BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!

Subject: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 11:23 AM

I couldn't agree more with this letter that Michael Moore wrote to the Dean supporters and volunteers. I do hope the clones will be understanding of my decision to cut and paste this, but the thread will lose it's context if we lose the letter. Alternet is where I got it from, and they drop their articles fairly quickly (though I expect MichaelMoore.com will keep it up for longer), so a link just won't do in this instance.

Here it is:

Dean Supporters, Don't Give Up

By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
January 21, 2004

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed about presidential candidates in this letter are those of Michael Moore, and are not a position or policy of AlterNet.

This morning I picked up the newspaper and read this quote from a young woman who had worked as a volunteer for Howard Dean in Iowa:

"All the phone-calling we did, we'd have people who'd say, 'I'm a Dean supporter, I'm a Dean supporter,'" said Kelly Chambers, Dr. Dean's captain in Precinct No. 83. "But when it came to caucus night, we only had 11 people show up for Dean. It just seems like all my hard work's been for nothing."

I was crushed when I read this. Her despair, her sense of "what's the use?" was something I'm sure many Dean supporters are feeling today. I can see, just from surfing the web, the debilitating affect the landslide loss in Iowa had on so many people who had placed so much hope in the man who created a grassroots revolution and was unrelenting in his attacks on Bush and on the war. If having the most volunteers, the most money (all small contributions from average citizens), and the boldest message can't win an election, say Dean's followers, then we might as well just give up.

As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr. Dean's candidacy was – and is – worth it. He took on Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on notice that he is coming after them. And he called the Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the working people of America. Everyone in every campaign owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks.

Though I am backing Clark because I personally prefer his manner and his stands on everything from jailing polluters to taxing the rich (not to mention his electability), the worst thing that could happen now would be for the Dean revolution to come to an end. If you have backed or worked for Dean, you must understand the remarkable things you have done and what you have accomplished:

1. 55% of those who voted in Iowa on Monday said that this was the FIRST TIME they had ever voted in a Caucus!!! That is a STUNNING statistic. Although the vast majority ended up going for Kerry and Edwards, I am convinced that the electorate in that state was invigorated by the Dean campaign – whose entire message was that you CAN make a difference. Just the fact that you have people thinking this way is a gift you have given to America, a nation where the majority, in the past, have given up and refused to vote. I believe that you and Howard Dean will be credited with waking up a near-dead voting public. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

2. On top of first time voters, the overall turnout in Iowa was DOUBLE what it was four years ago. DOUBLE! To double the number of Democrats who showed up in Iowa this week means that many independents, Greens, and former Republicans have seen enough of the mess created by George W. Bush. And it was Dean in Iowa who, until the attack ads against him began, focused his whole campaign on educating voters on what the Bush presidency has truly done to America. The number one reason people gave last night for coming out in zero-degree weather in Iowa, ahead of the war and the economy and health care, was "Bush must go." This can only mean good things for the turnout come next November.

3. The number of young people – the age group with historically the lowest percentage of voters – also doubled on Monday night. Again, you have to credit the Deaniacs for this. Thousands of young people from around the country poured into Iowa to knock on doors and talk politics. Although Kerry and Edwards got the youth vote, I believe it was the Dean youth who made it cool to be political again, and the effect of their enthusiasm was contagious.

4. 75% of those voting in Iowa said that they are "anti-war." And who do we have to thank for that? Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. They put the war and its illegality and immorality on the Iowa map in this election year. They pushed Kerry and the rest to take strong anti-war stands (even though Kerry, et. al. had initially voted for the war). Some changed their positions, which we welcomed (Edwards and Kerry voted against the $87 billion Bush got to continue the war). Although Kerry got the most anti-war votes and Dean and Edwards split the rest, Dean was the man who converted them. Those who chugged through the streets and farms of Iowa preaching peace deserve our gratitude.

