Anger doesn't work

[LWolf]

Kucinich: 'Anger' doesn’t work
By BENJAMIN KEPPLE
Union Leader Staff

MANCHESTER — U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, one of nine Democrats running for the party’s Presidential nomination, warned yesterday that Democrats must take responsibility for the tone of their rhetoric.

Kucinich, who made his remarks yesterday morning in an interview with The Union Leader, also addressed the war on Iraq, trade policy and foreign relations. But he cautioned about the consequences of drumming up fury while politicking.

“We as Democrats must take care that the tenor of the debate doesn’t become so inflamed that it turns people off. We have to be very careful about that,” Kucinich said. “I think voters are becoming increasingly sensitized to that, which is why . . . we have to be careful about anger.

“Anger is not sustainable. You have to really provide people with hope. There is no crossover from anger to hope,” Kucinich said, saying a short time later, “This is where I think Democrats make a mistake — in just trying to tap anger. Where does it go? What do you stand for beyond that?”

more:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31316


This is the reason why people support Dennis Kucinich: he is clear about what he stands for. He stands for us, and his campaign is about just that.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. this is ironic coming from Kucinich

He is the orginal angry candidate. However I think it is more than ironic, it is spiteful. He is trying to capitalize on the Dean is angry meme.

[JNelson6563]

3. yes, it's all part of the new tag-team strategy

we see playing out.

It's happening here in my town. I laugh. Other campaigns can't get half a dozen folks to a meet-up so they are banding together to have forums, all invited but Dean supporters. Of course it was a Dean supporter who invited them to address the local Dem board on behalf of their candidates. heh heh

It's alarming them that they can't get even 6 folks to attend a meet-up but we jsut broke off into 6 groups in 6 counties and had tremendous tunr-out in all of them.

I suspect even withthese tag-team efforts, Michigan will go to Dean.

Julie

[blm]

44. Maybe because we all see the same thing about Dean. He lies and

he's inconsistent and we don't want the whole party dragged down in November.

We don't want a lying, dissembling Dean representing us.

[JNelson6563]

49. Nope, Dean doesn't lie

his opponents supporters are scared, desperate even! their behavior clearly demonstrates it.

It's laughable really.

:toast:

Julie

[John_H]

81. I'm scared as hell of Howard Dean!!!!

Can you imagine what's going to happen to America if Dean supplies Chimp with a ten point mandate?!?

[no name no slogan]

82. Oh, that's right, he doesn't "lie", he makes "mis-statements"

...that later get "clarified" by Trippi on the Blog. :eyes:

But, seeing as Dr. Dean was not mentioned ONCE in the above piece, I have to wonder about who has the "scared" supporters? Why are Dean's supporters calling Iowa and asking DK supporters to caucus for Dean because Dean is "most similar" to DK, and that DK "can't win"? What about the ±20% of Iowans who are still (at this late date) "undecided" about who they'll support at the caucuses?

Tonight's debate was ample proof of who's got the real fire to fix the Democratic party, and our nation. And it sure ain't coming from Vermont.

:D

[Desertrose]

4. How do you get that? original angry candidate??

Can't you tell the difference between manufacted hot temper anger and true compassionate anger?

I've always seen the anger DK shows as anger against the wrongs and injustice done in this country in our name...a scrapper for the people.

Dean I see as tapping into the country's already present anger & fear to make people think it is his cause.... seems more a product of his own anger issues and less a concern with the well being of the country...

:shrug:OMHO


Peace
DR

[aquart]

6. Well, if that's true

It's kinda sad that the Dean anger galvanized so many people and the righteous Kucinich anger didn't. (Still considering a Kucinich vote, simply because he was such a good guy about the BBV.)

If Kucinich's anger is a better quality anger, WHY isn't it working? Because that matters, doesn't it?

[goodhue]

71. Kucinich anger

Is an oxymoron. The man is totally at peace. Seeing him in person helps to realize this.

[Terwilliger]

70. wait a minute...now Dean is giving us "manufactured" anger?

the Democratic party is not going to survive 2004 intact

[LWolf]

7. I think you'll notice

that the post, and the article, does not mention Dean. It's not about Dean. Every single article or discussion about the primary does not revolve around Howard Brush Dean.

How is that for some anger for you? Please join us in a discussion of the topic.

[Hep]

11. Uh, whatever.

Dean has been branded the "Angry candidate" for how many months now? If Kuinich is trying to say this wasn't a thinly veiled "distancing of values" WRT Dean, he's not as shrewd a politician as I thought.

[LWolf]

13. Kucinich isn't "trying" to say anything here.

He certainly doesn't hesitate to mention Dean when he has a point to make. My point is that this thread is not about Dean. It is about Dennis Kucinich, and his take on anger in the campaign. I'd like to discuss that.

