What It Is that Makes Many of Us Mad at Dean (in my opinion)

catherineD

(103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Dec-29-03 04:02 AM
Original message

What It Is that Makes Many of Us Mad at Dean (in my opinion)

I noticed some supporters of Dean can still say nice things about Clark, but most of us who support a candidate other than Dean have trouble saying nice things about him. A poll that asked who would you vote for if Clark, Kucinich and another dropped out was conspicuous in not having any votes for Dean.

Here is my take on why that is:

1. Dean has unfairly gotten much more press coverage than the others.

I realize that this is hardly Dean's fault, but it's still unfair. When I was interested in Kucinich, the big blackout happened. Kucinich had dealt with the company who caused it, First Energy, before, both when they tried to force him to privatize energy as mayor, and more recently, when he argued against letting them reopen their nuclear plant any time soon, given their violations. I wrote an op-ed about it, and appeared to know days before anyone else in the media of Bush's campaign connections to First Energy. Nevertheless, I failed to get my op-ed published anywhere but on counterpunch.org, and then weeks later in a Florida newspaper. Kucinich should have been asked to be on all of the news shows, but there was hardly a mention of him.

More recently, we all know that Clark testified at Milosevic's trial, and that the Bush administration, because they didn't want Clark getting any free publicity, didn't allow his testimony to be broadcast live. There was barely a mention that Clark was in The Hague testifying -- in fact, the Bush administration tried to make out that he'd gone there for fundraising purposes! Yet even that didn't merit news coverage. I don't believe that would have been true if it had been Dean testifying.

It's no good saying they're covering him because he's in the lead. He's always gotten the most coverage, and in polls since Clark entered the race, Clark has been close to tied with Dean in most national polls. But he has never gotten the coverage. In fact, if another candidate wants to get in the news, their best bet is to attack Dean, as that will usually garner them a headline.

So it doesn't matter that it isn't Dean's fault, no one likes to see somebody winning because of cheating, even if the cheating is being orchestrated by a third party.

2. The other thing that has had me mad at Dean has been how his campaign has misrepresented his liberalness. Again, when I was with Kucinich, there would be Dean saying that none of the candidates had voted against the Iraq war, when Kucinich had. And anyone who cared to research Dean would read that he said he supported every military action in the last 20 or so years except Iraq. Which means he must have supported all of those things under the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations. And if you read about his record in Vermont, there is more evidence that his performance in the past has been as a moderate who is more interested in fiscal conservatism than in social programs. It has felt very unfair that he has attracted so many people to his side by saying he is from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, when that isn't true. Those votes were taken away from other candidates and that's wrong, unless he has had a change of heart. But he has never indicated that he has changed in his views from the time he served, so recently, as governor of Vermont.

3. This one may just be personal, but the chin pulled in and the smirk. I find all of the other candidates more personable, and perhaps would be more likely able to forgive them, as a result.

4. Finally, there is a desperation to it. I wouldn't be as mad if I thought he could win the presidency. I was disappointed when Clinton spent all of his political 'points' to muster support for NAFTA, instead of for something that Republicans weren't already chomping at the bit to do. If I really thought Dean had a chance to win the presidency, I could swallow my disappointment at no doubt more of the same -- at least the debt would improve and the extreme greed of the current administration would be no more. But the thing is, I feel certain that he can't win. No, he's not a Dukakis, he's more of a fighter, but you know what? this Republican administration is far more vicious than Dukakis's opponent was. He's a northeastern guy who went to boarding school, got out of Vietnam, with no foreign policy experience and whose time as governor will probably yield more Willie Horton ads. It won't sell. I've just seen a chart in the LA Times today that shows that white males have only voted for the Dem candidate in equal numbers with the rest of the population the first time Carter and the first time Clinton was elected. Two southerners. And now we're in the midst of a foreign policy crisis.

5. One final one, that probably only applies to a few of us. Maybe it's just getting involved in the process so early. More likely it's reading up endlessly on my guy, Clark. But perhaps the worst disappointment would be to not get to see Clark as president. Because I've never felt this way about a candidate before. I've liked and admired every Democratic candidate since I've come of voting age, but I feel like Clark will put our nation on an entirely new and wonderful track. I'm wanting to change the constitutional limit of two terms for him. The vision that has been his in all of his years of service to this country, the incredible mind that seeks out new solutions, the fact that he is actively working on a 100-year plan for our nation and our world -- oh, man, don't spoil it for me Dean!