Of course, the problem here, as I pointed out with all due respect in my last letter, is that for whatever reason, Dean himself is not going to give middle America the comfort level they need in choosing who they want in the Oval Office. Dean, as good and as right as he is, just isn't the man, on a personal level, to get Job One done: Bush Removal. That's OK. Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land. But he was still Moses.

So, we now have two Democratic candidates at the top who voted for the war. We have two at the bottom who have been anti-war – Kucinich, who got 1% of the vote in Iowa and Al Sharpton who got 0%. And then we have Howard Dean who, after a year of campaigning in every Iowa county (where it seemed practically everyone met him at least once), could only scrape together 18% of the delegates.

And then there is Wesley Clark, who is backed by George McGovern, the anti-Vietnam War presidential candidate and the conscience of a generation. He said Clark is the one candidate whose plan will end the war and bring the troops home. Clark may be, now, the anti-war vote's best chance. I believe he is.

But in the meantime, let's tip our hats to Deaniacs everywhere. They've set the tone and the bar and have jump-started the movement to save our country. Good friends in the Dean camp, please don't give up. We need you now and we will need you in November. And, to Precinct 83 Captain Kelly Chambers, all your hard work has NOT been in vain. We cannot win without you.

One year from today, at 12:01 PM, Bush leaves office. But only if the revolution you ignited continues beyond this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

Well said, Michael! Thanks for the posting, guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:43 PM

As a Dean supporter, I have to say that Moore's letter to Deaniacs is patronizing rubbish. It's an insult disguised as a compliment, a backhanded slap. While claiming to want Dean's supporters to keep up hope, he characterizes a third-place Iowa finish as a "landslide loss" that is having a "debilitating affect." (He means, of course, "effect," but he's always been stronger on dramatic and comic effect than accuracy). He then says that Dean "could only scrape together 18% of the delegates."

Hmmm. Let's look at this for a sec, Mr. Moore. Your candidate, Wes Clark, could not scrape together any delegates. He couldn't even go the Kucinich route and sell out his supporters by asking them to scrape together delegates for one of the pro-war candidates. That's because…well, he didn't HAVE any supporters. And Now Wes is running less than 18% in the New Hampshire Polls, and almost certain to come in third, which in Moore's book is a "debilitating landslide loss": Wes's second in a row. Beyond this, there are juicy quotes of Clark in the British press praising the iron resolve of Bush and Blair in Iraq, which show that, however he tries to wriggle out of it HE SUPPORTED THE WAR AT FIRST, though he had reservations about the next steps. This is not in itself a guarantee of failure. The two who took Iowa supported the war at first. But surely if Clark can call himself an Anti-War candidate they all can (excepting always Lieberman, who is staunchly pro-war). If Clark tries to run as an anti-war candidate, Rove pulls out the quotes of Clark's heavy praise of the war, followed by his praise of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld at a GOP fundraiser while he was (he claims) more Democrat than Republican. Please. Bush Light? He's Bush

And how about that debate last night? Michael Moore's rationale for voting Clark is that Clark's record will blow Bush's out of the water because Bush is a deserter. So here comes the softball from Peter Jennings: "Michael Moore says he supports you because George W. Bush is a deserter. Is that what you think?"

And Wes, eager to compare his record to Bush's, begins his commanding oration: "er, I don't know anything about that, but Michael Moore is entitled to his opinion." Now, I understand that it might be sensitive to use a word like "deserter." But surely he could have redirected the question: "those aren't the words I'd choose, but there are certainly irregularities showing that President Bush failed to report for duty for over a year, and no evidence whether he had permission for this absence. It's something we have to look into as a nation because the American people deserve an answer to this serious doubt that has dogged Mr. Bush since his first campaign." You know that's what Smoothie Edwards would have done with a big ol' softball like that. Instead, Wes says "I don't know, I haven't looked into the case, and it's irrelevant to my candidacy."

So let me get this straight: Clark managed to hitch his supporter Moore up the flagpole by his shorts, and did it by RUNNING AWAY from the very comparison that's supposed to convince me to vote for him. Is he afraid to set his military record against Bush's, or afraid of Peter Jennings, or afraid of saying anything controversial? Any way you slice it, he came off as an empty suit.

