Dean's biggest shortcoming

[Tmy]

Howie Dean seems to be kinda short. Im guessing 5'7 or 5'6. Whos going to vote a midget into office? Dont people usually vote foe the taller guy?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Howie Dean seems to be kinda short. Im guessing 5'7 or 5'6. Whos going to vote a midget into office? Dont people usually vote foe the taller guy?

I recall reading during the last campaign that since television, the only candidate to be shorter than the other guy and win was Carter against Ford. (Gore is taller than Bush, so he was expected to win - I doubt we want to get into that)

The taller guy generally wins.

umm... here (http://www.hillnews.com/living/102903_here.aspx) is a link. Kerry and Gephardt are taller than Bush. Sharpton is as tall. The others are all shorter.

[VicDaring]

Intellectually, Dean towers over Dubya.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Intellectually, Dean towers over Dubya.

Dean is to intellectuals as Winger was to heavy metal.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by corplinx
Dean is to intellectuals as Winger was to heavy metal.

Good line.

Wrong. But great line nonetheless.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx


Dean is to intellectuals as Winger was to heavy metal.

Perhaps so, but within that analogy Bush is best compared to Pat Boone. (Yes he did release a heavy metal album. Can I get a link?)

Yes I can. View at your own risk... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000005KOE/qid=1073924977/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-1106030-2483337)

[Tmy]

HEY! Everyone liked Winger. They were just afraid to admit it cause Winger wasnt "cool". It wasnt about the music, but the image. (Hmmm I guess the analogy does hold up)

Come on we all know the words........"Shes only 17, she'll give you love liek youve never seen.."

[Drooper]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Intellectually, Dean towers over Dubya.

Well, I have read a deal about his economics. He acts deceptively like a moron.

[Aoidoi]

Well, if we're going for superficial (and this is politics ;)), then I'd have to say Dean's biggest problem is that freaky smile of his. The Daily Show has been having a field day with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/elec04.prez.iowa.last.debate/index.html

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Perhaps so, but within that analogy Bush is best compared to Pat Boone.

Probably, I just don't want this forum becoming another meme pool for this silly "Dean intellectual" crap I see spreading around. Simply put, I think its a big lie some are trying to get established so it won't be questioned. Since there isn't exactly an "intellectual board" that certifies intellectuals, there is no real way to dispute the claim (and of course, no real way to support it).



Here is 192 pages of Dean's own book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743255712/qid=1073926431/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8212185-4853700) . Try reading it and comparing it to books by other intellectuals. Maybe side-by-side it with John Locke's second treatise of government.

If Howard Dean is an intellectual, then the bar has been set lower than its ever been.

[DavidJames]

"Well, I have read a deal about his economics. He acts deceptively like a moron."

To help us uninformed souls, I would love for you to reply with a detailed critique of his economics. And to help us analyze said critique, please also provide your qualifications, thanks.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx


Probably, I just don't want this forum becoming another meme pool for this silly "Dean intellectual" crap I see spreading around. Simply put, I think its a big lie some are trying to get established so it won't be questioned. Since there isn't exactly an "intellectual board" that certifies intellectuals, there is no real way to dispute the claim (and of course, no real way to support it).



Here is 192 pages of Dean's own book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743255712/qid=1073926431/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8212185-4853700) . Try reading it and comparing it to books by other intellectuals. Maybe side-by-side it with John Locke's second treatise of government.

If Howard Dean is an intellectual, then the bar has been set lower than its ever been.

I agree with the sentiment. In politics it would seem to me that the property of "being an intellectual" is simply the opposite of "having charisma." Anyone boring is automatically considered smart, and vice versa.

Anyone capable of surviving in politics as a career is most likely not very deep, unless the polls suggest he should be...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by corplinx


Dean is to intellectuals as Winger was to heavy metal.

Geez, I'm so out of touch with popular culture that I never heard of Winger (and yes I have read down the thread). That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Be that as it may, I do not consider Dean an intellectual. Nor W of course.

I'll say this for Dean, his mother says he's real good with the servants. Has anyone said the same for W?

Shut up mom! :p

[Troll]

I was watching one of the debates on MSNBC and as hard as I tried to focus on what it was Dean was saying I couldn't help but be focused on the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to turn his head without moving his body. Is it the clothes he wears or did he have some sort of neck injury or something? It was very distracting and when all was said and done I have a better recollection of what the other candidates had to say.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx


Probably, I just don't want this forum becoming another meme pool for this silly "Dean intellectual" crap I see spreading around. Simply put, I think its a big lie some are trying to get established so it won't be questioned. Since there isn't exactly an "intellectual board" that certifies intellectuals, there is no real way to dispute the claim (and of course, no real way to support it).



Here is 192 pages of Dean's own book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743255712/qid=1073926431/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8212185-4853700) . Try reading it and comparing it to books by other intellectuals. Maybe side-by-side it with John Locke's second treatise of government.

If Howard Dean is an intellectual, then the bar has been set lower than its ever been.

I saw the same setup regarding Bush, now it is simply accepted that he is a dope. I am sure that some here will say words to the effect "well, it's true". Oddly, most people that I know who hold that position never spoke with the man.

[rikzilla]

His biggest shortcoming?

His smirk. He looks like a smug, smirking a-hole. The man is un-electable...therefore he is a perfect candidate for the dems to put up against GWB. It practically guarantees Hillary's ascendance to the nomination for 2008.

-z

[Troll]

Well we can write Gephardt off if we're going by Bush's intelligence. I can't recall if it was Hardball or Hannity and Colmes, but on one of those two shows about 2 months back Gephardt claimed that Bush is far more intelligent than people think. So if Bush is a moron, where would that place Gephardt for calling him intelligent

*was supposed to be in response to Ed's post*

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla
His biggest shortcoming?

His smirk. He looks like a smug, smirking a-hole. The man is un-electable...therefore he is a perfect candidate for the dems to put up against GWB. It practically guarantees Hillary's ascendance to the nomination for 2008.

-z An obnoxious smirk didn't stop Bush from coming in a close 2nd in 2000.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
Howie Dean seems to be kinda short. Im guessing 5'7 or 5'6. Whos going to vote a midget into office? Dont people usually vote foe the taller guy?

The wierdest thing about him is the way he stands, ramrod stiff with his chin tucked in. He ends up looking like his head is continous with the rest of his body... very creepy.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Ed


The wierdest thing about him is the way he stands, ramrod stiff with his chin tucked in. He ends up looking like his head is continous with the rest of his body... very creepy.

He does remind me a bit of Sam the Eagle, from the Muppets.

http://my.athenet.net/~denij/Kermit&Sam.JPG



Or maybe Nicholson as the Joker.

http://www.shmana.com/images/joker_nicho.jpg


And I'm a Dean supporter.

EDITED: To try to fix images. Only one per post apparently?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed


The wierdest thing about him is the way he stands, ramrod stiff with his chin tucked in. He ends up looking like his head is continous with the rest of his body... very creepy. Body language is super important, isn't it? When Dukakis was running, not that he had much of a chance anyway, but I thought he was screwed in that he exacerbated his diminutive stature with with unflattering dress and 'closed-in' body language. Here was a little guy whose suit jackets had no padding in the shoulders (even though it's fairly standard in mens' suits), and didn't have the wherewithall to have someone analyze and advise regarding this. To top it off, when he went to shake hands with Bush in the debates, his elbow was tucked in at his side. I was astounded that in the 2nd and 3rd debates, no one had advised him to extend his friggin' arm when shaking hands with the President.

[Grammatron]

Is this a serious political thread or are you people trying out for a job with People magazine? Who cares how the guy stands, talks or smiles?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is this a serious political thread or are you people trying out for a job with People magazine? Who cares how the guy stands, talks or smiles? I, for one, want the nominee of the Democratic party to have a chance of beating Bush. From my perspective, the policy differences are not that big. So I then look at the politics of the matter, and how public perception is going to affect the outcome. I thought that Dukakis showed a serious lack of political saavy, as did Jerry Brown, for instance, in not doing the kinds of things that make a larger portion of voters who might support the policy feel comfortable with the man (or woman). This is no trivial matter. The presidency is largely about image.

