Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Come Back To the Five & Dime, Howie Dean

By Michael Blanding, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2005.


Sixty percent of the public now wants the troops out of Iraq, and even some traditional conservatives are calling for withdrawal. So why is the former anti-war firebrand mum on the topic?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Michael Blanding

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Since he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean has made a big deal about returning the party to the grassroots. For the past few weeks, he has been barnstorming the country holding fundraisers that seem only one step removed from the populist rallies of his presidential campaign. At an event this week in Boston, for example, guests paid just $50 each to attend. Jeans and T-shirts far outnumbered suits, and hot dogs and popcorn replaced the customary canapes.  

Jumping up to the podium, Dean looked tanned and relaxed, instantly swinging into a modified stump speech from his campaign. Many of his favorite lines from the presidential race were still in circulation, touching on issues like Social Security ("Enron and the boys") and universal healthcare ("even the Costa Ricans"), and adding some new lines to suit the times, like: "The Republicans' view of small government is just big enough to fit inside Terri Schiavo's hospital bed."  

The one issue Dean barely mentioned, however, is the one that helped lift his presidential campaign out of obscurity: The war in Iraq.

Dean's early tirades against the war galvanized the grassroots of the party in 2003, to the extent that thousands of people who had long been disillusioned with the political process were willing to attend house party fundraisers in his honor. Now that public opinion has swung in favor of setting a timetable for bringing American troops home (in a recent Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent were in favor of bringing home "some or all" of the troops), Dean has been silent, or worse, supportive of the President's increasing quagmire. His stance seems to betray the grassroots activists who propelled him into the role of DNC chair in the first place.  

Two months ago, Dean stood before a crowd in Minnesota and said of Iraq: "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." After those comments, the other main anti-war candidate in the presidential race, Dennis Kucinich, chided Dean in an open letter, writing:

Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? ... We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war... The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

This past week, Kucinich co-sponsored a bipartisan resolution in the House calling for exactly that -- or at least as close to that as possible in a Republican-controlled Congress, a plan to start bringing the troops home by October 2006. Other Democrats have followed suit, with Senator Russ Feingold introducing a similar measure in the Senate, and 60 members of the House forming an Out of Iraq Caucus, led by members of the Black and Progressive Congressional Caucuses.

Sensing, perhaps, that there is political capital to seize on the Iraq issue, even Democratic members of Congress who were at the core of the propaganda movement calling for the invasion, like Senator Joe Biden, or those who subsequently supported it, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have now offered their own -- albeit tepid -- calls for withdrawal.  

So why not Dean? Many of the Democrats who were at the fundraiser in Boston defended the chair's stance on the occupation, even if they were in favor of the withdrawal themselves.

"I feel like he's waffling," said Claire Schlosser, who suppored Dean during the election. "His whole primary campaign was about being anti-war." In the next breath, however, she gushed about his job as DNC chair, saying, "If someone were to ask me what leadership is, he would come to mind."

Her friend, Carl Offner, said he was strongly in favor of bringing the troops home from Iraq; yet, he too spoke fondly of Dean's support of grassroots activists. "There is a welling up of the base, and Dean is not standing in the way," he said. "He's giving voice to that breath of fresh air."  

The disconnect between Dean's stance on troop withdrawal and activists' support of the chair may be in part due to the changed situation in Iraq, which has gone from the black-and-white issue of invasion to the more complicated issue of how and when to get out. Despite the polls, an informal sampling of Democrats at the fundraiser found more nuanced responses to withdrawal than "some", "all" or "none"-- with many genuinely conflicted about how to best clean up the mess in the region. At the same time, nearly all of them approved of the way Dean was doing his job, praising him for his ability to speak his mind and his effort to cut the party off from its addiction to corporate donors.  


Digg!

Michael Blanding is a freelance writer living in Boston. Read more of his stuff at MichaelBlanding.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wars are not fought to be won, but to keep the social fabric firmly in Place
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 27, 2005 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thus, we are beginning to understand, when both parties leaders are for the war, that there is no material difference between the two parties. They have evolved into and are controlled by the elite.

Dean is an elitist. Nancy Pelosi is an elitist and John Kerry is the father of elitism. He has more royal blood than any other man who has run for President in the history of the United States. I just want to know who was his mentor in the Skull and Bones and who was his protege later on? You get the answers to those questions and you will find the answer to the rest of them.

Dean would never have been elected to the chair unless he was bought and paid for by those that control (tightly control) the party. The Clintons are just as bad. I didn't see it during the term in office, but now I do, too late, I fear, but he laid the ground work for all that is occurring now.

Without him Bush couldn't have done what he did to end this sovereign nations existance as we have known it. So, I am chagrined that those of you of progressive leanings do not see the very big picture here. I am shocked actually!

