I was asked about my claim Dean acts unpresidential. This is my response

[Bucky]

This came up in another thread, but in framing a simple response, I found myself pouring my heart out onto the page. I wanted to give this post a separate hearing because I'm very very concerned about him. I hope this doesn't come off as a character attack, but I fear some will read this that way. Understand I that I'm coming from an honest place, but a very worried place too.

These are my emotions, my feelings why I can't get behind Dr Dean before he's nominated. If I were to request any response, I would ask my Dean supporting friends to come back at me with why they do feel he's presidential. Help me see what I'm missing, what makes him so inspiring to you. Right now I don't get it. Maybe because, at 40, I'm starting to be one of them instead of one of us. Part of me really wants to like Dean as a political leader as much as I respect him as a political activist and movement leader.

Part of me believes he'll probably get nominated and I'll have to live with him for either four years or--what's worse--just four months. And part of me, a very big part of me, wants to be sure that win or lose, our party can come together and truly lead and represent what's best about this country. I think we can, but I'm worried we won't.

So below is my dialog with another DUer. My beginning comments are in italics and underlined and his comments are in italics only. My final thoughts are the long long things his questions prompted me to say. Thank you for reading this.

1. But he's not acting very presidential.
What is presidential, and how should one act to appear that way?

Partly it's the temperament. He complained to Terry McAuliff about unfair attacks against him, but then went just as directly and just as unfairly on the attack against other candidates. He has called nearly every significant opponent of his either Bush-lite or a Republican. That's beyond the pale. In the case of Clark (my candidate) even a brief glance at his platform will show that charge to be ludicrous. Clark is to the left of Dean on most issues.

Partly it's the cheap shots, misrepresenting Clark on the war, claiming he's the only opponent of the war when four of his opponents clearly opposed it too, that belie his claims of being a "straight shooter" (not that every candidate doesn't also claim to be a straight shooter), comparing members of Congress to cockroaches. He seems to personalize a lot of these conflicts with other Democrats. I don't think this country has had a good history with presidents who take professional conflicts and make them personal (Poppy Bush and Lyndon Johnson come to mind).

Partly I find the incessant repetition of "you have the power" at the close of the speeches of his I've seen to be a bit creepy. Coupled with the petulance and the repeated unsubstantiated charges of party disloyalty, I find that he reminds me of how McCarthyism worked. Dean is clearly no Joseph McCarthy, but the shadow of that style is there.

And partly it's his tendency to think out loud about electoral strategies. His announcements that he's going to talk about God a lot, that he's going to make the "original" economic argument to win over Southern whites (like we Democrats haven't been doing that for years and failing).

But I have to say this, and maybe this isn't fair--but I have learned to respect my instincts when they tell me there's something going wrong. My gut on Dean is that he's too ego-driven, too arrogant, too impulsive to run well or do the job as well as my guy.

2. Why is he trying to piss off the hardworking, dedicated supporters of all the other candidates?
Do you really believe he's trying to piss off the supporters of the other candidates--or is he trying to gain their support?

I think he's certainly trying to gain support, but I don't find that he's accomplishing much. This is what happens when you personalize conflicts. Dean understood the threat to one's presidentialness with you go negative. He pointed out long ago that the winner would be someone who runs on a positive message.

I think he's right, but I don't think he's living up to that standard.


3. This is coming damn close to burning bridges. I sure as hell don't want to be taken for granted by my nominee.
This is far more than burning bridges. This is taking the vote back to the American people. This guy is not taking you for granted; in fact, it's the opposite.

I can't disagree more. I thought long and hard and (I think) chose carefully when I decided to get behind General Clark. He's a big government liberal where I'm more of a deficit hawk. He's culturally military where I'm definitely a peacenik. He's a big risk taker and a visionary where I'm more process oriented and a pragmatist.

I don't feel like I've made a bad choice. I don't think I've been fooled by a pachyderm in burro's clothing. When Dean thinks he can peel me away from Clark by name calling, by trying to exploit unspoken stereotypes voters have like "real generals can't be Democrats", then yes, he's insulting my intelligence; he's taking me for granted. He seems to think he can do anything, say anything, to win the nomination--even maybe this on-the-sly push polling in New Hampshire to suppress the moderate independent vote in the primary--and just assume that as a part of the base I'll vote for him. Then, too, he is taking me for granted.