Also, remember that Clark's celebrity endorsers are Michael Moore, George McGovern and Madonna. Doesn't he know that Moore's reputation among most people is "self-promoting, if endearing, left-wing kook," that Madonna's is "slightly dippy, if mysterious, sex symbol" and that being compared to McGovern is the biggest insult the reporters throw at a left of center candidate? In fact, isn't "McGovern" political and journalistic shorthand for "the debilitating effect of a landslide loss?"

Maybe Moore's directing his sympathies to the wrong candidate…

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:45 PM

Oops. I did not mean to include the phrase "Please. Bush Light? He's Bush" That was a part I edited out (but not fully). Mea Culpa. Otherwise I stand by what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 04:41 PM

Edwards gets my vote

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 04:47 PM

Thanks, nerd, for your take on it; reading it in my depth, your points are well made.

I like the fact that Edwards has not stooped to negative campaiging, but I still am uncertain whether anyone can win by being that nice. I really like Dean and Kucinich, too. Whomever we get, they have to be able to WIN!

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM

Well, Edwards has not turned negative, except for the signed book of smears against the other democratic candidates he distributed to his campaign, then denied all knowledge of:

ABCNEWS.com : Has 'Mr. Positive' Candidate Turned Nasty?


Jan. 21— On Monday night, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina attributed his second place finish in the Iowa Democratic Caucuses to his positive message and his refusal to engage in negative attacks against his opponents.

"The people of Iowa tonight confirmed that they believe in a positive, uplifting vision to change America," Edwards said to cheers.

But ABCNEWS has obtained an official "John Edwards for President" precinct captain packet that includes myriad personal attacks for Edwards caucus-goers to make against his Democratic opponents, perhaps belying this claim.

The document — marked "CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGED" (sic) and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and signed by the senator — encourages Edwards supporters to tell undecided caucus-attendees that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a "Park Avenue elitist from New York City" and say Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has "the stale record of a Washington insider" and "has been a part of the failed Washington politics for too long."

The Edwards document also slams Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who opted not to participate in the Iowa caucus, for trying to take "shortcuts to the nomination." The document adds: "Strong, national candidates do not skip states."

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri is called "a good man" who led Congressional Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives. "We can't afford another losing national campaign," the document says.

Other information in the packet slams Dean for balancing Vermont budgets "on the backs of the poor and sick," cites "another Kerry exaggeration," and goes after Clark for praising President Bush's "neo-conservative foreign policy team."

"Senator Edwards was not aware of this document," Edwards' Communication Director David Ginsberg told ABCNEWS, adding. "Once he found out about it, he takes full responsibility for it. He thinks it was wrong and has instructed the staff not to do anything like that again."

Ginsberg also stressed that the part of the document that attacked his rivals "was a small piece of a 50-page caucus training memo including instructions on how caucuses work and the senator's policy proposals." Ginsberg denied any hypocrisy.

"This was a book prepared by the field staff to help them get through the caucus process," he said. "This was prepared for field staffers who had to defend themselves while the campaign was under a barrage of attacks, phone calls, and negative mail."

'Same Dirty Tricks'?

But Dean spokesman Jay Carson noted: "It's unfortunate that they say that they're running a positive campaign and yet it appears that they're working from the same dirty tricks playbook as the other Washington candidates."

Campaign snipes are nothing new or remarkable, but such information coming from Edwards seems to deviate from his claim to a mantle of cleanliness.

Asked how he pulled off his Iowa silver medal after lagging behind in so many polls for so long, Edwards told CNN on Tuesday morning that it wasn't until the last week of the campaign that Iowa caucus-goers finally heard his "positive optimistic vision of hope."

Said Edwards: "It takes a while for that to get through … when there's a lot of negative sniping going on. But it finally got through."