I don't think Dennis is talking about anger against GWB. I think he is talking about the internal anger. The debate so far is about which democrat to nominate; all are angry at GWB.

“We as Democrats must take care that the tenor of the debate doesn’t become so inflamed that it turns people off.

It certainly applies to the debate here at DU, for example. It applies when we realize that turning our anger at GWB onto our fellow democrats as a campaign strategy to win the primary will backfire in the general election if we have alienated too many allies with our anger.

Hey! That sounds like GWB, Iraq, and the rest of the world.
I appreciate Dennis calling this to our attention. We don't save America from Bush by imitating this unfortunate tendency to bully others and isolate ourselves.

[Desertrose]

14. Dennis was speaking his heart as always...

again...Dean has not yet been declared the sun, therefor all things still do not revolve around him!

Peace
DR

[Hep]

17. Not to take away from Kucinich promoting himself

I remain unconvinced. And besides that, I think he is wrong.

Anger is not mutually exclusive from hope. Anger can not exist without hope. Because without hope, what's the use of getting angry?

[Desertrose]

22. anger & hope ...huh?

Belive me, anger can & does exist without hope....

not having any hope is one of the causes of anger.

There are of course many types of anger...and anger can be used to motivate, but ultimately you must move past the anger into action and (if possible) make the changes that caused your anger in the first place. I belive we always have choice to change things from the micro to the macro there is always something we can do...often it is only to change our perspective on how we see things.

I would link hope and love- the positive feelings...anger & frustration are more hand in hand...its the love & hope that can pull us into action which takes us from those negative places.

just my thoughts...
Dennis gives me hope...Howard gives anger....
:shrug:

Dennis is looking to change the causes of anger, I see Dean as tradin gon that anger with no real change in the future...and that, does NOT give me hope.

Peace
DR

[Hep]

25. Not true

Not having hope doesn't cause anger. It makes no sense.

HOPELESSNESS comes from having no hope. When there is no hope, you don't get angry, you get SAD. But we're talking about connotation here. Go to the dictionary. Nowhere in the definition is hopelessness implied.

And there you go. You dismissed everything I said about Dean's campaign not being driven by anger, and you assume to know more about it than an actual Dean supporter does. How does one find the gall to do that?

[Desertrose]

32. My reply was from my experience of anger....

we don't agree about Dean & his campaign....

I didn't dismiss it...I simply don't agree
....and here you are all angry about that?

Now, what was I saying about Dean and his campaign of anger?

Peace
DR

[Hep]

35. Ugh

I'm not angry at you. I'm just pointing out that your opinion about Dean's campaign is based on media clowning and misperception, and that not acknowledging that Dean's acampaign is NOT about anger given the facts is pretty unfair.

You pulled a dubya. You made an assertion and then twisted the data around to suit your assertion.

[Desertrose]

39. not really...

I 'm sorry you see it that way. I agree with Dennis that it is not good that we turn our anger on each other...there is enough BS in the world we could focus it on.

MY opinion of Deans campaign is based on what I see all around me...media, here & in the real world. If my opinion upsets you I'm sorry but thats the way it is.

There are many kinds of anger and many ways to use it...a statement of fact. I'd like to see us all use it to accomplish something positive.

Peace
DR

LOL man..don't think anyone ever accused me of pulled a dubya!
hoo ha! ROFL

[Hep]

45. You think it's bad to turn our anger on each other

and you say this after antagonizing fellow D's? I'm not feeling anger, I'm feeling confusion.

Your opinion doesn't upset me. Seriously, I'm just sitting here shaking my head in utter confusion. I don't presume to know what any cammpaign other than mine is about. Although I know of Kucinich meetups in my area where Dean took up 50% of the conversation, and Kucinich supporters planning to pass out anti Dean literature at the NC state fair. I know that this isn't Kucinich's vision of his campaign message. I'm smart and good enough to realize that The few negative people in a campaign do not DEFINE the campaign. And I honestly can't figure out why a person would think otherwise.

[MuseRider]

58. Part of the problem here

is that you assume that just because someone is not a supporter they do not know what the other campaign is about. That is probably true in some cases and also very sad because it is difficult to make an informed choice if you are unaware of what else is going on with the others. I would bet that a good many here on this board know a lot about each and every one of the candidates and most likely the real problems here are often begun by those who do not. Opinion based on knowledge does not always lead to agreement and I would guess that is the biggest problem here. Just because we don't agree does not mean we simply do not know. While we are all guilty of spouting off our beliefs in a way that may frustrate or anger people with different beliefs we must remember that we can't assume that the other person does not know what they are talking about or we get into these constant battles bashing each other over the head without solution. Just my opinion having read only this far in the thread.

[Mairead]

31. Check the definition of 'nihilism'

[Hep]

33. OK, so you nailed down the RW approach to life.

But the point?

