Howard Dean attacked Democrats

I have a news flash for some of you on here who are just SICKENED, I mean SICKENED by the "attack politics" and "mudslinging" that's been going on during this primary. It's a "smear campaign" and "disappointing" and "eating our own", etc.

Guess what? Howard Dean attacked Democrats. His whole message was that Democrats dropped the ball on Iraq. Was Howard Dean wrong? Was he destroying the party, or did he make it stronger? I think we all know the answer to that one. Dean attacked the DC Establishment for months and months and months. He mobilized thousands of angry democrats who wanted a party that represented them. Was this wrong? Was this evil? Was this "mudslinging" or "a smear campaign"? I think not.

I do not write this to encourage negative campaigning, but rather, to try to do away with the notion that negative campaigning is in itself evil. It's not. This is a democracy, and we need vigorous debate - even in our primaries. As is typical, the only folks who seem to want to stifle debate are the "frontrunner", Hillary Clinton. They think that policy or character attacks are off limits in a primary. I think that's odd, because we're choosing someone who will most likely be the next leader of the free world. Assessing the core of their character and their past judgements should be job #1 of the electorate. We can only do that if the candidates run free wheeling campaigns where they compare and contrast (see: attack) each other.

So please - no more hand ringing about attack politics. It gets old.

Tags: dean, Edwards, Hillary, obama (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

" They think that policy or character attacks are off limits in a primary. "

- If you are going to make a generalization at least let it bear some semblance to reality . I don't think I have heard anyone say policy attacks are off limits but I have heard a whole lot of people including Edwards , Obama and Richardson say character/personal attacks should be off limits (its too bad they are not following their own words , I guess you have to be able to dwell in hypocrisy to be a politician ) , so you have sailed on the wrong boat on this one.

Attacks on policy is fine but character attacks and assasination should be off limits in my view.

You might enjoy that type of politics but a lot more people do not like it within the democratic party.

By the way what happened to Howard Dean with those attacks , again ?

by lori 2007-11-26 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

Howard Dean mobilized a lot of people with those "attacks".  What he also needed to do was build a good ground organization in Iowa.

He gained enough credibility that he is the Chair of the DNC - shows some effectiveness and loyalty.

There is more than one aspect to a successful campaign.  Differentiating yourself from the other candidates is important.

I think Edwards has been clear about his criticisms of Clinton and I heard no personal attacks.  I have heard clear differences of philosophy.

I'm not sure that Clinton knows how to differentiate herself from her competitors and that worries me for the general election.  

Kerry's problem that it was all about him and his leadership so he ended up on the defensive.  It is why I think Edwards is a better campaigner.  

by pioneer111 2007-11-26 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats
Dean attacked the party in general and he was right.  Edwards has made personal attacks and you have filters on your ears if you have not heard them.  He has been pathetic and nasty and his wife has too.  She thought her sexist dog whistle attacks on Clinton's femininity were cleverly hidden ("poor Hillary has had to act like a man to get where she is") but they were not.
The both of them are not nearly so clever as they think.  People see them for what they are and it is reflected in his poll numbers. That kind of personal attack on someone's character rarely gets rewarded.
by MollieBradford 2007-11-27 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

bill clinton attacked his own party when he first ran for the whitehouse. during the primary and GE. helped him to win independents.

by jello 2007-11-27 12:14AM | 0 recs
i missed the character attacks...

what'd i miss?  what'd i miss?

by bored now 2007-11-27 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: i missed the character attacks...

Sure the character attacks will just fly right over your head.

When she was being called a liar , dishonest , double speak , untrustworthy , replacing republican corrupt machine with a democrat corrupt one etc , hey those were policy distinctions right , it went straight to the difference between their iraq policy , healthcare policy , immigration etc.

Just today , Edwards did any interview and had this to say ,

.....Edwards: I think that everyone of us are going to be judged, not just Senator Clinton, but myself, Senator Obama, all of us and the Republicans are going to be judged based upon whether we can be trusted, whether we appear to be sincere, whether we have integrity.

......Brody: Do you believe then that she can be trusted?