You are still acting as tho we have politics as usual. We are simply sheep being led to the slaugher house by words and not deeds. Sadly, once we complete the journey down this path, we can never, not ever, go back. That time and place where history nurtured the greatest democratice experiment ever, will be lost forever and I fear the replacement.

Campaigns are simply ways to get the wealth out of the general population, just look at what was collected from the grassroots people!
It was millions and from people who could ill afford it. That is why the shift from corporate donations to grassroots, just another mechanism, like the stock market to redistribute wealth upwards. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE and start thinking this way:

WE ARE ON OUR OWN AND WE BETTER START ACTING LIKE IT AND QUIT COOPERATING WITH THEM IN THIS FARCE. It only works if we continue to cooperate. No more voting, no more donating and no more acquiesing. In fact, its starting already. I can tell by the news and the various energy facilities that are being attacked. That is where this will end up because they haven't given us any other options.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where do we go from here? Posted by: margdw
» RE: politics as usual Posted by: Echo
In a vacuum you would be right, but we are in the real world
Posted by: lookinforward on Jun 27, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dean was the major Democratic Candidate have opposed the war. No one forgets that.

He is a lightening rod. He is being attacked in the press for partisan statements AND BY OTHER DEMOCRATS (such as Biden, for example.)

The party, and the cause of getting the hell out of Iraq, is much better off without the focus being on Dean.

It hurts our cause to to get out of Iraq to have Dean be the focal point. And if you think that Fox News, Washington Times (and Post for that matter), Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, CNBC, and the New York Times as well, wouldn't make the facts suffer around attack on Dean then you haven't been paying attention to the news and politics for 5 to 10 years.

It is much better to Hagel and Walter Jones starting to speak up and the PDA push things rather than provide a head at the top that can easily be cut off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.
Posted by: robchapman on Jun 27, 2005 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree with the earlier comment that both major political parties favor the war, with the distinction that a sizeable portion, probably the majority of Democrats oppose it.
Dean as party chairman is loathe to create a division with those in the Party who hold views similar to those of John Edwards.
Edwards, our Vice Presidential candidate supported the war as a nominee candidate and throughout the campaign.
In my opinion, it would be better for the anti-war movement to concentrate less on capturing the Democratic Party and more on mobilizing public support against the war. This is an issue that should be non-partisan, non-idealilogical and if possible, non-political. The American war against the Iraqis is so outrageous and so unjustifiable as to justify a one issue pressure campaign.
As Howard Dean's duties are to build a viable Democratic Party, he must look beyond the war and try to re-build a progessive coalition that should not be closed to those, who, like Edwards, have demonstrated principled support for the War.

Robert Chapman
Ithaca, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad Advice from Michael Blanding
Posted by: rsmithandco on Jun 27, 2005 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please someone save the Democratic party--and the only relaistic hopes of getting these thugs out of office--from the likes of Mr. Blanding. I made it most of the way through his long and repetitive piece before I came to this phrase: "the U.S. attacks on the former Yugoslavia." Attacks? Is that how he characterizes our belated, modest and successful efforts to oppose those Serbian gangsters? He is just the sort of person whom Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman lie awake nights dreaming of. It is the dishonest, wrong and illegal use of US power that we Democrats should oppose, NOT its use under any circumstances. I trust Gov. Dean will ignore Mr. Blanding as well.

Roger Smith

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bad Advice from Michael Blanding Posted by: Rod in 83706
Big Picture Grassroots Vision
Posted by: StuartH on Jun 27, 2005 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dean's rise as a candidate, and then as DNC chair, and now the controversy over his apparent wimping out on Iraq, are symptomatic of the "herding cats" nature of grassroots politics.

We lack a unifying vision that addresses the big picture in a compelling way.

The next election should not represent a choice between candidates whose differences are rhetorical, but a choice between major historical paradigms.

One gets the impression that the "neocons" have a pretty unified sense of the future and have proceeded to act on it, while the progressive alternatives amount to merely quibbling over bits and pieces.

Our basic foreign policy principle has not changed since Custer was sent out to put down the Indian (terrorist) uprisings of the late 1800s - insurgencies in response to resource envy.

The reason we can't let go of Iraq and may take control of Iran, is that America needs the oil. You can feel what a great weight of pressure comes from all the cars on the highways, especially around rush hour.

The situation in Iraq is only a symptom, which could be regarded as a successful diversion to keep the public's eye off of the true big picture.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with those who think that the worldwide peak for all time oil production will be reached this year, or thirty years or more from now. National policy should be addressing the need to retool the entire American (and worldwide) economic paradigm in response to the world-affecting resource shortages from oil to water to fish stocks in the oceans. Maybe most people in a position to lead in this direction find the prospect frightening and would rather avoid all that. But that is where the true alternative to the neocons will come from - the courage to face the facts of life and to lead the world to a better future. A political opportunity of great moment.

