07/12/2002 Archived Entry: "On meeting Governor Howard Dean in his questful candidacy for President"
I went to meet the Governor, and hear him speak, up in Seattle a few weeks ago. It was exciting, he's an inspriation. Much like Senator John McCain, Howard Dean is a man who's very comfortable in his shoes, and not akin to step aside on an issue. One who gives you a straight-up answer, not the poll-tested and same-old day-old. Dean gets it from his gut, and has an authenticity in presence and substance, not mere appearance. He's smart, quick on his feet, not full of fudge. His hair seemed darker than the picture below, so I'm thinking that maybe he's had it dyed back to mostly black, which looks good. I overheard a couple of women remarking on his good looks. Well, I dunno, but I'll tell you this, straight-up. Unlike Bush, Howard Dean is the real deal. Dean is thoughtful and friendly, not shallow and mean-spirited like Dubya. And unlike Bush, Howard Dean could be the next President.
The first thing I told him was that I wanted to encourage him to run for President, and he said he fully intended to. I liked the answer-- no skirting. A couple of others that were there were surprised at his straight-forward answer, asking him if he'd already announced his candidacy (he will in January).
A little later, I got to talk with him one on one, and we talked about his campaign strategy. Carter's playbook came up, and so did McCain's. I posted Trippi's analysis of the race a while back, and Dean nodded when I brought that up. Obviously, there's more than a few ways the primaries could go, but it was interesting to hear his take on things as they look now. In fact, whereas Trippi mentioned that he saw the race coming down to Gore vs one other candidate, with the latter winning; Dean brought up the possibility of Gore dropping out after not being able to sweep the two early primaries, with his money drying up. Dean's going to run a shoe-string campaign, because that's part of how he's planning on succeeding where the others must fall by the wayside. The focus now is building a national network of grassroots contacts, mainly for fundraising purposes, but also to have in place to go the next step (something McCain was unprepared for after winning NH); and building field operations in the early primary states of Iowa, NH, SC, and possibly in AZ, WA, DE and MI, depending on the shuffle of those primary dates. I would imagine their national office will be run out of VT.
Dean gave a speech that same night to the King County Democratic Party, it was a speech for everyone, well-practiced. I meant to jot down some notes, but just listened and soaked in the speech instead. The funniest part came with his reference to McDermott and Smith, who were the Reps in the audience, as he referred to their "courageous vote" against inflating the deficit, and Dean thanked them. The audience clapped while I laughed. I'd talked with Smith before the event as well, questioning his vote for the debt increase. He hemmed on about the principle of the matter, and his wife suggested that she'd asked him to vote against it. I was looking around for him as the audience clapped, to see his embarrassment perhaps? The best part of the speech was hearing Dean refer to fiscal responsibility and social justice, as I think that's his winning theme. His specific proposals on how to get national health-care are top-notch. His move to dis-arm the gay issue alongside tabling the gun issue (both states rights) is smooth, and right. His stand on supporting nation-building is a bit much for my republic leanings, especially if it's the military doing the effort, but otherwise, he's a mainstream, fiscally conservative and socially liberal politician, right alongside the majority of Americans.
Dean's a strong partisan, and took a lot of good shots at Bush and the Republican Party. He pointed out, deftly and strongly, that Bush was lining the states up for the hurt in 2003, given his fiscal irresponsibility. Dean's comments on repealing the tax-cut got the biggest cheer, with a standing ovation. He reiminded the Democrats gathered that there have been only two years of balanced budgets over the past 30 years, both of them with a Democratic President (Clinton). Dean, when he became Governor of Vermont, inherited a budget of deficits from a Republican administration, not only did he balance the budget, he did so while cutting taxes, not raising them. Democrats, Dean stated, are the Party of fiscal responsibility.
Today's ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary
It's no great surprise that David Broder likes the only governor currently likely to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, but this clip certainly will wind up in the Howard Dean fundraising pack, and the eve of the National Governors Association conference is a good time to remind everyone that there's growing buzz about this guy, that's he very engaging, and that his positions on taxes, health care, gays, and yes, guns make him attractive to a lot of Democratic activists and constituencies and even to Washington party insiders, some of whom find the rest of the field wanting in different respects.