Take another example... Bush (W) is alledgedly blessed with the super-duper cabinet and group of advisors (nevermind that even that is starting to look questionable), leaving him with the really important role of presenting a leadership face for the nation. But he fails woefully on that score, in that he is inarticulate and completely lost whey trying to speak off-the-cuff. Even if he were a brilliant man (which I doubt), he would not be serving us well by presenting a poor leadership and command image.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is this a serious political thread or are you people trying out for a job with People magazine? Who cares how the guy stands, talks or smiles?

A lot of people, I suspect. Incidentially, the "serious political thread" was begun by a question about Dean's height. Are you suggesting that we get back to more important matters like that?

OK.

Think he wears lifts?:D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by hgc
I, for one, want the nominee of the Democratic party to have a chance of beating Bush. From my perspective, the policy differences are not that big. So I then look at the politics of the matter, and how public perception is going to affect the outcome. I thought that Dukakis showed a serious lack of political saavy, as did Jerry Brown, for instance, in not doing the kinds of things that make a larger portion of voters who might support the policy feel comfortable with the man (or woman). This is no trivial matter. The presidency is largely about image.

Take another example... Bush (W) is alledgedly blessed with the super-duper cabinet and group of advisors (nevermind that even that is starting to look questionable), leaving him with the really important role of presenting a leadership face for the nation. But he fails woefully on that score, in that he is inarticulate and completely lost whey trying to speak off-the-cuff. Even if he were a brilliant man (which I doubt), he would not be serving us well by presenting a poor leadership and command image.

That maybe so, but I believe that in politics one must attack person's policies and actions rather than their ability to speak off-the-cuff, smile properly, or turn in a more proper fashion. If Dean is such a bad candidate for president -- and I agree with that -- then please show so, no need to drag the man through the mud, that's just plain low.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ed


A lot of people, I suspect. Incidentially, the "serious political thread" was begun by a question about Dean's height. Are you suggesting that we get back to more important matters like that?

OK.

Think he wears lifts?:D

I was questioning the entire thread, including its opening post. I think it's kind of sad that most of the presidential discussion turn to nothing more than third-person name-calling; your candidate has a weird smile! Oh yeah? Well your candidate looks like a monkey! Is that really the best that can be done?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I was questioning the entire thread, including its opening post. I think it's kind of sad that most of the presidential discussion turn to nothing more than third-person name-calling; your candidate has a weird smile! Oh yeah? Well your candidate looks like a monkey! Is that really the best that can be done?


I don't think that anything that they say is worth anything. George "Mr. Conservative" Bush is inculcating the Government into our lives like never before. Do you believe anything he says? I don't. You think Dean or any of the other swine are any better? I don't. They worship the God of election and they will do and say anything to propititiate Him. So if you want to delude yourself into thinking that these are people of integrity whose word can be taken to the bank, go right ahead.

All you've got is height and weight. And I ain't sure about height (lifts). Everything else is self serving, toadying, crap.

[VicDaring]

Gramma,

If you'd like, you can use this to come down from your high horse.
http://www.asi-cal-osha.com/images/llfs1505.jpg

Edited to add: Come to think of it, I guess Dean could use it for the debates (just to get back on topic).

[Ed]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Gramma,

If you'd like, you can use this to come down from your high horse.


First rung is a bit high for Dean, tho'.:D

[Tmy]

Gramm,

Are you saying that superficial or irrelevent characteristics dont effect politics?? IS it just a coinsidence that are presidents have all been healthy (appearence) white male christians???

