the burden off the middle class (progressive taxation), and I think this somehow relates to his inability to articulate a message about race in similar terms (ie, about how it's important to remove ALL barriers, racial and otherwise, for people trying to get into the middle class).

Why Dean is doing this, I do not know. Perhaps he honestly thinks that big business will do whatever it can to prevent a democrat with a real, progressive message from getting elected, so he thinks his approach is the only hope for Democrats. Or maybe a democrat who isn't so friendly to business, who does want big business to bear some of the burden so that we can all (the middle class and big business) get richer (but in a way that is more equitably distributied) can get elected. I don't know which it is. But, so long as it's the primary, I want to have this debate over progressive taxation, and about what a good message about race is, and I'll be pulling for the candidates who are best on these issues, and criticizing the candidates with whom I disagree.

[bearfartinthewoods]

173. suck to be a Dean supporter???

oh brother.....

i hope this sentiment isn't wide spread in the Dean camp.

we'll need broad shoulders, not weak knees when we get to the general and pity me attitudes will not cut our way to the white house.

i'm starting to see another definition of spineless dems......

[Starpass]

136. Let me get out the scorecard here a moment..my head's spinning

1. Poster above said the Dean's idea is to go into the Southland and go up to trucks, etc. that have the flag decales or whatever on and talk about race to the southeners, etc. I hope he has a might big bottle of tar and feather remover with him.

2. As pointed out by many talking heads today, Howard's position on the ME breaks 50 years of US policy (right or wrong, it does). His remarks offend the very large group of Jewish voters who are usually staunch Dems AND a large group of other non-Jewish people in the US who support Israel. At least Bush is still giving them the "pro-Israel" view they want and if had to chose, they will turn and vote for Bush again because of this issue. Oh, well, another group of Dems gone with the wind--who cares.

3. The Union boys and girls are the ones who have kids in the military or served themselves. Last election about 60% voted Gore but 40% for Bush because of guns, etc. They don't vote for anti-war people because it's an insult to them (in their minds). Give them an anti-war candidate unless it's wearing the stars and bars they salute, and they will vote Bush. Hell, screw them, who needs them.

Good score card so far, Howard. Keep up the good work. Hell, we all know that "we can't lose in '04".........oh, boy

[TLM]

150. Pure crap.... let me count the ways...

"1. Poster above said the Dean's idea is to go into the Southland and go up to trucks,"

No, where did I say go up to trucks? He is addressing a segment of the southern population that has stars and bars on their truck. Do try to keep up.


" etc. that have the flag decales or whatever on and talk about race to the southeners, etc. I hope he has a might big bottle of tar and feather remover with him."

Dean is going to straight up ask the southern dixiecrats what voting repuke for 30 years based on race hate has gotten them. And it is about fucking time someone did.



"2. As pointed out by many talking heads today, Howard's position on the ME breaks 50 years of US policy (right or wrong, it does)."

No it doesn't. His position is to be fair and evenhanded in our roll brokering the peace. How is that any different than what Clinton did?

We have to be trusted by both sides, not just come off as Israel’s buddy that is going to give Israel special treatment.

"His remarks offend the very large group of Jewish voters"

Bullshit. I think Lieberman offended more Jewish voters than Dean did.


"who are usually staunch Dems AND a large group of other non-Jewish people in the US who support Israel. At least Bush is still giving them the "pro-Israel" view they want and if had to chose, they will turn and vote for Bush again because of this issue."


Bush is pro-Israel because he has a hard on for the fucking apocalypse. And sorry but being pro-killing Palestinians is not the same as being pro-Israel or pro-peace.

Dean is pro-peace, and I do not think there can be a more pro-Israel and pro- Palestinian position than being pro-peace.


"Oh, well, another group of Dems gone with the wind--who cares."

I do not know of anybody, save for holy joe, who thinks that Israel shouldn’t have to make some level of concessions in the peace process, particularly in the area of west bank settlements. That is not an anti-Israel policy, no matter how desperately old holy joe wants to try to spin it as such.


"3. The Union boys and girls are the ones who have kids in the military or served themselves. Last election about 60% voted Gore but 40% for Bush because of guns, etc. They don't vote for anti-war people because it's an insult to them (in their minds).Give them an anti-war candidate unless it's wearing the stars and bars they salute, and they will vote Bush. Hell, screw them, who needs them."

Guess it is a good thing Dean isn't anti-war but anti-war for no damn good reason. Also a good thing Dean has an A rating from the NRA... those voters who vote repuke just for the gun issue will be a big help in Dean's win.

[helleborient]

161. This is what Dean said in Chicago...and question

I was at the "Sleepless Summer" event in Chicago...

At the event, Howard Dean called Bush on the carpet for injecting the race card into the Supreme Court deliberations on the University of Michigan affirmative action policies. He rightfully said that Bush used the word "quota" multiple times in it's brief to the court. He pointed out the University of Michigan system has never used quotas...and it was an example of Bush playing the race card. He said that alone is enough to throw him out of office.

He then said that it is when black, brown and white people vote together that we make progress on Civil Rights.

Are there examples of other candidates talking at this length to a primarily white audience about what racial politics mean in America?

It strikes me this is not the same as Lieberman touting his marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. or John Kerry or John Edwards talking about their past personal experience. Is it?

I'd be happy to see quotes or personal experience hearing them talk about a real issue such as this to a primarily white audience.

[IndianaGreen]

175. And is not like Kerry saying some of his best friends are...

(fill-in) the blanks.

[Sophree]

170. Wow!

This is the biggest Edwards thread I've ever seen!

Oh, right, Dean is also in the thread topic. :evilgrin: