2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Wrong-o.

See, george, what I'm saying is the statement is completely in context and totally in character for the obnoxious twit who spoke it.

Prove me wrong. I dare you. :wink:

Interestingly enough, though - especially since all the hullaballoo about his misspeakings - it's just Dean. The others seem to have recovered from the December lapse, too, but are (barring Edwards) still behind or around their Sept or Nov scores against Bush.

One result of that is that Dean now does better against Bush than any other Democratic candidate. Including, and especially, than Clark, who according to the poll would be the among the least competitive with Bush.

Here's the bunch of 'em - compared to the poll numbers from November (before Saddam's capture and Bush's holiday boost in the polls) ... and September:

Bush 51 (52 .. 52)
Dean 46 (40 .. 42)

Bush 52 (53 .. 50)
Lieberman 46 (40 .. 44)

Bush 53 (52 .. 53)
Gephardt 44 (39 .. 42)

Bush 53 (49 .. x)
Clark 43 (42 .. x)

Bush 53 (52 .. x)
Edwards 43 (39 .. x)

Bush 54 (49 .. 50)
Kerry 43 (42 .. 45)

From the same poll, still ...

"After the first few primaries in previous elections, there were only a few candidates remaining in the race. Suppose this happens in 2004 and there are only two candidates left in the race for the Democratic nomination. If you had to choose, would you vote for Howard Dean or [see below]?"

Dean 46% - Clark 32% - Unsure 22%
Dean 50% - Lieberman 32% - Unsure 18%
Dean 51% - Kerry 29% - Unsure 20%
Dean 53% - Gephardt 28% - Unsure 19%
Dean 53% - Edwards 24% - Unsure 23%

Dean really seems to be in a good position, huh? ... Clark and Lieberman seem to have the best odds to become the Anyone-But-Dean candidate ... and the irony is that they will attack Dean on "electability", even though the polls show them to be the less electable ... ;-)

Kara,

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift reports on Howard Dean's appearance at the
Renaissance Weekend in Charleston, S.C., including the surprise appearance of Senator Fritz Hollings:

"Howard Dean is right," declared the silver-haired Hollings, launching into a spirited defense of Dean's assertion that Americans are no safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured. "Saddam wasn't causing anybody any problem. You have some little smart-aleck announcer on television asking, 'Do you think we're better off with Saddam gone?' What else is gone? We have 456 dead; 11,000 maimed for life, and I don't think it was worth it. I had intended to vote against that resolution [giving Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq], but Rummy and Condi Rice and Cheney said you can't wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud. I thought they had some intelligence, that they knew something."
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3860722&p1=0

-----------------------------------------

Ellen Goodman has a few thoughts along the same lines in today's Washington Post:

Could we rewind the videotape to Dec. 15, when Howard Dean qualified his pleasure at the capture of Saddam Hussein by saying that it "has not made America safer"? Dean was instantly lambasted by his opponents, especially Joe Lieberman, who said the doctor was climbing "into his own spider hole of denial." Well, six days later, after the sort of terrorist "chatter" designed to make your teeth chatter, the country was put on orange alert for a "spectacular" attack rivaling those of Sept. 11. Then six Air France flights destined to fly into the homeland were grounded. And finally, under "emergency rules," our government has required armed guards on foreign flights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50823-2004Jan2.html


and, If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in Paul Krugman's op-ed:

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis ?- that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

PDiddie,

This is a great quote, if only they had known it was Clinton and the Democrats who were taking this advise. It may happen again. These folks usually do end up shooting themselves in some appendage or other before the race is done. It's time. And it's timing. We'll see. I make no predictions yet.

Here you go george, I did your research for you, not that you probably wanted me to:



http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:DbrZ3dQN_lkJ:www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/945foufh.asp+%22That%27s+the+interesting+thing+about+being+president.%22+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Some people call this confidence. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard certainly does. However, I call it arrogance, whether it comes from a commander or from any human being. The context doesn't help me with my perception of this quotation as anything other than another example of Bush's tendency toward impulsive, ill-advised rhetoric. He is truly his own worst enemy.

george

One could make a fairly lengthy list of sentences out of this fellows mouth which no surrounding context provides excuse. Excuse is provided elsewise.

The context that Lola quoted suggests a capable leader, willing and able to set a direction for a group of individualistic, talented and aggressive members of his cabinet. If anyone here believes that an affiliative, approval-seeking approach by a President to the caliber of people required for Cabinet positions is an effective form of leadership, then they certainly understand very little about hearding cats or real leadership. The antithesis of course is the round table of ficticious Camelot. It turns out that didn't work very well there either.

george

Anyone can have an idea for direction. And anyone can be resolved to achieve it. No big trick to those two. The Chinese tong leaders manage them fine. That guy who drilled holes in peoples craniums too.

Does this define 'capable'? Or we might look at my fav crowd, the Hell's Angels. Through effective and capable leadership they've managed to achieve their goal of vital fiscal growth in the drug trade.

"Resolve' is exactly as valuable as the volume speaker on your stereo. I'll send you over my CD "George Bush Sings the Songs of 2 Live Crew" and you can turn it up really really loud.

There are lots of leadership styles. Some are more effective than others. Bush's suck. And you can't tell me that



much like being talked to as if they are kindergartners. Not only is his statement disrespectful, it is also childish. I've known many leaders of "individualistic, talented and aggressive" folks who are not overly simplistic or abuse their position as authority and still maintain a fine working relationship with those for whom they are responsible. Bush throws his weight around as if he were a 30 pound gorilla, wishing he could get someone's, anyone's attention.