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. actually

Dennis says "anger is not sustainable" at EVERY campaign stump

and in fact he has been saying anger is not enough for the entire campaign

Dennis isn't showing anger, he is showing passion, and there is a big difference

[LWolf]

42. Good point!

Dennis is nothing if not passionate about our issues.

I appreciate you pointing out this difference. Passion for a cause is a more positive, productive fuel than anger, from my perspective.

[OhioStateProgressive]

53. yes, i think it is funny how the Dean people are smearing Dennis over this

when the fact is that he has been saying the same thign the entire campaign, unlike some candidates who change what they say from day to day

[LWolf]

62. Dennis' passion has been very productive.

Look at the legislation he has introduced. Look at the list of endorsements he has attracted; he attracts people who are passionate about a better America. Look at the message his candidacy takes to America.

Look at how the passion evident in "A Prayer For America" resonated; enough energy to draft him to run for president.

[ecstatic]

56. exactly. He yelled in many speeches about the true WMDs

i.e. poverty, etc. His performances, however, were seen as less threatening since he has a kind of squeeky voice. If Dean had done some of Kucinich's same speeches, people would REALLY call Dean the angry candidate.

[OhioStateProgressive]

59. not true

Dennis speaks with passion, not anger...there is a big difference

and the truth is that Dennis has been saying anger isn't enough, and that anger isn't sustainable his entire campaign

[goodhue]

64. not new

DK has consistently been saying that anger at Bush is not a winning strategy. In fact he doesn't even mention Bush generally. This is not a new tactic. To see DK as the original angry candidate misses the point of his campaign completely. He is a candidate of hope and possibility of a better world not of anger and fear of today.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech2.htm

New Horizon for the Democratic Party

United States Representative Dennis J. Kucinich
The Democratic National Committee
Western Caucus
Saturday, May 25, 2002
Seattle, Washington

* * * *

Nothing less than the future of our nation and the world is at stake. Americans are waiting for us. The voters are waiting for us. They will show up when we show up. Our greatest power is not even political. It is the ability to move the human heart. It is the ability to see our nation as truly indivisible, truly united in the cause of all who long for unity, of all who long for connectivity, of all who seek integrity and wholeness in their own lives and integrity and wholeness in the life of our nation.

We have done it before. We are the party of FDR and the New Deal. We are the party of JFK and the New Frontier. We are the party of LBJ and the Great Society. We are the party of the realized dream of Martin Luther King. We are the party of the unrealized dreams of Bobby Kennedy. We are the party of Social Security, of Medicare, of civil rights, of equality for women, of a green planet, of a peaceful planet. We are the party of the people.

We stand looking out upon the new horizon of the 21st Century. It is still daybreak, the sun is about to come up like thunder. And it is our Democratic party, which has the opportunity to widen the bright horizon for all the people, to help people, particularly our youth, to become excited about participating in the process of citizenship, by fearlessly stepping into the crucible of change, by working for new initiatives which will win back people's faith in our government, faith in the political process, faith that their vote matters, and faith in each person's ability to make a difference. One person can make a difference.

* * * *

[Desertrose]

2. Life is all about hope....

I agree ...anger if sustained, takes an incredible toll...and as we see from this maladministartion fear and hate must be continually fed...love and compassion on the other hand are self sustaining and are indeed, what nourished and sustains us.

“Anger is not sustainable. You have to really provide people with hope. There is no crossover from anger to hope,” Kucinich said, saying a short time later, “This is where I think Democrats make a mistake — in just trying to tap anger. Where does it go? What do you stand for beyond that?”


I SO agree with this!!!
Dennis :yourock:

:hug: Lwolf-another great article...thanks
:loveya:
DR

[Hep]

5. For the record, anger is what we all have in common

it's not what drives the Dean campaign. Of course, I'm assuming that this is ultimately about Dean.

[TexasPatriot]

8. anger is what 'we' have in common

frustration is what we have in common with the rest of america. that's why anger is the wrong answer

[Hep]

10. Semantic splitting of hairs notwithstanding

It isn't mere frustration we see at WTO protests. It isn't mere frustration that we saw with war protests. Frustration and anger are pretty much interchangeable in the world of public perception.

If Dean said, I'm not angry, I'm frustrated, as in "I'm TIRED of being divided by race. I'm tired of being divided by gender", none of the Dean opponents would believe him.

[TexasPatriot]

15. i think demwatch nailed it

--snip--
For one thing, I think there's a difference between anger and frustration. And frustration, I believe, is what a majority of Americans feel towards the current Republican leadership. Howard Dean is angry. I don't blame him or think he's wrong for being angry. But when I hear Wesley Clark raise his voice in debates and interviews and campaign appearances, I hear someone who is frustrated. I hear someone who's just had it with the blundering leadership in the White House. This frustration which Clark so effectively vocalizes has a greater chance of attracting voters from all ends of the political spectrum in November than Dean's anger or Bush's cockiness.
----

[Hep]

23. Of course you think that

It comes close to making sense. And it's easy to take on it's face. I don't know who wrote this. I don't know their credentials as psychologists or their criteria for distinguishing between anger and frustration.

