Judy Diamondstone wrote:
> Nate, you are probably right ;-) that Dean would move to the right if he
> were the nominee. But please note that he moved all the other *leading*
> candidates on the democratic ticket way to the left of where they began.
I have not seen that. I don't necessarily see Dean's stance on the war
as left of center. Both the Heritage and Hoover Centers argue for
similar positions against the war. If other candidates have moved to the
left, it is more because of Kucinich and the Reverend (gotta love his 1
> can appreciate your frustration with progressives, but we are not the
> majority of voters, even if every progressive voted. Dean changed the tone
> of the campaign and pushed the 'core' of the democratic party to the
If there is a frustration with "progressives" it is their lack of
history. He was Governor for 12 years and ruled right of center (boy
does that sound familiar). He is a populist, but I don't see it left of
center, maybe the Clinton middle.
which is why he has gotten so much bad press (according to one
> news account, 60% of his press was bad compared to 10% for the other
Yes, but he was the anointed one. Geez, the press before Iowa was asking
him about VP and cabinet choices.
The best thing about his campaign, though, has been the
> involvement of people in local meet-ups and their further participation in
> the campaign process. I would bet that, were Dean to become an "insider," he
> would be listening to more lower to middle class people more of the time
> than any other president in my lifetime.
Judy, I admit it I still receive SMS messages about every other day (got
figure how to turn those off). I think what he has done at this level is
both good and bad. It has brought more people into the process but they
tend to be upper middle class and liberal. He has been unable to break
out of that base. Again, what used to be a east coast republican
(fiscally conservative - socially liberal).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST