[ghost_flash]

Anyone see this? What is your take?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Anyone see this? What is your take?

I watched it... I thought it went well for him. Looked very reasonable etc. I think this whole rant thing has been completely blown out of proportion.

[Lerkfish]

I thought it was very impressive as far as presenting more of him as a down-to-earth type of guy. My wife was very impressed with his wife, continuing her family practice even during his arduous campaign.

Of course, she did ask why the wives of Democratic candidates have to be homely (her assessment, not mine), until I reminded her of Marilyn Quayle, Barbara Bush, and Nancy Reagan.

heh.

[mikithecrackhead]

I saw it, it was not bad. Howard did look Stoic in the David Letterman. A bit Al Gore-ish-Kerry-ish. Sharpton was funnier in SNL

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think this whole rant thing has been completely blown out of proportion.

The big thing with the rant was that it immediately followed a disasterous performance in Iowa - a dismal and far-behind 3rd-place showing, after being projected to win the caucuses as recent as one week prior.

Now that Iowa is a few days past, the rant loses the context by which it was so disturbing.

It's definitely time to move past the rant, but it did offer a glimpse of Howard Dean's propensity to "lose it" under pressure and anxiety - IMHO, a personality trait that is unfit for the Oval Office. I don't want a President who cannot keep his cool when the going gets tough.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't want a President who cannot keep his cool when the going gets tough.

actually, I presume you don't want a president who isn't bush or republican, so I don't know why you're setting that extra parameter.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, I presume you don't want a president who isn't bush or republican, so I don't know why you're setting that extra parameter.

I have stated repeatedly that I like Lieberman, who is a Democrat.

No matter who serves as President, and no matter the policy differences I may have with him/her, I absolutely do not want the President to freak out and lose control whenever he/she is faced with anxiety, disappointment, or confrontation. I feel this of is the utmost importance for the office and nation.

Nice try with the misportrayal, though.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nice try with the misportrayal, though.

thanks. I do try.



seriously, though, I used the word "presume" because I did not know conclusively...what more do you want?

And, I further disagree (though I'm not necessarily a Dean supporter) that that one incident indicates an out of control concern for the oval office. In fact, I consider Bush to be COMPLETELY out of control and attempting to dominate and take over the rest of the world....so, one little "hooah" does not worry me overmuch. I'm much, much more worried about hegemony than emotion.

but hey, that's just me.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And, I further disagree... that one incident indicates an out of control concern for the oval office.

There are actually more episodes if you dig a bit. The man has problems with anxiety. Here's one:

Q: It sounds as if you had a little bit of an anxiety attack when you got the word that you were now governor.
Howard: I did. I hyperventilated and I started hyperventilating and I thought, You better stop that or you won't be much good to anybody.

Q: Why was that such a —
Howard: To suddenly get told that you have responsibility for 600,000 people — it provokes a little anxiety.

The Kerry / Edwards thread contains arguments on this stuff. I don't want to rehash it all.

I think Dean is smart. I think he can be funny. Some of his stances are interesting and deserving of more thought. I'm just concerned about his propensity to falter in the face of pressure-filled situations.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I think Dean is smart. I think he can be funny. Some of his stances are interesting and deserving of more thought. I'm just concerned about his propensity to falter in the face of pressure-filled situations.

Two mistakes here. First of all, Dean's outburst wasn't a frustrated tirade: it was an ebullient, rather over the top pep-talk. I didn't see the speech until everyone had already started writing about it; when I did, I was amazed by the reaction. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Secondly, momentarily getting anxious when you realize an enormous new responsibility has been suddenly placed on your shoulders isn't "faltering": it's a normal human reaction that did not, as far as I can tell, lead to any mistakes or bad decisions or any adverse effect on his ability to govern. Did Dean withdraw into seclusion for a week? No; he had his moment of anxiety and moved on, the way leaders do.

Don't you suppose Bush felt a little sinking in his gut when, say, he learned the WTC had been attacked? Don't you think a little part of his soul might've said "Holy shit—what's going on? What am I going to do?" I wouldn't think that makes him a bad leader—hell, I'd be more concerned if he didn't have those feelings.

TomPaine.com published an essay on this, not an altogether good one, but it made a good point or two:

We saw and see nearly every news outlet playing the footage of the rally again and again. We see headlines in the less-cautious papers about Dean "imploding," and gleeful spin from Republican strategists that Dean is "finished."

[...]

Sometimes it's hard to remember, but presidents aren't primarily dinner party hosts or recruiting posters for perfection. They're supposed to be smart people who can make intelligent choices, mostly in private, that serve our interests. And they're supposed to be human.