Au contraire.

The qualities of leadership do require the dominance of the leader's will. This is as true of the Hell's Angels as it was of Britain during the dark days of WWII, and today in the governance of The U.S., France, Canada, or Britain. A wise leader will learn from his deputies and consider their points of view, but he will not be led by them. Democracies hold their leaders accountable, limit their powers, and select them through a public process. However, in office, they must lead. A government, a company, or a football team led by committee will almost certainly fail. If any of you can give me some contrary examples, I would like to see them.

antibush people, i need your help on this...

i compiled a list of things that bush did that i think should piss off most people including conservatives here...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16736

IF YOU'RE DEDICATED TO BUSH LOSING, it would be worthwhile for a second person (one who isn't biased to all the issues and is pretty in tune with how american people think - a claim i wish i could make) to narrow the issues brought up here to the issues that are most likely to piss off most americans including conservatives, and list them including lots of supporting data for them. then i'll help design a series of posters, one highlighting each issue.

through help of insiders like jjorge, i think we can post copies of the posters on sites like blogforamerica so that people can print them out and put them up all over their neighborhood. this is the very essence of a grassroots movements.

as long as the issues brought up really do matter to the american people, and there is plenty of specific information on how bush opposes these issues, A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY FROM REELECTING BUSH.

George, was the bnavy really so screwed up that they taught you that? The Army certainly didn't subscribe the the "macho, absolute monarchy" model of leadership. We were taught to utilize as much information from those who were more familiar with subjects thatn we were as possible. Hardcore examples of authoritarian leadership were held up as examples of how to fail. The same was true of AFROTC in the 1980s.

There are different styles of 'leadership' for different sorts of human enterprises or situations. I think george is right to point to those situations where the orderliness of a singular voice in command is appropriate. We might consider the example of how a fire department is organized to deal with a large city fire. Or the example of Guiliani at 9/ll. Of course, this is not a black/white question...there is a full scale of variance here.

But we ought to note that such a 'dictatorial' style is probably most necessary only during times of severe emergency, and even then, that person in charge has got to be personally competent (highly so) in a broad range of activities which he is making the decisions regarding. It shouldn't surprise us that a military-trained person, because of what they are trained for, will fall more easily to a 'dictatorial' arrangement than would, say, a school board member.

It's pretty apparent that Bush did not arrive in office with sufficient competencies for that position. His general education and knowledge of the world was very weak - weaker than many folks on this board, and even his understanding of fundamentals of political theory for his own nation were surprisingly poor.

When an incompetent person finds himself in charge of an enterprise, particularly when that enterprise is undergoing significant turmoil, then he'll behave in pretty much just the manner we've seen Bush behave...big mistakes, denial of them as mistakes, secrecy, etc.

There are absolutely transparent reasons why Bush's handlers have not promoted/allowed anything like open town meetings where Bush might have to engage ad hoc questioning, and why his public performances have been scripted and presented in the manner we've seen.

No less transparent is why those handlers have continued to market the fellow as having 'resolve' and as being the 'decision maker'. That Bush is not led by his associates (as george claims above) is by no means a given.

But the key point here is that the qualities of 'resolve' or 'leadership' are meaningless on their own. Resolve towards a lousy or destructive or mistaken direction is worse than the lack of it. The firm 'leadership' of Pol Pot or Savonarola we humans could have done without.

What roasts me in all of this is the infantalization of the American populace which this adminstrations assumes and which it forwards. The promotion of 'resolve' to comfort, the deceit regarding intentions and plans, the push away from open democracy and towards secretive and elitist totalitarian social organization.

I've learnt this more than 30 years ago ... and it has devolped since that time:
Fundamentals of "Innere Führung"

What baffles me is how people such as blatham and crew seem to believe a level of secrecy doesn't exist in all administrations.

....sometimes for personal gain, sometimes for national security, sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes not... What fool thinks it is the practice of only one party?

And Bush was within his rights to say what he did. Advisable? Nah. But correct. Once elected, he does make the final call in many instances. Does he answer to his cabinet, or do they answer to him? Another non-issue.

John Kerry is on "Face the Nation"" today.

General Clark is on "Meet the Press" today.

There's another candidate debate today beginning at 1 pm CST, broadcast statewide on Iowa Public Television. Check your local public television listings for the broadcast in your area; it will be re-broadcast on C-Span today at 3 pm, 6 pm & 9 pm ET.

(edited to add the C-Span broadcast info)

sofia

If you want to argue that secrecy is simply a fact, therefore excuseable in all degrees and instances, fine. But not helpful.

You have freedom of information legislation and legatislation at state and federal level to the end of reducing secrecy and increasing transparency. Why bother unless there's something of importance involved here?

So it becomes a matter of trying to discern where a government or agency goes off the rails and heads in a dangerous direction.

These guys are too secretive and hidden, and they are a danger.

I wait for the day when someone can prove there is some evil secret being harbored by the Bushies. And, still waiting to hear how the Patriot Act has hurt a law-abiding citizen. (I know it has crimped the style of a couple of dope dealers...)

Has someone here been hauled away and questioned mercilessly? How has it affected someone? Anybody?

And we wait for the day when a cow walks into your living room and you say, "There's a cow in my living room."