Look at the definitions of frustration and anger and tell me which you prefer. Defeated? Discouraged? Ineffectual? That's frustrated. A strong feeling of being antagonized? That's anger.

I know which I prefer.

[TexasPatriot]

29. sorry

it was in the demwatch thread on the front page
http://demwatch.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_demwatch_archive.html#107363275204754332

i think anger is something that you and i have in common. we were both likely stomping around the house for 37 days after the november fiasco 3 years ago... we're not really normal people (which is fine by me)

There are a lot of angry dems who aren't Dean supporters - hell, the angriest dems I know are in the Kucinich camp ironically enough - but i think Kucinich is right in that anger isnt the way to connect with voters.

[Hep]

34. You're absolutely right

Angry supporters of EVERY candidate. Which is why making pints about anger is weird unless you are going after the perception of another candidate.

It's nt a big deal to me, but here's how I see it:

1. Dean is known as "The Angry Guy"
2. To distance yourself from Dean, focus on that perception.

It's a good strategy, which is why I don't understand why people are so sure that Kucinich wasn't ultimately talking about Dean.

[MuseRider]

60. I do not see this.

DK certainly does not need this issue to distance himself or distinguish himself from Dean.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. However, what attracted me to DK was not his anger

If I want people to be angry with, there are plenty.

Anger by itself is just anger. It can eat people's positive energy and plunge them into despair or prompt them into destructive criminal acts. It can degenerate into infighting. Righteous anger needs to be channeled into positive action.

I chose to support Dennis Kucinich because he offers the most coherent, consistent vision of a goal toward which I can harness my anger.

[TexasPatriot]

55. i agree

i can be angry - but angry energy seldom does positive things. it's that whole yoda thing... ;)

i like DK, and i think even though his supporters are angry (like many of us) they're not poisoning their actions with it - they're far too busy focusing on the positives (which is why i like so many of em)

[LWolf]

61. Thanks, TexasPatriot!

I agree. I can be as angry as anyone; it's where you put the focus. I would like my country to be focused on hope; on a progressive vision for a healthier, more just nation.

I would like our primary to be focused on choosing the best among good choices.


Yoda and Dennis rock. And so do you. :yourock:

[no name no slogan]

84. Anger gave us Jesse Ventura, reightious anger gave us Paul Wellstone

THAT's the major difference between anger (for the sake of being angry) and reightious anger, which comes from having hope for something better.

In MN, we got Jesse Ventura because a lot of pissed-off middle-class suburbanites were "angry": angry about crime, about taxes, about almost everything. This misdirected anger got us four years of Jesse Ventura, who did little to help most of the people who voted for him.

Paul Wellstone tapped into the reightious anger that many of us felt. We were angry with Reagan/Bush and its destructive impact on our country, but we also knew that we could change that. Wellstone not only had the anger, but the passion-- AND the program.

THAT's what I see as the major difference between Dean and Kucinich. Dean taps into this ill-defined "anger" so many fairly well-off people feel, but doesn't provide the optimism. Kucinich knows that we're angry, but he wants us to channel it into productive ways to fix this country.

[LWolf]

9. See post # 7. N/T

[Desertrose]

12. they don't get it LWolf...

they saw ANGER in the title and just figured it HAD to be about Dean
LOL

That is just sad...maybe you should start a thread about hope....not near as many jumping on that...although I did notice that after Dennis had his "Fear Ends Hope Begins" slogan, that now Dean is calling his campaign a 'campaign of hope'....sigh....

I also noticed that Dennis was speaking out on many issues LOOONG before Dean began to mention them....

Dennis made some great points ...too bad so many just see at as alwasy revolving around Dean...sad sad sad.

Peace
DR

[LWolf]

18. Good idea, DR.

A thread about Hope sounds just right. I'm going to hang out here for a few more minutes, and then head off for some time in the hills with the horses; I'll check in here, and look for or start a hope thread when I get back.

That's what this is about, isn't it? Contrasting fear and anger with hope. I choose hope.

And I agree; I did notice the hijacking of a campaign theme. I'd get angry, but I realize that no one does hope better than Dennis. You can try to wear another's shoe, but that doesn't mean it will fit.

[Hep]

19. To think otherwise is pretty naive

And to infer that Kucinich was talking about Dean is a valid interpretation given the information provided. And Kucinich isn't the first to address anger. And in the past, it HAS been about Dean.

Th argument that if he didn't actually say Dean's name he couldn'thave been talking about Dean is not only wishful thinking, it's playground tactics.

Frankly, even as a Dean supporter, I'd think more highly of Kucinich if it were about Dean. Otherwise, his position is kind of odd.