And excerpts from from CNN.com's coverage:

(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/elec04.prez.edwards/index.html)

The document offers a particularly detailed critique of Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the former House minority leader who withdrew from the presidential race after his following a fourth-place finish in Iowa.

Under Gephardt's leadership, the document says, House Democrats "lost control of Congress in 1994, and lost four more times since then. ... We can't afford another losing national campaign against George W. Bush and the Republicans."

It adds, "Even if Gephardt somehow wins in Iowa, his campaign is eventually dead, just as it was in 1988."

Edwards' signature appears prominently at the top of the document next to his typewritten name...

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:36 PM

I blithely assumed this thread was about the outrageous male chauvinist pig character (a real pig) Dean in the comic Liberty Meadows. Alas, it is not. Oh, well. Pardon me, I'll just move on now...

Oh, but good luck in unseating Dubya, whoever gets to try it in November!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: mg
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 08:49 PM

I have a hard time with Clark....theoretically I should like him..I want someone who can combine strong defense with strong social programs with strong social expectations for good enough behavior from citizens...but there is something so vacant -looking about him...like there is no there there. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 09:14 PM

Nerd, I'm sure as an avid supporter of Dean, you can find fault with all the other candidates and their supporters. But that doesn't make Michael Moore's letter patronizing.

What he said about Dean having the guts to stand up and say what needed saying when no other Democrats would, is a fact, and I believe his admiration of Dean for it, genuine.

I also believe that Moore is genuinely appreciative for the obvious ways that Dean's candidacy has fired up the dispossessed electorate--young people and progressives in particular--because those are groups that resonate quite positively to Moore's message too. He too perceives the same shift in political winds coming from the grassroots, as he has said so repeatedly since going on the road to promote his book "Stupid White Men" and his film "Bowling for Columbine".

Also, before Clark entered the race, Moore has been plain spoken about his preference for Dean above everyone else in the field of Democratic candidates except Kucinich.

And lest we forget--in 2000 Michael Moore was on the campaign trail for Nader, not the Democrats. He, like the millions of progressives who chose to vote their conscience, rather than hold their nose AGAIN and vote for another Republicrat, intended to send the Democratic party a loud and clear message.

This year's field of candidates indicates that Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich heard that message loud and clear. We haven't had this large a field of liberal and progressive Democratic candidates to choose from in my lifetime, and I'm 50 years old.

There are a lot of positives, and few negatives I can see about having any of the Dems as the nominee, with the exception of both Lieberman and Gephardt, who represent the Republicrat wing of the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:24 AM

I like Dean, Kerry & after seeing Clark this evening I'm on the fence about him. He seemed well spoken, intellegent has a fair sense of humor, comes across as honest & a disarming smile that seemed to reflect a humble man. Why I'm on the fence & I just can't get past it is 1. that every where I look there's ex pentagon people hidden in the corners, on boards of director, as advisers to & about contractors & bids & I just have no trust when I keep seeing so many of these people from the military complex in very high & well placed positions. 2. He really pushes the patriot & military buttons. The other reason why I'm on the fence is because of a question I asked him. "Peace between Israel & Palestine is necessary before there's a peace in the Mid East (IMHO). What would do about this"? His answer was so evasive it was worthy of any well seasoned politician. His reply was "Leadership, leadership, America has to take leadership". What kind of reply is that? The sad thing is that it's an issue that for one reason or another nobody (at least that I've heard of) will come close to speaking to this issue.

With Kerry I can't get past that he voted for the war, I don't care for his reasons for that vote.

With Dean I found him to be in line with my views & he voted against the war.