International cooperation should be the dynamic principle of foreign policy, not force. A difficult meditation, but a necessary one. A powerful moment in history.

Democratic Party leaders need to begin showing signs that they are up to extending the work of the Founding Fathers in providing true intellectual leadership for the world of the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COP-OUTS
Posted by: susan9390 on Jun 27, 2005 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the going gets tough, the sheep hide. Has anyone noticed that if you DON'T have a lightning rod, the house will burn in a storm?

"The democrats should this, the democrats should that...." Give me a break! The democrats aren't going to do what they should; they are too busy with self-preservation issues to see beyond their noses. And don't hand me Clinton or Boxer or any of the other well-intentioned but ineffectual chameleons. Didn't Dean's cop-out teach you anything?

Many readers have better vision than the journalists, the politicians, or the diplomats. It's going to get much worse before it gets better. In fact, we may even have reached the point of no return already.

Solutions? Well, at least there are a few optimists left! Good luck to you, whatever you do, but do something. Don't just sit there. If you're going to suicide, don't do it quietly at home in despair. Do it with great dignity and fireworks and go slit your throat on the white house lawn. And be sure to bring your own camera crew if you expect anyone to notice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dean is pitching to the party's military veterans
Posted by: sausage on Jun 27, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now it should be common knowledge that more Democratic politicians served in the United States military than any of the current crop of Republican chickenhawks.

There seems to be a growing zeitgeist among "moderate" Democrats (read Rockefeller Republicans) that even though pResident Bush's decision to invade Iraq was wrong, now the troops are there we should support them in every way conceivable; from appropriations for more armor for HumVees and Kevlar vests to expanding the VA's domain and jurisdiction.

The spector of rank and file union members defecting to the GOP during the unpleasentness in Vietnam haunts the halls of Democratic Party National Committee. The party does not want the label of "stabbing our military in the back" hung on it again. And, as the party of Wilson, "moderate" Democrats are as supportive of "bringing democracy" to the benighted Iraqi people as are the staunchest NeoCons and wingnut Republicans.

Had the administration followed the recommendation of original Iraq-proconsel Jay Garner and left Baghdad within weeks of the invasion we would not be having this discussion now. True, Iraq would have spiraled into civil war but the inevitable will be worse the longer American forces remain. Whatever Democrats now do, once U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq, the right wing noise machine will hang the albatross of "appeasers," "cowards" and "soldier-haters" around the party's necks. That too is as inevitable as a fully blown Iraqi civil war following an American exit.

There is no good solution. But I think many Democratic politicians' public pronouncements now echo that of Shakespeare's Macbeth,
I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.



[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dean unchanged
Posted by: opnskye on Jun 27, 2005 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article to be a WASTE OF TIME.

I am getting sick of people looking for Dean to be the spokesperson for the progressive movement. Dean does not speak for all progressives let alone democrats and never has he declared that he does. Dean considers himself democratic but he is an independent as far as I'm concerned. His views bounce all over the spectrum.

During the democratic elections Dean was angry and passionate about the way and the reasons we were brought to war in Iraq but never did he say, that I ever heard, that he was for the pulling out of troops after the war started. He has always had the "now that we are in there... " stance.

Also, since when is the term grassroots used as a term to represent one faction of political thought, progressive or otherwise? A lot of assumptions were made in this article. I don't believe Dean has ever touted himself as being progressive even though he matches progressive thought in some of his viewpoints. People who consider themselves progressive have been supportive and attracted to Dean for these reasons but I think that those who have dug a little deeper on Dean know that Dean is not synonymous with all things progressive; not even close.

So again i say that I wish people would stop looking for Dean to be the spokesperson for the progressive movement... he is card carrying democrat remember not a memeber of the Green Party.

!-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-! !-!

I wish people would STOP focusing on what we disagree on and start focusing on that which we agree because we are never... did you hear that?... NEVER going to agree on E V E R Y T H I N G. Find the common denominators out there... just keep it above the lowest common denominator if possible :D

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who leads the Demos?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 27, 2005 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point is that the Demos need to put their best foot forward right now. Unfortunate as it is, simple-minded Americans need a focus. That's why soundbites work. That's why we fawn over celebrity. That's why CEOs make millions leading their corporations into debt.

Demos need a celebrity leader. Usually we wait until presidential elections to form a party around one personality. With the Repugs leading us toward national bankruptcy in the name of a "strong defense," there is no time to waste.

We learned from the McGovern campaign, sadly, that grassroots is not enough. A leader must have glamour to attract national and international attention. Reagan was a movie star. Clinton got by on style and brains, plus a conservative third party opponent.