Especially when you consider a Kucinich supporter here opined that KJucinich is angry at Bush as well. If anger doesn't cross over to hope, then where is Kucinich's hope?

These comments are weird.

[LWolf]

27. Your interpretation

is of course valid, whether I agree with it or not. My points, again:

1. This isn't a thread about HD. I didn't start it to discuss Dr. Dean's campaign.

2. The discussion is not about whether or not we should be angry. We are all angry. Angry about 2000. Angry with the Bush administration. It's about whether we should turn that anger on each other, fellow democrats, before the real battle next November.

3. It's about whether anger or hope should be your defining message. Which do you choose to define you as a democrat? A voter? Your party? Your candidate? Your country?

[goodhue]

67. not weird or odd

And not a new position. Only the Dean supporters it seems assume DK is talking about Dean. Kucinich iss talking about the Democratic Party generally and has been sayingthe same thing for a couple years- that a progressive vision of hope is the only winning strategy. He thinks that anger towards Bush will not drive new or swing voters to the polls; indeed it will turn them off and keep them at home.

Why do you think DK means to Dean anymore than say Richard "miserable failure" Gephardt? Dennis has been saying the same thing for a long time and would be saying it whether or not Dean was front runner.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. I VERY strongly disagree. Until ALL of the members of the Democratic...

...Party get angry about what's happening to this country, we will NEVER have the political power necessary to rid ourselves of the NeoCon Junta. No political party throughout history ever achieved their goals without an underlying sense of anger about how they perceived their opposition and how that opposition was treating them.

Kucinich, and those that think like him, are ignoring the fact that the rightwing of the GOP got angry and mobilized their voters and dragged the moderates along with them. They also used the psyops tactic via the mainstream media of making ALL Democratic candidates appear angry...and the Democratic candidates backed away from the fight! That made the Democrats look weak, and that's FAR worse in my way of thinking than being willing to stand up for what you believe and telling the GOP to shove it.

Here's what I'm angry about:

1. The illegal election results of 2000 that brought the NeoCons to power;

2. The strong belief on my part that the NeoCons allowed the attacks of 911 to take place, thus achieving the PNAC goal of "another Pearl Harbor";

3. The passage of the Patriot Act;

4. The attack on Afghanistan with little or nothing to justify the number of casualties among the Afghan civilians. A Stone Age civilization was bombed back to a time before the last Ice Age. And we're still taking casualties in that country...but the real extent of the casualties are not being reported in the press;

5. The cutting of $1 billion in Federal funds to every single state in the U. S. creating a ripple effect of cuts within each state;

6. The Tax Cut Bill providing tax relief to the top 1% of American taxpayers and a greater burden of taxes on the middle class;

7. The totally unjustified attack on Iraq resulting in nearly 500 U.S. military deaths, as far as we know, and nearly 3000 reported as wounded. The real numbers are probably double the reported numbers because the public and the media is no longer allowed to see the return of the American dead. And what of the Iraqi dead and wounded, both military and civilian? How many tens of thousands of soldiers, men, women and children have we killed during this brutal Nazi-like take-over?

8. The passage of Patriot Act II burried in another funding bill;

9. The funding of TIPS as a civilian operation;

10.The submission of legislation reviving the military draft in 2005. Bills were submitted in January 2003 in both houses of Congress and are waiting in committee for the green light to proceed;

11.The Selective Service has been funded to prepare the system for drafting young Americans, both male and female, in mid-2005. There will be no deferments except for the children of the wealthy who ALWAYS manage to find some way out of all of America's wars unless they volunteered.

That's my "short" list as to why I'm so angry that I could spit nails. I repeat, unless ALL Democrats get off their butts and get angry about one or more of the items on my list, we'll be moaning and groaning on this very same board following the 2004 elections...if they're ever held.

Do you think some Germans were angry about what happened to their country when the Nazis took power in 1933? You bet they were. But they're weren't enough to tip the balance because they had their fair share of people telling them to remain calm and don't get angry.

Bull.

[LWolf]

20. From post # 13:

I don't think Dennis is talking about anger against GWB. I think he is talking about the internal anger. The debate so far is about which democrat to nominate; all are angry at GWB.

“We as Democrats must take care that the tenor of the debate doesn’t become so inflamed that it turns people off.

It certainly applies to the debate here at DU, for example. It applies when we realize that turning our anger at GWB onto our fellow democrats as a campaign strategy to win the primary will backfire in the general election if we have alienated too many allies with our anger.

Hey! That sounds like GWB, Iraq, and the rest of the world.
I appreciate Dennis calling this to our attention. We don't save America from Bush by imitating this unfortunate tendency to bully others and isolate ourselves.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Excuse me, but did I say anything remotely similiar to your comment...

..."We don't save America from Bush by imitating this unfortunate tendency to bully others and isolate ourselves"?