[...]

As for Dean, one doesn't need to take sides to see that the treatment of this man is unbecoming of the media. It's also going to be seen in retrospect as colossally one-sided, not in any way balanced by comparable scrutiny or criticism of his rivals.

It's true that the Iowa speech is getting overplayed and will soon be little more than a stale punchline. The trouble is, at least from my POV as a Dean supporter, is that Dean isn't going to get enough time between now and the New Hampshire vote for the story to stop echoing. He'll probably finish second, and then the "Is Dean Done?" stories will continue, despite the months of campaigning still ahead for all the candidates.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
We saw and see nearly every news outlet playing the footage of the rally again and again. We see headlines in the less-cautious papers about Dean "imploding," and gleeful spin from Republican strategists that Dean is "finished."

Trust me. Republican strategists are NOT gleeful that Dean is done.

... He'll probably finish second, and then the "Is Dean Done?" stories will continue, despite the months of campaigning still ahead for all the candidates.

There are months ahead for only one candidate. The nomination will be decided in 6 weeks, probably sooner.

[thunderous_funker]

Dean can't handle pressure?

What was Dubya doing while Dean was in med school? Doing coke? Playing so much golf in Midland that the local country club named their "worst dressed golfer" award after him? Bankrupting his oil company that never struck oil? Being convicted of DUI in Maine?

Comparing Dean's record to Bush's record is not a wise campaign strategy. Bush's team should stick to what they have always done, pretending that Bush's life began in 1995.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Dean can't handle pressure?

What was Dubya doing while Dean was in med school? Doing coke? Playing so much golf in Midland that the local country club named their "worst dressed golfer" award after him? Bankrupting his oil company that never struck oil? Being convicted of DUI in Maine?

Comparing Dean's record to Bush's record is not a wise campaign strategy. Bush's team should stick to what they have always done, pretending that Bush's life began in 1995.

How then did Bush win?
Was the country so happy with Bill Clinton that they wanted another Democrat in the White House?

If he was such a bad man, then how did he get in office? I'd really like to know.

Don't all politicians hide their bad past?
Dean has how many boxes under lock and key?

Show us the money!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
How then did Bush win?
Was the country so happy with Bill Clinton that they wanted another Democrat in the White House?

If he was such a bad man, then how did he get in office? I'd really like to know.

Don't all politicians hide their bad past?
Dean has how many boxes under lock and key?

Show us the money!

Because a presidential campaign is about marketing and controling your preception through artfufl media manipulation.

I'm not saying Bush is unique here, far from it. His team is just very very good and probably better than anyone else I can think of.

Why weren't all of his skeletons drug out during the 2000 campaign? I have no idea. I can honestly say it was shock to me. Maybe the GOP nominees had a gentleman's agreement to not get into that kind of thing. But that doesn't really explain why the media didn't get into it.

When Bush won the nomination, I told everyone I knew that his background could never survive a national campaign. He was going to get crucified for his past. I was very wrong. In fact, I don't even recall anyone even talking about it. Maybe he was considered such a long shot to win that no one bothered. I really don't know.

The charges over his military record, his business record, his backroom dealings in Texas, his abysmal record on education and environment as governor, his connections to BCCI, his personal "indescretions". None of it was ever mentioned by the mainstream media or even much of the "indie" media as near as I can recall. After the election, some people raised some of it, but it was too late and it went nowhere.

You could say a lot of the same things about Clinton. Talk about a sketchy past!! Yikes! And yet, I'd say that Clinton had to answer a lot more tough questions about it than Bush ever did. Media conspiracy? I have no idea.

Perhaps America was just scandal-weary in 2000 and the media felt that if they were "too negative" it would hurt their ratings. After all, they are in the boredom killing business, not the truth telling business. That's not conspiratorial, that's just Econ 101.

At any rate, I'm perfectly happy keeping this election to the problems at hand and to real policy. I don't really want a dirty campaign. That is why I suggest Bush supporters are best served to not drudge up meaningless crap about Dean (or anyone else) from the 70's or 80's. The last thing the Bush campaign wants is anyone taking a lot hard look at what their boy was doing during that time.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
How then did Bush win?
Was the country so happy with Bill Clinton that they wanted another Democrat in the White House?

In fact, the majority of voters wanted—and voted for—exactly that.

(Wow, you just walk into these things, don't you?)

[zigzag]

All this stuff about Dean being psycho and insecure is overstated. I mean, the guy's been a practicing physician and a Governor, for God's sake. He's talked forthrightly about a couple of uncertain moments in his life - big deal. Any one who claims they've never had such moments is lying.

