This blogger logs my interest in and support for Dr. Howard Dean's run for the Presidency in 2004.

Links

Dean For America (Official Campaign Site)
My picture at a recent Meetup (see http://dean2004.meetup.com). I'm on the left.
Howard Dean 2004 Portal

Enter your email address below to subscribe to Howard Dean's the Real Deal!


powered by Bloglet

 
Oh! Almost forgot! There's an excellent 1/2 hour segment on Dean campaigning in New Hampshire available on the Dean for America homepage. This is exactly the kind of video you can send to friends to help them learn about Dean. Share it around!

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 11:15 PM

 
Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law Professor, author, and a huge advocate of copyright reform, has turned over blogging duties for his week of vacation to none other than Howard Dean! I heard Lessig speak once, and he is a bright, articulate man. He's a powerful advocate to have in Dean's corner. I can't wait to see the Governor's entries next week. You can follow Lessig's blog (and even respond back to Dean) at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/. So we're in for a very interesting week. I can't wait to see what the Stanford crowd asks and how Dean answers.

Meanwhile, Bush's numbers are falling mightily as more revelations surface of who knew what when. Despite Ari Fleischer's pronouncement that the public's interest is over, the polls show that is simply not true. And the media, which has been hogtied ever since 9/11 in the name of national security, is smelling blood and starting to lash out. Unsurprisingly, longtime CIA asset Walter Pincus is leading the charge, defending his old employer (he once published an article titled "How I Traveled Abroad on CIA Subsidy"). The long knives are out. We do indeed live in the Chinese curse of "interesting times."

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 11:12 PM

 
What a day. I've been following the unfolding story of who knew what when re the inclusion of the forged Niger documents alleging nuclear weapons in Iraq. I've been wondering what the scandal would be called, but that appears to have been answered at Jihad Unspun: Weaponsgate. Here's the start of the article:

You wouldn't know it from listening to the leading Democratic candidates for president, but "Weaponsgate" may ultimately bring about the downfall of the Bush regime and its allies in London, Canberra, and elsewhere. The neoconservatives may have also finally stirred something in the Fourth Estate, which has suddenly begun challenging the lying echo chambers in the White House and Number 10 Downing Street.

It's clear that the VP, the State Department and the CIA all knew this to be false. And even Colin Powell denied inclusion of the Niger document in a speech he gave shortly after Bush's state of the union address. My guess is that Bush KNEW, and used it anyway. If he didn't know, he should be mad as hell, demanding to find the truth, asking for resignations. That he is instead defending going to war whether this was true or not is outrageous. No wonder the rest of the world doesn't trust us. That's why we need Dean. We need someone in office who can help restore lost credibility.

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 11:54 PM

 
William Blum, the author of Killing Hope, an excellent, well-researched piece on the various covert and overt actions our government has done to inflict pain and suffering around the world, recently sent out a letter urging people to vote for Kucinich and not Dean. Here is my response to his missive:

Subject: RE: Howard Dean

RE your comment " In case you know anyone who's getting all excited by Howard Dean, have them look at this. The point is not that he falls short of Kucinich, the point is that -- by his own admission -- he's not even a liberal, never mind a progressive."

Which is why I think he's more electable than Kucinich. And my end goal is to defeat Bush, not to vote for the person most like myself. I'm supporting Dean wholeheartedly because I think he is centrist enough to appeal to the crossover voters and yet he won't sell us out like Bush has. And he'll bring us health care if he does nothing else. But he'll do more. He made it through medical school in 3 years - is whip smart. And he's also stood on principle, even when it was unpopular. He opposed going to war with Iraq because 1) it was wrong to go it alone without the UN and 2) he didn't believe Bush had made his case re WMD. Despite lying press reports, he never changed his position. Also case in point - he signed the Civil Unions bill in Vermont under pressure of death threats (for real) and falling poll points. But he said if he didn't do that, deliver equal rights to all, then he had no business being in office.

He actually tried to bring a single-payer health care plan to Vermont about the same time Bill and Hilary were trying it in DC. His failed too, but he got smart and worked with the existing plan that covered gov't employees in his state and got that extended to cover others who didn't have health care. He's got a solid, moderate record in Vermont. He's not a Republican in Democratic clothing. He's a democrat. But he's also fiscally conservative and inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, was re-elected 5x, etc. And let's face it- he's liberal enough to satisfy the state that sent Socialist Bernie Saunders to Congress. How bad could he be? ;-)

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 11:43 PM

 
John Judis has a new article out in Salon saying that Dean is more McGovern than Clinton. Here's my response, which I submitted to Salon:

Anytime the comparison to McGovern is made, I cringe. McGovern was the anti-war candidate. Dean was an anti-Iraq war candidate specifically because he said, long before the press figured it out, that the President had not made his case for Saddam posing an imminent threat. Now, as the press says hey, where ARE those Weapons of Mass Destruction, Dean is looking smart, not weak, as the article implies.

However, there is another reason I cringe at the McGovern comparison. Every reporter who has made that comparison has failed to note that 1972 was THE year of dirty tricks like no other. This was the year in which Muskie was sabotaged, the DNC's Chairman's phone was tapped in the Watergate 'burglary', the plumbers had a plan to sabotage the Democratic convention, and George Wallace was shot (after which Colson asked E. Howard Hunt to go plant Communist literature in Bremer's apartment.) To attribute McGovern's loss to his positions and not to acknowledge the myriad and HIGHLY (and, as it came out, illegally) financed sabotage operations is poor reporting. Shame on John Judis for ignoring that important part of history.

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 11:41 PM

 
William Saletan of Slate has an article out subtitled, "Why I'm Rooting for an Edwards surge". Here's my response, and my clarification to my response, posted in the Slate forum as "LisaInSeattle":

The message Dean has, that no other candidate can touch, is that he stood up not just to the President but to the mob in this country who supported going to war in Iraq. Dean said from the start the evidence of WMD was too thin. Now he's being proven right. But unlike Edwards, Kerry, and the rest of the Senate and House, which gave a blank check to Bush, Dean stood alone and spoke the truth, even when it was unpopular. And it wasn't the first time. He'd done it before, when he signed a bill that cut into his ratings quite severely, allowing gays to join together in civil unions. I like Edwards. I think he needs more seasoning. And he has no administrative experience like the Governors in the race do. But most importantly, his message (I grew up poor, look at me now) is the same as Bush's message. So how could that be an advantage? Dean and Kucinich are the only two who showed real backbone. Dean is far more of a centrist than the media has yet painted him. But eventually his record will catch up with him. Dean is the only one running who can beat Bush. It's time those who care about defeating Bush start looking really carefully for the same level of fight in their preferred candidates. Can they stand up to him, when it counts? Do they have the guts necessary, and the experience? Will they take the popular way out (Kerry, how could you?) or will they take the principled stand and tell people follow me because I know I'm right? My money's on Dean.

I meant to clarify - both Bush and Edwards say, look at me. If you work hard, you can have the American dream. Bush came up from being a C student to being President. Edwards came from a modest background to be a Senator. Good for him. But that's not a sign that he's ready to lead the country. No thanks. I'll keep my money on Dean.

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 6:39 PM

 
Good article today in the St. Petersburg Times (FL) about Dean, in which the following quote appears:

"The Internet found us; we didn't find them," Dean said in a phone interview between campaign stops in Iowa last week. "All we did was have a message."

There's been a lot of talk about how Internet-savvy Dean's campaign is. And all that is true. But it takes a message to build a movement, not just online tools. Most of the media still doesn't understand that. Adam Smith, who wrote this article, apparently did.

posted by Real History Lisa Pease at 12:55 PM