[LWolf]

41. No, not at all.

I said it. I said it because I'm making a connection. Because I see democrats turning inflammatory anger on other democrats in the primary. Because my interpretation is that it mirrors what GWB has done with the rest of the world; and I don't want to mirror the rest of the world's response when it comes to the general election.

I'm intrigued by the responses to this thread so far. There are many here who cannot discuss the overuse or the misuse of anger. They are so angry that they immediately react; they go into full battle armor to battle for the right to be angry. They are campaigning, and anger is their candidate.

Which exactly illustrates the point. I'm sorry. Not that people are angry; we are all angry. At GWB. I'm sorry that people let their anger blind them to the rest of the picture. I'm sorry that people are so angry they see an opportunity to discuss anger as an attack. I'm sorry that people are so angry that they can no longer discriminate between an appropriate target and an inappropriate target for that anger. We've entered the realm of unleashing anger without consideration.

[Desertrose]

26. anger is a force..an energy

until you use anger in a focused way to take action and get something done...it sits and festers.

Anger is a motivating factor -hopefully in changing this country...but like a weapon to turn it inward or against those who are allies...makes no sense really.

I felt Dennis was not saying we don't have a right to be angry or we shouldn't be angry...but that we need to use it to change what we can ...to take action...and then let it go

Peace
DR

[Eloriel]

24. Such a shame he -- and Edwards too

have to resort to purposeful and intentional mischaracterizations of the frontrunner in order to try to gain a foothold.

If people would bother to actually look at the campaign -- for example, read comments to the blog -- they would see that the Dean campaign is fueled by hope.

In fact, here's an excellent recounting of how the vile meme got started, and it's really must reading for every American, and esp. everyone on the left (because the problem of media fabrications hasn't been and won't be just Dean's):

http://www.nypress.com/17/1/news&columns/cage.cfm

Vote Label/Cliche in ’04
How Howard Dean got so "angry."
by Matt Taibbi

snip

I was on that plane, and I can report that the "angry" issue (as well as the "journalists hate Dean" issue) was something that was much discussed among the journalists. Mostly we thought it didn’t make too much sense. With us reporters on the plane, Dean was never anything but congenial and accommodating. And in his speeches and public appearances, he presented the full gamut of emotions. I think I speak for a lot of the reporters in saying that had I not just read the Fineman and Tumulty pieces, I would’nt have been aware that he was any angrier than any other candidate running for office. Christ, Dick Gephardt by comparison is a raving lunatic: waving his finger all the time and screeching, "Bush is a miserable failure!" with that creepy mask-like face of his. The only difference is, Gephardt’s speaking in front of 10 people.

snip

Nonetheless, because of the Time-Newsweek stories, a large percentage of the reporters on the Dean plane felt that they had to at least address the "angry" issue. And so a great many of us talked about Dean having the reputation for an angry public style, and this focus frequently came at the expense of actually explaining to readers what Dean’s positions were. Emphasis added.

snip

The effect of all of this is like a chamber of mirrors. Once the "Dean is angry" issue gets mentioned in enough places, it replicates endlessly and after a period of time becomes a fact in itself, existing more or less independently of the candidate. Four months ago, "angry" was merely a description of Howard Dean. Now, in many places, it practically substitutes for his name. Just ask the New York Post, which the other day asked in its house editorial:

"But who is Howard Dean? That’s not clear–apart, that is, from being the angriest opponent of the president’s post 9/11 foreign policy."

-- more --

Eloriel

[LWolf]

28. Please see #7.

[Mairead]

38. Hope of what, Eloriel -- maintaining the status quo?

Because that's all Dean stands for. He stands for being elected, and for maintaining Bush's policies. His anger is a tactic rather than a response to an intolerable situation. If it were responsive, he would have policies that offer change. He wouldn't be saying that the war-industry budget is sacrosanct, that we can't pull our kids out of Iraq, that we can't take the profit out of healthcare, that we can't give queers full civil rights, that we have to maintain the drugs war, etc.

If his 'anger' were real and meant anything, he'd stand for real change. But it doesn't mean anything, and he doesn't stand for anything. The biggest change he stands for --the ONLY change-- is him being elected. Whoopee.

We should demand more than that.

[Desertrose]

36. OMG LWolf...this anger thread IS all about Dean

I am laughing at the absudity of this whole thread...

Exactly what Dennis was trying to talk about...

OK...Dean is the sun and all revolves around him..but not in an angry way ...LOL

Look how many angry Dean supporters have jumped on here & hijacked your thread about how they are not angry, Dean is not angry- never about what you were trying to get accross. This is why our country will not change.... I was hoping it was ready but.....