The cheerleading episode was just that - cheerleading. All pols do it, some more graciously than others. Dean was just trying to pump up a room full of people who had volunteered for him. It looked stupid on camera but his heart was in the right place.

I'm partial to more sober personalities, too, but I don't think Dean's "episodes" are an indicator of incompetence. If he were to become President and do a good job, we'd all be saying what a great, forceful personality he had.

I think the pep rally is just a sideshow anyway - even if it had never been caught on tape, his campaign would be sinking. It'll be interesting to see if he bounces back.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
It's true that the Iowa speech is getting overplayed and will soon be little more than a stale punchline. The trouble is, at least from my POV as a Dean supporter, is that Dean isn't going to get enough time between now and the New Hampshire vote for the story to stop echoing. He'll probably finish second, and then the "Is Dean Done?" stories will continue, despite the months of campaigning still ahead for all the candidates.

I agree. Just giving my opinion of the episode and the man.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That is why I suggest Bush supporters are best served to not drudge up meaningless crap about Dean (or anyone else) from the 70's or 80's.

Then tell Dean to stop offering up this "meaningless crap" in his interviews with People and Time Magazines.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Then tell Dean to stop offering up this "meaningless crap" in his interviews with People and Time Magazines.

Come on. How are they supposed to sell Time and People without filling it with "meaningless crap"?



I'm saying back off the "faltering" talk. Dean faced his fears, conquered his anxiety and did his job--as a doctor and as governor. When life's little pressures got to Dubya, he did a few lines and played some golf. Or simply quit and walked away.

I think its safe to say that Bush grew up and learned to cope better. Dean certainly doesn't seem to have suffered too terribly from those moments of anxiety.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
All this stuff about Dean being psycho and insecure is overstated. I mean, the guy's been a practicing physician and a Governor, for God's sake. He's talked forthrightly about a couple of uncertain moments in his life - big deal. Any one who claims they've never had such moments is lying.

I can honestly say that I never hyperventilated when the actual Governor died and the job was awarded to me.

Seriously, we all get impressions of people. From watching Dean and some of his behavior, his inconsistent remarks, and learning of his anxiety problems, this somewhat concerns me when envisioning him in the Oval Office. Maybe his experience is contributing to this as well. If he was governor of a larger, more ethnically diverse state as opposed to Vermont's 600,000 (almost all white) population, I might be more comforted. I mean, there are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC than all people in Vermont (NYC total population hovers around 8 million).

You know what, scratch that. I've always been a firm believer that the US Presidential campaign and election provides the ultimate training and proving ground for the position. So by that belief of mine, if he wins, he will be ready to serve.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You know what, scratch that. I've always been a firm believer that the US Presidential campaign and election provides the ultimate training and proving ground for the position. So by that belief of mine, if he wins, he will be ready to serve.

So "electable" means winning? That's an interesting tautology.

[mo]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
How then did Bush win?
Was the country so happy with Bill Clinton that they wanted another Democrat in the White House?

And suddenly, without warning, a new thread about the popular vote vs. the electoral college is born.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I can honestly say that I never hyperventilated when the actual Governor died and the job was awarded to me.

Seriously, we all get impressions of people. From watching Dean and some of his behavior, his inconsistent remarks, and learning of his anxiety problems, this somewhat concerns me when envisioning him in the Oval Office. Maybe his experience is contributing to this as well. If he was governor of a larger, more ethnically diverse state as opposed to Vermont's 600,000 (almost all white) population, I might be more comforted. I mean, there are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC than all people in Vermont (NYC total population hovers around 8 million).

You know what, scratch that. I've always been a firm believer that the US Presidential campaign and election provides the ultimate training and proving ground for the position. So by that belief of mine, if he wins, he will be ready to serve.

That's reasonable - we're all entitled to form impressions and decide what we think is important in a Prez, including personality traits. I think some isolated incidents have been overblown in Dean's case, but I could be wrong. I'm not a Dean supporter (not opposed, just not convinced either), but I believe he's mentally stable and competent, even if he's gotten butterflies on occasion. I suspect that a lot of pols have hyperventilated on the big day, but don't necessarily talk about it, and are able to carry on from there.

I guess I'd say that it bears contemplating - nerves of steel are certainly an asset - but personally I wouldn't rule him out based on that alone.

Somebody showed a film clip of Kerry mimicking smoking a joint and laughing the other day. I'm amazed that that hasn't gotten more play in the media than it has.

[Nonsuch]

And the press moves on:

Dean Getting Second Look from NH Voters