Sure its kinda silly. Just like its silly how all the male members of Congress dress almost exactly the same. How many dark blue suits do these guys have?? Biggest decision they have to make is blue tie or red tie.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That maybe so, but I believe that in politics one must attack person's policies and actions rather than their ability to speak off-the-cuff, smile properly, or turn in a more proper fashion. If Dean is such a bad candidate for president -- and I agree with that -- then please show so, no need to drag the man through the mud, that's just plain low. Actually, I don't think Dean is such a bad candidate, just not the best from the perspective of electability. I think it's perfectly legitimate to characterize and criticize a candidate's electability and ability to communicate effectively.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ed



I don't think that anything that they say is worth anything. George "Mr. Conservative" Bush is inculcating the Government into our lives like never before. Do you believe anything he says? I don't. You think Dean or any of the other swine are any better? I don't. They worship the God of election and they will do and say anything to propititiate Him. So if you want to delude yourself into thinking that these are people of integrity whose word can be taken to the bank, go right ahead.

All you've got is height and weight. And I ain't sure about height (lifts). Everything else is self serving, toadying, crap.

If I had a choice I would chose "none of the above." However, I still like to think people get elected on issues and not looks, or lack there of.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by rikzilla
His biggest shortcoming?

His smirk. He looks like a smug, smirking a-hole.


The perfect match for W perhaps?

But I agree with you about unelectable.

I am a life-long Democrat, and I am disturbed about my party turning into a suicide cult.

I'd like to vote for Adlai Stevenson or Hubert H Humphrey.

Alas! :mad:

[CapelDodger]

from Troll (amid many similar comments):
Is it the clothes he wears or did he have some sort of neck injury or something? It was very distracting and when all was said and done I have a better recollection of what the other candidates had to say.
Ain't democracy great? It provides a distraction for the whole population while the real business gets done, and they come out of it thinking their opinions have made a difference. The original "Reality TV".

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron


If I had a choice I would chose "none of the above." However, I still like to think people get elected on issues and not looks, or lack there of.

Yes, they get elected by mouthing platitudes on issues defined by their research staff. What they say and what they do and how they feel are different things.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tmy
HEY! Everyone liked Winger. They were just afraid to admit it cause Winger wasnt "cool". It wasnt about the music, but the image. (Hmmm I guess the analogy does hold up)

Come on we all know the words........"Shes only 17, she'll give you love liek youve never seen.."

I still play my Winger CD. What an insult to Winger to, even in analogy, liken them to Dean. ;)

[shuize]

Dean's biggest shortcoming? None. He's perfect. Please nominate him.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shuize
Dean's biggest shortcoming? None. He's perfect. Please nominate him.

None of the candidates are anywhere near the definition of the word perfect.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


None of the candidates are anywhere near the definition of the word perfect.

I think shuize meant it in the spirit of National Review's Please Nominate This Man (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_11_30_corner-archive.asp#020600) cover story.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That maybe so, but I believe that in politics one must attack person's policies and actions rather than their ability to speak off-the-cuff, smile properly, or turn in a more proper fashion. If Dean is such a bad candidate for president -- and I agree with that -- then please show so, no need to drag the man through the mud, that's just plain low.

Just to play with the Devil's avocado, why? Policies are carefully drafted by spin doctors for political effect. As for body language, that is a kind of action, and one that we might do better to pay more attention to. Oliver Sachs wrote about a ward of people who suffered damage to a part of the brain that in most people is responsible for integrating language with other cues. They loved to watch political broadcasts and laughed uproriously, because they could see the dramatic contrast between what the politicians were saying with their mouths and what they were saying with their bodies (which was usually "I am lying!").

Personally, what bothers me about Dean is what might euphemistically be called his poor impulse control. I'd rather have a complete incompetent in the White House than someone inclined to fly off the handle.

[Ed]

Originally posted by epepke



Personally, what bothers me about Dean is what might euphemistically be called his poor impulse control. I'd rather have a complete incompetent in the White House than someone inclined to fly off the handle.

Witness his little tirade directed at some poor schmuck yesterday.

John Dean: Doctor Assisted Suicide for the Democratic Party!

(Heard that yesterday)