SIGH............
(anyhow...thanks for the original post LWolf)

:grouphug:
Peace
DR

[Hep]

37. Repeating it doesn't make anything true.

Let's just be frank, shall we? If Kucinich wasn't talking about Dean, then he's an idiot. OK, fair enough? I tried to explain it in nicer terms. But the above is all you got out of the conversation, so I'm going to have to drop it down a notch.

If this wasn't Kucinich making commentary about Dean, then Kucinich is the worst politician in the race.

Of course, if you were to go by his numbers...

[Desertrose]

43. sorry hep I really

don't want to deliberately upset you....

but there are other things to consider beyond Dean...Dennis always speaks to the highest good of things...all I can say about whether his comment is about Dean or not being about Dean

"if the shoe fits...."


Peace
DR

[Hep]

46. Fair enough!

and if you go by what the clowning media says, then the shoe fits. But if you take a FAIR and HONEST approach, it doesn't.

[diamondsoul]

69. Please see

post #65 and tell me what isn't fair and honest about my comments. I went by what Howard Dean said, not what the media said.

[LWolf]

47. The point you have chosen

not to "get," is that our point, and our conversation, is not about HD. I get your inference. I already told you that. That just isn't where I want to go with the conversation. If I want to talk about HBD, I don't have to start a thread. I could just jump into one of the others already on the board. Which you might notice doesn't happen too often, because I'm not that interested in the discussion.

I'm interested in discussing who/what has control of the reins. Is anger in charge, or are we? Have we become addicted to anger for the sake of anger, or is it something we use judiciously?

As a nation? As a party? As a message board?

[Hep]

50. Who would actually say, YES, anger is in charge?

?

[LWolf]

51. I'm making an inference.

I infer that those who rush in ready to do battle over the virtues of anger, without considering the context, are telling me that anger is in charge, at least where they are concerned.

[LWolf]

48. You've got it!

I will never put "anger" in a thread title again. It attracts angry people who want to fight about anger, instead of a discussion about whether anger is the force we want to define us. Not so coincidentally, you'll remember a year ago when I was looking at candidates and attracted to the energy generated; then chose the candidate whose energy was passionate, not angry.

[Tinoire]

52. Kucinich is absolutely correct & this is why I back him 110%

Despite what some people are saying, IMO, this does have to do with Dean and all other Dems who are harping on their anger because they bring little else to the table. Dean is angry- exploiting people's anger. And people are so blinded by their anger that they're latching on to Dean because of it. They're not even noticing his inconsistencies on the issues or lack of progressive depth- and why? -because he resonates with their anger. At the last debate, where I thought Dean did fairly well, he still didn't answer the questions and the moderator had to repeat them (the one I cared about, he still never answered) because Dean just kept going off into anti-Bush mode. I'm sorry but that's not enough for me and it shouldn't be enought for any voter. DEMAND REAL ANSWERS!

One reason I've always preferred Kucinich is because anger blinds and Kucinich, from the start, has been speaking to my grief. I'm in total mourning for my country which is why if anyone but Kucinich wins, I will soon be moving out. I have no patience for what's to come. I am totally against the establishment's blueprint and every single candidate out there except for Sharpton and Kucinich are going to follow it to a T.

Brought to you by a child who was forbidden from watching more than 2 hrs of TV/week because my psychiatrist mother said it would affect my critical reasoning skills. Thank you mom! :toast:

[SEAburb]

54. But Kucinich is running as the anti-everything candidate

and that is a negative message. Negative themes turn off voters too.

[LWolf]

57. Dennis isn't running as the anti-anything candidate.

How the media chooses to portray him would lead you to think that, though.

His candidacy is about a pro-gressive vision.

He is pro-peace.

He is pro-health care.

He is pro-education.

He is pro-social security.

He is pro-living wage.

He is pro-civil liberties.

He is pro-diplomacy.

He is pro-environment.

He is pro-labor.

He is pro-HOPE.

[Mairead]

63. I think you should check your facts

Kucinich has a nearly complete and well-articulated program for change. He's 'anti-everything' only in the sense that we are circling the drain right now and he wants us to pull ourselves to safety before it's too late.

His policies include putting the war industry on a diet, ending the futile and murderous drugs war, taking the profits out of healthcare, pulling our kids out of Iraq while they're still breathing and in one piece, and creating good jobs for USAians rather than excess profits for the international wealthy elite.

What could any working person object to in that?

[goodhue]

68. wrong

His core message is one of returning America to its glorious journey.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/10key.php

Dennis Kucinich: The Progressive Vision

It's time for America to resume its glorious journey. Time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights. Time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. Time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies. Time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media. Time for those who have much to help those who have little by maintaining a progressive tax structure. Time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true because the government is on the side of its people.

[Terwilliger]

74. anti bullshit regular institutionalized routine political machinations?

Besides, the positive Dems aren't making any progress either.

[diamondsoul]

65. The absolute insistance that this

is ALL about Dean is just stunning.*sigh*

I've been angry for about 15 years now, and I beg to differ with Hep's assertion that anger isn't related to hopelessness.