Pretty much these three are all saying close to the same thing & with some fine tuning they may get to a point where we can't tell one from the other.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: LadyJean
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:33 AM

The "Angry Dean" you saw after the Iowa Caucuses was shouting to be heard over a crowd of supporters. The camera crews were able to cut out the background noise, so they could hear what Dean was saying. In the process they made Dean look like someone from the WWF. He came in third in the caucuses, so did Clinton. In 1988, Pat Robertson came in first in the Iowa Caucuses, making me very nervous. But Bush Senior got the nomination that year. (I would take Bush JUNIOR over Pat Robertson.) I'm still working for Dean. I know enough history to know generals don't make good presidents. Besides, Clark sort of rubs me a bit wrong somehow. It's instinct, but I have learned to trust instinct. So, I'm still working for Dean.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Alice
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 11:22 AM

Unelectable? Who would have thought that the mumbling, bumbling, puppetlike Dubya Bush was electable. I can't wait to see Dean debate Bush. Dean is experienced, honest, plainspoken, intelligent, and courageous enough to take on the Iraq issue nationally when no one else would. Dean has a record of balancing budgets that none of the Congressmen from DC have. Moore has it wrong when he thinks Clark is more electable than Dean. Clark has a brilliant mind, but as mg ala Gertrude Stein said, when Clark speaks there seems to be no "there, there". If not the top of the ticket, I hope Dean will be at least the VP. I'd like to see Dean debate, Cheney, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 11:38 AM

You don't really think that Bush will be allowed to debate anyone under the usual rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:26 PM

Michael Moore is obviously watching too much TV.

Still Green and for Dean...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:30 PM

DEBATE? Up until recently Bush couldn't find his way past a barroom door. Road map to peace in the Middle East, HAH, debate, I don't think so. He hasn't neither the intelligence nor the vocabulary to go against any of the candidates.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:48 PM

But, Barry, my friend. Don't you remember how, accordin' to the media right afterwards, Bush tore Gore up in the debates? I think it was the snear factor that won it for him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 01:06 PM

It was interesting to get reactions to the debates. They differ wildly.

It was refreshing to see them united in not attacking each other but saving
their criticism for Bush.

I think that Dean provided much entertainment for the Iowa Caucus and
the New Hampshire debate. I saw him on Diane Sawyer and was
impressed that he really is kind of real although here's what I thought.

Very remote. His wife might unwittingly be a liability although she seemed
to me a great lady. Unfortunately, there is a tradition in the US about
First Ladies and they all have a job description which needs to be filled.
Their careers are mostly subservient to the public service of a president.
Judy Dean won't be able to phone it in.

Dean did upset the applecart for the establishment and that was a good
thing very much like what Eugene McCarthy did in days gone by durnig
the Bobby Kennedy times.

The problem with becoming a president is that you have to be a little
Machiavellian. It's a power job for a CEO of the government as well
as a commander-in-chief. It's not the greatest job in the world, IMHO.

I think that Dean contributed much to the campaign. I also don't think
as a president he can muster the vision for the country. Where will
a president take us? Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has a pat agenda that allows for little discourse. But the big deal for Bush now is
keeping his base from revolting on the issue of government spending.

They used to talk about knee-jerk liberalism but if anything is knee-jerk
now it's the Right Wing agenda.

Dean opened the dialogue. I think he deserves credit for that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:39 PM

Anyone see "Real Time with Bill Maher" this week? He had Edwards on and I can see why James Carville says he is even better at working a room than Clinton. Very easy and comfortable when being spontaneous, good looks, has a lot of "right answers," and I'm sure the Bush folks fear more from him than anyone else as far as a debate would go. Richard Belzer, after hearing Carville's description said Edwards was "Clinton without the blowjobs." Cracked me up!!

I like Edwards over Dean....I really think he is more electable. And that's what this one is going to be about!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks to the Deaniacs!!!
From: Alice
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM

Listen to the remix at
http://www.deangoesnuts.com

What Dean has been saying for a year was overshadowed by one "holler". Listen to the rest of what he's been saying, what the media didn't play, what only those of use who were seeking information, speeches that were not on prime time tv, could hear.

Judy Dean was the first lady of Vermont for over 11 years. She was a great governor's wife, someone Vermonters respect. She would be just fine, thank you, in the White House. It would be refreshing to see someone genuine in that role.

Alice