Right now it's a question of whether or not he breaks through the current paradigm that has him stuck in the low single-digits. His candidacy is only going to grow, and at some point, if he can get to around 8-12%, given the tremendous speed of communication in mass media, Dean has a real shot at winning the Democratic primary. At that point, his candidacy reaches a critical level of awareness, with a tremendous amount of focus placed on him as the actual nominee, not just a second-tier contender, voters take their look. Dean will have to work to get his look, and he may not get it. Right now, it's all about building the infrastructure up, so that when it occurs, he's able to rocket to the top-tier. I don't see any of the other Democratic candiates being able to slow Dean down, once he gets a winning momentum.
Replies: 18 comments
Mydd,
I have a new website now-you can go to it at the URL posted. Anyway, I'm really impressed with Dean. I think he'd make a fine President, and a competent one at that. However, I intend to remain neutral in the Presidential nominee race, but that won't stop me from silently empathizing with Dean :)
To all,
Please comment on my website, and tell me what you think.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 07/12/2002 06:29 PM PST
Let us please concentrate on immediate pressing matters. Let us crush the GOP on November 5, and prevent the further meltdown of financial markets.
Posted by G. C. Raj @ 07/12/2002 07:06 PM PST
QUESTIONS FOR HOWARD DEAN
Is It 2004 Yet?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/14/magazine/14QUESTIONS.html
Posted by myDD @ 07/12/2002 07:54 PM PST
I was just going to post that link, mydd. Dean really looks like a great candidate.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 07/13/2002 09:28 AM PST
The story of the Crooked Cajun from the Louisiana swamps...Bill Tauzin..seems like that state more than its share of bigots (David Duke and John Cookesy) and crooks (Edwin Edwards and now Bill Tauzin):
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=spin&s=cohn070802
If there is one state which needs new blood through immigration it is the crook and bigot infested swamp called Louisiana!
And more about Dubya's shennanigans..
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=ackerman071002
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 07/13/2002 12:24 PM PST
I'm for anyone but Bush, however I can't get overly enthused about someone who has a 100% rating with the NRA.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 07/15/2002 07:29 AM PST
The rating is due to his being from a rural state that has never had any gun laws come up for him to vote on, not from his being rabidly pro-gun. He says it's a state issue, not federal, which is true.
Posted by myDD @ 07/15/2002 05:24 PM PST
I find it hard to believe he's never taken a position on gun control. The right wing NRA doesn't hand out 100% ratings for free.
I'd vote for Dean over Bush but then I'd vote for anything above room temperature over Bush. Dean just doesn't get me excited. My choice would be John Kerry.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 07/16/2002 12:40 PM PST
Sorry but you underestimate the level and depth and intensity of Al Gore's support among hard core Democrats who witnessed George W steal the election from. "I heard you and I will not forget" We won't either Al, we won't either. Interesting when Dean mentions that a balanced budget ocurred only twice under Bill Clinton....AND Al Gore! Sorry he left Al's name out
Posted by GaDem @ 07/16/2002 01:38 PM PST
GaDem
I have to agree with you about Gore. of the candidates that have been mentioned in 04 he is the one I am leaning toward right now. However I feel that George Mitchell would be the Democrats best candidate, but oh well, he is not running
Posted by Derrick @ 07/17/2002 09:47 PM PST
Points well taken on Gore. However, from what I've been reading coming out of NH, his chances there are not very good. I think he has a lot of support nationwide, but is thin where it counts. I'm not sure about Iowa, but can Gore afford to lose NH?
Posted by myDD @ 07/18/2002 07:58 PM PST
I am not real sure how important New Hampshire and Iowa is anymore. Yes A candidate has to be in the top two or three after Iowa and New Hampshire. However, after that with the frontload primary system now super tuesday seems to be more important than Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh MYDD, be sure and take a look at the Parker-Sessions race in Alabama a recent poll has Sessions under 50%. In the poll Sessions was leading 45-33%. I still think Sessions will win simply because Parker hasn't raised that much money and Sessions has raised an ungodly amount, however I think it will be closer than many people think.
Also Joe Turnham looks to have took the pledge of Allegiance decision and ran with it. He has gained alot of momentum with his press releases since that decision
Posted by Derrick Shapley @ 07/18/2002 08:37 PM PST
Thanks Derrick. Maybe from you, I got a note a while back from someone who told me that AL Senate race was gonna get tight! Parker got a lot of good PR winning the Dem primary. Both Rogers and Sessions are going to win the money chase, but Turnham and Parker, have been campaigning hard. If Parker can find a few million someplace, she could win. Alabama is a very competitive state this cycle.
As for 2004. I think NH and Iowa are still going to be important, but it's hard to tell if it's moreso, or less so, with the newer compact schedule. For the candidates relying on a lot of money, I think it may be more important, but we'll see.
It looks like that a few states will occur between the first two states, IA & NH, and the two super tuesdays. SC, AZ, WA, most likely, with DE and MI still possible as well. Though it's compacted, I don't think it matters that much. What used to take at least 1-2 news-cycles to a week for print media to announce, dissect, and potray the results nationwide, now happens so quickly with cable and internet, that the same process occurs, just in a shorter time-span.
I just don't see Gore as having the luxury of fighting out a competitive primary season. If he loses one of the first two, and also SC (I would say Edwards is the frontrunner here), he's then looking at two states, AZ and WA where he is not particularly strong, either in grassroots, or in terms of matching up well with the states Democratic voters.
Posted by myDD @ 07/19/2002 04:29 AM PST
I for one am beginning to like this Howard Dean guy. I'm originally from Mississippi and live in Florida now. I am not sure how he would play here in the South, but if he is as plain spoken and direct as he seems, he can maybe get over people's initial reluctance to vote for someone from a more liberal eastern state like Vermont.
I am also still a Gore admirer and see him as a strong contender mainly becuase he actually won last time. But I think a Gore fatigue is going to set in soon and people will be looking for new faces like Mr. Dean.
Posted by Ced @ 07/19/2002 05:32 AM PST
I believe that Gore will win in Iowa and he needs to finish in the top three in New Hampshire. I believe that Kerry and Dean will be 1 and 2 in New Hampshire. I agree with your assessment that Edwards is probably the frontrunner in South Carolina but Al Gore still could make it a contest there. it is probably true that Al Gore does not have the grassroots efforts in Washington and Arizona but then neither do any of the other candidates so I feel these two states are wide open. I feel if Al Gore goes back to the old environmentalist Al Gore he has a strong chance of winning Washington. In Michigan I feel Al Gore will have to write off. in order to win in Michigan you have to be strong with Labor Unions and many where reluctant to support Gore in 2000 they will definitely not support him in 04. Delaware is going to a pivotal state as well if Biden does not run. If that happens I feel Kerry will most likely win and Gore can come in second. This will all lead to the Super Tuesday unless more states are interested in coming in earlier and Gore must win at least two of the four big states( California, Texas, Florida and New York) in order to maintain competitiveness and I feel right now that Gore has the stronger grassroots of anybody and can do this.
This however is no wholehearted endorsement of Al Gore. My mind is still open and as I have mentioned before I want some more candidates to enter the race.
Posted by Derrick Shapley @ 07/19/2002 09:17 PM PST
DD- here's an article I ran across about the VT Senate votes and how Dean is not exactly an environmentalist having been under the thumb of his power companies for some time. I just thought you might be interested inasmuch as you obviously like Dean. Dean looks like any other run of the mill politician with his hand out.
Vermont's Yucca Mountain Showdown
By Michael Colby
Vermonters got a glimpse into the political future last week when the U.S. Senate voted 60-39 in favor of shipping the nation’s nuclear waste to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. While the endorsement wasn’t unexpected news here in Vermont, the votes of our two U.S. senators certainly were.
Independent James Jeffords, a man who staunchly favors nuclear power and previously supported the Yucca depository, surprised many by voting against shipping 77,000 tons of nuke waste to the deep underbelly of the mountain. The usually anti-nuclear Patrick Leahy joined only 15 of his Democratic colleagues by voting in favor of the dump.
The good news for environmentalists is that it showed, once again, that Jeffords was serious when he pledged to be a thorn in the right-wing side of the Bush administration. The bad news is that Jeffords’ slide to the left on environmental matters is being countered by Leahy’s apparent slide to the right.
"Jeffords voted his heart," said David Pyles of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, "and Leahy played politics by doing Governor Dean and the utility corporations a favor in the short-term."
The Yucca Mountain depository has been on the drawing boards for 20 years, costing taxpayers a cool $7 billion to date with an final price tag of more than $58 billion. Even if numerous regulatory hurdles are cleared, the depository isn’t scheduled to open until 2010 and won’t come close to handling all the high-level nuclear waste the nation is currently sitting on.
"I have supported the Yucca Mountain proposal in the past, in the belief that it would resolve the problem, and contain both our past and future nuclear waste," Jeffords declared on the floor of the Senate. "However, the truth is that Yucca Mountain will not provide this solution."
As chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, Jeffords provided a potential double victory for environmentalists with his opposing vote. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and leader of the anti-Yucca Mountain brigade in the Senate, apparently made a deal with Jeffords. If the Vermont senator stood with him against Yucca, he’d assist Jeffords in his efforts to strengthen the Clean Air Act.
Leahy, on the other hand, put out a long and convoluted statement defending his vote in favor of what environmentalists have dubbed the "mobile Chernobyl" solution to nuke waste. Something needed to be done with the waste, Leahy reasoned, and Nevada’s backyard was better than ours.
It’s this kind of thinking that drives Nevada residents crazy, and the primary reason why the state’s governor and most of its political delegation have been vehemently opposed to the waste dump. Yucca Mountain is within striking distance of Las Vegas and sits on land considered sacred by the Western Shoshone Nation.
"It's in our backyard and it's in our front yard," said Corbin Harney, a Western Shoshone leader. "This nuclear contamination is shortening all life. We’re going to have to unite as a people and say, "No more!’"
While Leahy would like Vermonters to believe that his vote will get the nuclear waste out of our state and off the banks of the Connecticut River, Jeffords was providing the more honest assessment.
"Vermonters need to know," said Jeffords, "nuclear waste will, in all likelihood, be stored on the banks of the Connecticut River even after Yucca Mountain opens."
So why would Leahy vote for what Jeffords called a "false solution?" In a word: politics.
Leahy doesn’t beat around the bush. "Governor Dean and the Vermont Public Service Department have consistently called on me to support the repository," he declared. "And today I again respect the wishes and long-term interests of my state."
That little political nod to the governor is certainly an effort to boost Dean’s fledgling presidential campaign, particularly in the all-important realm of fundraising. It’s no secret that Dean enjoys a cozy relationship with Vermont’s utility corporations. Nearly 20 percent of the early money he raised for his presidential political action committee came from individuals with ties to those entities.
Robert Young, the CEO of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation and the chairman of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, is on record for contributing the maximum of $5,000 to Dean’s presidential campaign. The company’s vice president, Robert Rogan, was also an early financial supporter. Ditto the two top executives at the Green Mountain Power Corporation: CEO Christopher Dutton and Vice-President Stephen Terry.
All of these utility corporations lobbied heavily in favor of Yucca Mountain, mostly so as to clear the way for more nuclear power generation in Vermont and — you guessed it — more nuclear waste.
As for Leahy, his vote amounts to a small wager. Dean might just get close enough to the White House to throw a few political bones his way. "President Dean" could save Leahy from a lifetime in the Senate with, say, a seat on the Supreme Court or at the helm of the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the nation is on the verge of bailing out the nuclear industry — again. And Leahy and Jeffords both struck out when it comes to calling for the ultimate solution to the waste problem: stop making it in the first place.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 07/21/2002 10:15 PM PST
"All of these utility corporations lobbied heavily in favor of Yucca Mountain, mostly so as to clear the way for more nuclear power generation in Vermont and — you guessed it — more nuclear waste."
That's the authors, not Dean's opinion. I have heard him say he is against Nuclear power. He is for transporting the current waste to Nevada, and that's not great, for gaining NV's EV's. Dean is very blunt on this issue, but he's pragmatic. He doesn't support nuclear power as a LT energy solution, and states that the best way to avoid it is to not create it.
Thanks for the article.
Posted by myDD @ 07/22/2002 08:13 AM PST
DD- my only point was he appears no different than anyone else. Sounds like he ponies up to whoever has the bucks. We have the same thing here in Nebraska with Hagel. Not once did anything environmental come up in his campaign but as soon as he was elected all the energy companies in the country paid off his debts and all of a sudden he's an environmental expert threatening to filibuster the Kyoto treaty.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 07/22/2002 09:36 AM PST