What's worse; he's right. I will vote for him no matter what reckless shit he does. He doesn't have to earn my respect to win my vote or my enthusiastic efforts for him in case he's nominated. I don't ask that he give me anything. Anyone who gets Bush out of the White House has earned my vote. But he's not showing me any respect; not as a southerner and not as a Clarkie. If I were a Christian I'd feel pretty slighted by his glib, last minute attempts to toss Jesus and Job references at me. In so many little ways Dr. Dean fails to do what a president must do most of all: speak to the people in the language of respect. I hold a president to that standard. As a Democrat he's my president the moment we nominate him. I want him to live up to that trust. He has not done so and shows no sign of being able or willing to do so in the future.

He plays risky anger games with the single most important election in my lifetime and acts blind to his own faults. His strategy for November is unclear to me, either not thought thru or fraught with faulty thinking. In a word, I do not trust his thinking.

This feeling in me runs deep and I know I share it with many other people; people who are persuadeable, but are not yella dog Dems like me. The only thing running counter to this feeling in me is my loyalty to the party and my revulsion at the policies of George Bush. Those cards trump everything. But I know in the general election that will not be enough. It's like I'm watching a train wreck about to happen and the engineer is just saying trust me I'm a doctor. Well, dammit, you're a doctor not an engineer. And I don't trust you.

[jmaier]

1. Very well

stated, Bucky. Thanks for posting this.

[Clark4VotingRights]

3. Thanks Bucky. Obviously I can't pretend to be inbiased.

So I'll just say that I share your concerns.
And I'm proud of the way my candidate conducts himself.
I think he's uplifting.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[JI7]

5. is this a joke ?

or are you being serious ? i don't think i have seen any larouche supporters on du.

[Bucky]

6. LaRouche supporters on DU

i don't think i have seen any larouche supporters on du.

Perhaps the cheese isn't fooling them any more. Well then, put out more glue traps and call Tom DeLay. We can lick this problem yet.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Bucky]

10. Hmmm, I wonder what happens when I click this little sleeping dude icon

*click* ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Ah, that's much better.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. He is a homophobe and a nut case as well as a convicted felon

LaRouche is not a democrat - never has been.


His is a self-declaration - but his views have never had anything to do with the national party, nor has he ever had any democratic voter following.

He is also convicted felon - I believe related to credit card fraud related to those duped into donating to his "campaigns."

Throughout the eighties (and beyond) he advocated for sending all AIDS and HIV patients to an island for exile/permanent quarantine. He was so serious about this that he worked toward getting state level ballot initiatives to this effect - to create state laws to enforce quarantines.

He has been "running" for president as a "self-declared" democrat since the 1970s. I first saw one of his paid tv ads in 1983. His organization has been considered a cult since long before then. He has never had a following beyond his bizarre cult group.

Why give legitimacy to a man whose views are at odds with the Democratic party, who is a convicted felon (who scammed/cheated donors to his "political campaign"), and who is so homophobic as to advocate seriously discriminatory legislation?

[Bucky]

12. Yeh, but is he electable?

:eyes: Obviously there are reasonable limits even to ABB

[kerry-is-my-prez]

13. Every once in a while he's "scarily" right BEFORE everyone else.

He just comes up with some "weird" stuff often...

[DemBones DemBones]

4. When it comes right down to it, what can you trust except your

gut? Your mind tells you whether what someone says is logical and (along with your heart), determines whether you agree.

But only your gut can tell you whether someone is trustworthy. I've learned not to try to override my gut, doing so leads to trouble every time.

My mind and heart disagree with Dean on several things. My mind has picked out too many lies from this man, confirming what gut instinct started telling me early in the campaign.

My gut says Dean is NOT to be trusted.

[Bucky]

8. Yeh, maybe. But I'd still vote for him in November. (nt)

When I say I don't trust him, it's not in the same way I mean it when I say I don't trust Bush. I don't trust Dean to have a winning strategy in the fall. I don't Bush not to draft all my students when they graduate and send them off to die wherever there's oil.

Voting for Dean is no problem. Nominating him is the sticker.

[w4rma]

9. My gut says Dean is an honorable and trustworthy man.

Dean, IMHO, is trying to do what he can to get this country back on track.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I have to agree with everything you've said

Dean is obviously very good, perhaps the best in a couple of generations, at running a campaign. I wish my own candidate (Kucinich) were that clever at winning support.

