You're right, and Dean's right. It is long past time to get angry, to get furious, to let it out, and take it out on the other side.

That said, we have to win the center to win the election. But guess what? Howard Dean is a centrist.

You get the best of Goldwater (the anger, the rebellion) and the best of Clinton (the triangulation) in one neat little (5'8") package. Plus he has a sense of humor about himself.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 8:54 pm | #

As govenor some say Dean quietly did the job. No temper. Just did what was right for the State of Vermont. I expect as President he'll due the same for the country.
In the last couple of years he has come to the conclusion that we've had enough and he's going to do something about it even if it means he's got to show his anger. I think every American who cares about the State of the Union feels the same way.
Gerald | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 9:17 pm | #

Actually, Al Gore had passion in 2000, but it was inconsistantly used. When Gore was passionate, that's when his poll numbers went up. When he didn't fight back, his poll numbers sank.

Dean, being the Dark Horse or Long Shot, at the beginning of this year, had to start somewhere. I give him credit for seizing the anger and frustrations of many liberals, giving it a voice in the Dem Prez Primary battle, and then transforming it into a message of Hope.

St. Augustine said that Hope has two beautiful daughters: anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to change them. The only other element or 'daughter' I'd add is imagination. That sums up nicely the Dean For America campaign.
Terry from Killingly, CT | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 9:27 pm | #

I’ve been an avid Dean supporter for months, and now I’m reading Franken’s book and just loving it -- so it’s interesting to read this guy’s theory about why the liberal pundits don’t like either of them! There’s no doubt in my mind that both Dean and Franken have grabbed my attention because they’re emotionally connected (passionate) and grounded (practical and realistic) at the same time. There’s so much more power behind the message with those qualities to back it up -- intelligence alone isn’t enough. I guess the liberal pundits’ prejudices are keeping them from seeing the obvious.
Debra | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 10:29 pm | #

I'm reading Franken's book as well. A must-read for liberals.
sobko | Email | Homepage | 09.06.03 - 6:33 am | #

people say anger doesn't sell. but they'll accede that passion does. isn't that contradicting when it's easy to confuse the two?

i don't buy for a one second the conventional wisdom* that anger doesn't sell. that might have been true in a pre 9/11 world, but today people, will be more inclined to read anger as strength. a man tough enough to be angry and fight back when attacked by republicans has balls enough to fight al qaida.




*how many times have we seen conventional wisdom proven wrong again and again?
niner | Email | Homepage | 09.06.03 - 3:28 pm | #

If Americans don't fight back against the Republicans' scuttling of our democracy and sneering at and exploiting the rest of the world, then we are no better than the "good Germans" who remained quiet and "ignorant" during the '30's and early "40's.
Fran in Seattle | Email | Homepage | 09.06.03 - 7:21 pm | #

Niner: You nailed.

Bush attempts to appear "compassionate" because Repugs are seen as "mean."

Dems are seen as "soft" so a tough Democrat with backbone and balls is a must, especially post 9/11. They will never be able to say that dean won't use the millitray when justified, or that he's not tough enough to be President or to lead the United States in a tough world. What other Dem in this (pre-Clark) field passes that litmus test?
Scott Moore | Email | Homepage | 09.06.03 - 9:34 pm | #

The 'Publicans learned something invaluable in '88 running against Dukakis -- if you make up the most outrageous b.s. about a candidate, and that candidate doesn't fight back, the public will fret about the candidate's ability to fight back against foreign bullies. Since then, the wingnut strategy has been to sling as much fecal matter as possible at the Dems, and dare them to fight back. GETTING ANGRY is GOOD and NECESSARY and EFFECTIVE to assure voters that the Democratic candidate will FIGHT.
drprocter | Email | Homepage | 09.07.03 - 10:07 am | #

my observation about distrusting the cw on anger is mine.

but the other message of the "americans wont trust a party with security issues if they are not strong enough to defend themselves"--came from carville himself, who said as much right before the midterms. i neglected to credit him.
niner | Email | Homepage | 09.07.03 - 1:08 pm | #