The coming off-year election is do or die. If Demos do not demonstrate strength and produce a likely presidential candidate, it's time to head for the hills. The Washington plutocracy is bleeding us mercilessly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who leads the Demos? Posted by: nietgal
America needs to be exposed!--Why the neocons(Israel Agents) act this way
Posted by: aregers on Jun 27, 2005 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi,Kerry, Dean and over 60% of elected officials are jewish.They have an agenda--secure Israel at any cost.
Americans have allowed this elite group to control the masses for over a hundred years.
One poster said it is for oil,cause we need it for our cars and trucks,--garbage!
why hide deans agenda ?--cause it is a crime to expose the blight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: United States For Israel Posted by: dan10opa
» Beyond Israel Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Beyond Israel Posted by: dan10opa
getting it
Posted by: jimmiemac on Jun 27, 2005 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael Blanding should realize that Rove and the neo's are going to set their draft dodging sights on the liberal who sabotaged the war effort. Deans absolutely right in avoiding a situation that will implode on it's on merit.

No baddy's talking about the 60 dollar a barrel that's taking money out of everybodies mean income.

jmc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dean's Iraq Bona Fides
Posted by: JackieGiles on Jun 27, 2005 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a day-one Dean supporter, I understand his allowing others, especially Republicans to "come to Jesus" without getting in the way of their "conversion" by forcing them not only to change their tack on Iraq, but to seem to be joining the "madman".

I have no doubt Dean wants the troops home, and being human, probably enjoys, in his "darkest closet", the rare public acknowledgements that he was correct from the beginning.

As long as progressives like Blanding keep picking on those who don't parrot their views we will waste most of our energy on "purging" those who don't measure up to their standard of political "purity" rather than mobilizing to defeat Bush,Cheney, Rummy, Rice and Rove.

Being one myself, I know freelance writers need to eat too, but come on guys, stop nit-picking Howard Dean and get after the Dems like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and the other Donkeys in Elephant suits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dean's Iraq Bona Fides Posted by: lezlie
No, Dean was not the anti-war candidate
Posted by: xfgry on Jun 27, 2005 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dead let out barely a peep on getting out of Iraq when you compare him to the only truly anti-war candidate, Kucinich. As long as the Democratic party continues to exclude Kucinich, they deserve to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The People Make The Difference Regardless of Party Affiliation
Posted by: Sandra on Jun 27, 2005 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that if a majority of the American people support ending the war and bringing the troops home, we can make that happen. The politicians will have to follow suit. Already, some politicians have called for an exit strategy. Did they do this out of the goodness of their hearts? I say they did it because they saw the public swinging in that direction. We are tired of sacrificing our young men and women and bankrupting our country for whatever reasons the administration puts forth during their latest press conference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military Veterans
Posted by: Campesino on Jun 27, 2005 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"By now it should be common knowledge that more Democratic politicians served in the United States military than any of the current crop of Republican chickenhawks."

Check your numbers:

Number of Democrats in 108th Senate with military service: 16
Number of Republicans: 19

Total years service of Senate Democrats: 101
Total years service of Senate Republicans: 149

Number of Democrats in 109th House w/ service: 40
Number of Republicans: 70

Looks like your numbers were padded with people no longer in Congress

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dean will come around
Posted by: MTinMD on Jun 28, 2005 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Dean's stated position is wrong on the issue of troop withdrawal from Iraq, and I believe it will ultimately change. I also think if he really held that view, he would explain himself, because that's what he does; he says "Here is what I think and here's why." The groundswell for withdrawal has to increase before the party leadership - including Dean - will change their public positions, but it is increasing and the change will come, in my view. Those of us who were around during Vietnam will remember that, though we prevailed, it took years. And we did not face the enormously wealthy, organized and venomous opposition we now have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dean will come around Posted by: slc4peace
» RE: Dean will come around Posted by: donaldrilea
Withdraw troops from what war? "Mission Accomplished"?
Posted by: Gram on Jul 13, 2005 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A war is fought when a country is attacked or when one country is aiding an ally fight a war because it was attacked. The United States was never attacked nor was there ever a threat of being attacked. There never were any "terrorists" in Iraq because Saddam would not allow them into his country. Now that the U. S. has began a "kill the children" program in Iraq, it has turned into a terrorist training camp. Saddam kept us safer than the U. S. Government is doing. Bring back Saddam!!!!!

Iraq was never a war, only a slaughter and a killing spree by the United States and the UK. Thousands of the mostly child population in Iraq were slaughtered by the U.S.

So, in view of the above, our once fearless presidential candidate, Howard Dean, no longer can be "anti-war" since no war exists - only a killing spree. Killing sprees are not war. Howard has no need to be against something that does not exist!!! Why would anyone want to be against killing??? This is what our Government does - kill, kill, and kill. If you are against killing, then, you are against our way of life.


Gram

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]