You know, eventually sustaining anger just sucks all the energy out of you. You wind up with no energy to actually fight the source of the anger, and that's when people just give up. That's when we get apathy and hopelessness. I ought to know because until I read the Kucinich platform in early March, I was a victim of pointless outrage turned to hopelessness and apathy.

When we elected Clinton, I was angry. It didn't do me any good to be angry, there was nothing to be gained from it. When Gore and Bush ran, I was angry at the thought of Bush being elected. Look how much good that did me. Now I'm agry with Bush on a level I have never been agry with any President before, only THIS TIME the anger has a purpose! There will be something good to focus on when I get rid of the source of my anger. THIS time there's HOPE BEYOND THE ANGER, but the only candidate who gave me that message was Dennis Kucinich.

Howard Dean on Universal Single-payer Healthcare= I'll sign it if it comes to my desk but that's as much as I'm going to do about it. We gotta get people into the system before we change the system- Except Howard? How are you going to get people into the system without changing it? How are you going to insure every single American if you aren't willing to make that a clear and definite goal of your administration?

Dennis Kucinich on Universal Single-payer Healthcare= Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a human right and I intend to make that happen.

No hedging no hem-hawing around, simple, straight up if you vote for me I will stand up and demand what you the people want and need.

Now, I used Dean because that seems to be what his supporters want me to do. Show me the hope in Dean's message about Healthcare. Show me what I'll have to be relieved about once we defeat George Bush, and tell me why I shouldn't just stay home instead of voting for someone who has no intention of demanding what the voters want?

Forget naming candidates, what LWolf is asking is what is there after the source of your anger is gone to keep you going? Look at the platforms and the rhetoric and consider that question.

[1floridademocrat]

66. To quote St. Augustine..

"Hope has 2 daughters.. Anger and courage. Anger at the way things are, courage to change them"

Which Dennis would know.. since hes a Catholic! 8)

[twilight]

73. hi!!!

:hi: and welcome to the DU.

That is a great quote from St. Augustine - I had a cousin with that as here middle name and yes, I'm Catholic too. :D



:dem: :kick:

[Terwilliger]

72. I appreciate Dennis but he's losing badly

Maybe anger does work.

[goodhue]

75. well

I think DK is talking more about the general election and building sustainable movements for change. Anger can certainly be effective in rallying the base but anger ultimately dissipates and generally feeds the status quo. Anger turns people off to the process and keeps new voters and swing voters away from the polls.

In contrast is hope and courage to put forth an alternative vision in the face of darkness; to be a lone bird on a wire in the knowledge that others will join. I think DK sincerely has the best interest of the party in mind and is trying to steer the candidates as much as possible to the progressive vision he holds forth. In that respect, he has been somewhat effective.

I've noticed Dean talking a little bit about hope lately and that's a good thing. I wish he would keep faith out of it however.

[Mairead]

76. I think this election will be a litmus test

Because if Dean --who stands only for being elected-- is elected, then I think we're going to have a pretty good idea about the number of Really Stupid people in the US.

The author Robert Fulghum wrote in one of his books about a man he knew who complained about the day-to-day sameness of his lunches. But when, after weeks of these complaints, Fulghum probed a little further, it turned out that the guy made his own lunches. There's a lesson there.

If Dean is elected and delivers, as is his stated plan, a continuation of Bush's policies, what will happen? Will we have people telling us that the lemon is really sweet, as they did and do about Clinton's time? Or will everyone suddenly start claiming they voted for Kucinich?

[dpbrown]

77. You can't win on anger against Bush alone

There are plenty of people who can see through the rhetoric and who are ready to vote for a person with the best ideas.

And that's Kucinich.

[Printer70]

78. Kucinich can't be angry because people would laugh

It would look ridiculous. He doesn't have the command presence or voice to pull it off. When Dean's angry, it comes across as intended. Granted, I think anger has its limits, but not everyone call put if off to their advantage.

[Clark Can WIN]

79. do we campaign as a snarling dog? Snapping, biting and continuing

the terrible divide in this country? Or do we offer light and hope? I'm with DK on this one definately. Good for him.

[LWolf]

80. Good analogy.

Light and hope is the way.

:toast:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. I spent the afternoon with some relatives

who are planning to caucus, and Dean does not appeal to them. They're leaning Clark, because they think there is something "off" about Dean. They're angry at Bush, but they want to see something beyond anger. They think Dean is a great campaigner, but they have doubts about what he would be like governing. They like Kucinich, but they buy into the meme that says that he "can't win." (Pause to bang head against wall.)

Okay, I'll restate in a different way what LWolf and Mairead and others have repeated. Anger is a necessary but not sufficient condition for changing this nation.

[Zomby Woof]

85. ZombyDKick