However, I see Dean as a triumph of style over substance. Putting it in high school terms, Dean is the guy who's voted "most likely to succeed" (although such types rarely do), Lieberman is the guy who rats to the principal when someone is smoking in the washroom, Sharpton is the bright guy who is bored with school and into living dangerously and making wisecracks, Gephardt is a bit of a grind but well-liked by the teachers, Kerry is handsome guy who's been in student government forever, Edwards is the freshman who's starting to make an impression, Clark is an officer in Junior ROTC and highly regarded by the teachers, and Kucinich is the bright kid from a poor background who gets no respect because he doesn't play the game like everyone else.

I believe that Dean could easily win the nomination, although I wonder how he would hold up against Karl Rove. I have doubts about how he would govern if elected, because I don't sense a center of non-negotiable core beliefs that he would never sell out. In that, he is uncomfortably close to the negative side of Bill Clinton.

[beaconess]

15. Beautifully articulated!

[lastliberalintexas]

16. So don't vote for him in the primary

If you don't trust him, then don't vote for him- whether in March or November, that is your choice.

I don't have a problem with posts like your Bucky because you've presented this as your OPINION, which it is. And you are entitled to your opinions on any of the candidates, just as everyone else is. As long as this doesn't translate into assertions of fact rather than your opinion, then there's no harm.

Personally, I don't trust any politician all that much, and this means all 8 of our candidates still running. They are all politicians, no matter what they (or their overzealous supporters) say. But what you see as "unpresidential" behavior, I see as fight, grit and backbone! Differing opinions...

While I want to win this year, I have a secondary purpose in this campaign that actually may be more important to me in the long run- the ability of our party to compete in future elections. I guess that is a luxury I can afford to have living in Texas, since my vote doesn't count in Nov anyway. But I truly believe that our party must change its tactics, or else we will all be wandering in the wilderness for the next generation. It will be tough enough over the next 20 years since we've allowed the repubs to ruin the federal bench- we certainly don't need a roll over party as well.

I see all of our candidates as pretty status quo- even Kucinich. But I see the Dean campaign (yes, campaign, not necessarily candidate) meaning so much more. It represents the first national campaign in a generation to essentially be run from the bottom up. Dean would be crucified by his own supporters if he were elected to office and then started pandering to the DLC and rolling over for the repubs. I don't really see that from most of the other campaigns- Kucinich of course excluded. I see them as being just more of the roll over and play dead, go along to get along crowd. And I just can't take much more of that.

That's just my opinion, obviously, and people are certainly free to disagree with me.

But the repubs we are up against right now are not really repubs- they don't actually care about the Republic. They are Corporatists or Fascists (in the true political theorist's sense of the word), and they play rough- VERY rough. So many of our Dem "leaders" seem blind to that fact. We're not playing standard politics anymore, but the DNC and DLC apparently still think we are and still think the old methods will win elections. They learned nothing from 2000 and 2002, and neither did most of our candidates.

I think I've seen you post that you're in Texas, too, so you should understand what I am saying more than most here. Texas is the blueprint for what they'd like to do to the rest of the country- and that should scare the hell out of Dems. But far too many of them have bent over backwards to make Shrub's life easy for the past 3 years, and I haven't seen anything that says they've learned their lessons.

So after that essay, I will simply say that Dean is my candidate of choice not because he is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but because I see him as a fighter. More so than any other candidate excepting Dennis. And that is the one concession to "electability" that I am willing to make this year- Dean over Kucinich (and formerly Braun).

But regardless of whether Dean is our nominee or even whether we win this year, this is the last election that the party automatically gets my vote. Until I see the party "leaders" grow a backbone, I just may go 3rd party. After all, what good is it to have a party full of people like Hillary Clinton, Daschle, Lieberman, Feinstein, et al when they sell out the Harkins, Feingolds, and Leahys of the party? It's sad that at this point, I'd be prouder to vote for Jim Jeffords than I would be to vote for H. Clinton. And I am a lifelong Dem who has worked on campaigns for 20 years. If *I* feel this way about our party, how do you think the 50% of citizens who don't bother to vote view us?


Sorry for the book in response. Your post just made me realize that the fighting, speak off the cuff Harry Truman probably wouldn't be seen as "presidential" today- and that makes me sad.