Edwards: I believe I can, and I'm going to let the American people make their own judgment about her.

Sure there is no character/personal attacks , its just policy oriented. Especially when these other two candidates are just like Jesus Christ when it comes to character issues and trust , especially Edwards .

When Brody asked if She could be trusted and he said I can , I almost threw up lol

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/276024.aspx

by lori 2007-11-27 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: i missed the character attacks...

I assume you don't disagree with this statement:

I think that everyone of us are going to be judged, not just Senator Clinton, but myself, Senator Obama, all of us and the Republicans are going to be judged based upon whether we can be trusted, whether we appear to be sincere, whether we have integrity.

What's bothering you, I gather, is that in making this statement he's coming across to you as implying that voters will judge him more favorably than Sen. Clinton in this regard (thus he is being boastful) and he is implying that Sen. Clinton has given voters a reason to judge her less favorably in this regard (thus he is making a "personal attack", rather than discussing particular issues).

I would point out that typically he doesn't simply imply, he gives specific examples, with regard to particular policy matters - issues - where he contends that he's being more "straight" with the voters about the matter. But I assume even explicitly tying into particular issues doesn't make it, for you, less of a "personal attack", correct?

When the Clinton campaign, speaking of Sen. Obama, says "if he is elected, he would have less experience than any American president of the 20th century", does this come across to you as boasting that Sen. Clinton's experience is very much broader than Obama's, and a personal attack because it doesn't discuss particular issues?  Would you argue that it is "harmful" to the Democratic Party because Republicans may use these words against Obama if he is the nominee?

by Rob in Vermont 2007-11-27 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

Is this some sort of justification for mud-thrower John Edwards?  When you decide to go negative, that's the risk you take- of it backfiring.  If Edwards had not lost any chance of winning the nomination before, he surely has now.  He gets what he deserves.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-27 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

because any and all critique of hillary, even one based on policy, is still mud-slinging.

by jello 2007-11-27 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

oh stop being so silly.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-27 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

i forgot sexist to boot.

by jello 2007-11-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

where are my manners? good morning!

by jello 2007-11-27 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

Dean attacked the party but he was also a loyal party member.  He never tried to do anything but make it better and he never made vicious personal attacks on other candidates.  He never said "John Kerry is corrupt or bush-lite".  There is a big difference.  And he certainly never hesitated on the question of supporting the eventual nominee.

The diarist is full of shit.  Personal character attacks should be left to the republicans.  No matter how many times Edwards says he is not getting personal he certainly has been and he is seeing the result.  Just as I predicted the only person he helped was Obama.  

by MollieBradford 2007-11-27 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats

lol, word games.  That is all you all have.

ps..he is part of the same system.  Stop being so naive. He takes the same money and is less honest about it.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-27 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean attacked Democrats



> "Is this some sort of justification for mud-thrower John Edwards?"

This is the sort of juvenile, pot calling the kettle black type of response that is so typical of Hillary Clinton supporters. Just what "mud" did John Edwards ever throw in his entire life-?  There has never been an unfounded criticism.

Hillary Clintons' Senate record is an absolute disgrace here and clearly merits criticism. She also either gives the completely wrong answer (Iran, Iraq) or multiple conflicting answers  (torture) on major policy issues in a way that cannot possibly earn the respect or trust of any thinking human being.

But the original point was that criticising the Democratic Party is the only way to get it to stop doing stupid things.  People like you are delusional enough to think that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman are doing a great job and are somehow above critism.

They are not. The truth is they are liars, cowards, enablers, frauds, and failures. They provide nothing but a giant doormat for the continued across-the-board dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and the tyrannical behavior of worldwide mass-violence and corporate aristocrisy. They have also done absolutely nothing to protect even our most basic right - the right to vote itself - after 4 straight consecutive E-vote rigged & GOP stolen election cycles (FL-13, NC-08 in year 2006).

The Democratic Party will not save itself.
It must be criticized for there to be any hope of it serving the public.

I'm glad that John Edwards gets it.
You obviously don't.

by DerekLarsson 2007-11-27 09:10AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads