I know nothing about the guy that wrote it but it is a 100% opinion article based on a few instances in which he thinks Dean sounded less than intelligent or made some illogical conclusions. It's an article written for people who would not consider voting for Dean in the first place just so they can sit back and feel more confident about Bush.

No one has really attacked Dean's intelligence (probably because they realize that Bush cannot attck this). This writer is just trying to cause a stink. I thought large majority of his logic was rather specious at best.

Like what? Anything specific? Just curious.

So is the real problem here that he used the work "pretty" to describe something. I think that anyone who has their verbal utterings committed to print would see some sentences that don't come out sounding perfect.

The writer then goes on to say that Dean is not of the inquisitive deep intellect that we believe because he limits the fight for marriage to semantics. However, to Dean and to many of our supporters, it is a matter of semantics. If civil unions can provide us all the protections of marriage, then I'm all for it just like Dean is.

Essentially, this guy took a few quotes out of context and picked on them, I just don't think that's a strong case for anything.

By the way, isn't it pretty bad that this guy is just trying to say that Dean is just as dumb as Bush. Doesn't really inspire confidence.

For what it's worth, I didn't post the article, and it was actually written by George Will.

I think the point is hardly that Dean is as dumb as President Bush. George Will (DC guy, you've never heard of George Will? Do you read the Post oped page on Sundays? He's not particularly obscure) has never said President Bush is dumb, and is not saying this about Dean now. (For what it's worth, Will has written a few columns questioning the ideas and principles behind the Bush Administration's "occupation" of Iraq, and has noted, to some extent persuasively, that the idea of exporting "American values" to foreign shores is a bit absurd. Despite the Bush/Ashcroft Administration's vicious crackdown on dissent and free speech, George Will STILL isn't in prison. It's quite breathtaking.)

At any rate, it's just that Dean's supporters have this snooty impression that Dean is some sort of intellectual powerhouse and refined statesman who would not subject America to the sort of humiliating verbal gaffes often committed by President Bush. (Funny, the "well, some things spoken off the cuff look weird on paper" excuse is never deemed valid for W.) Dean has, of course, proved them wrong on many occasions (I have a bridge for sale in the Soviet Union, if anyone's interested), but it never seems to matter. Part of Dean's draw is this sort of snob appeal, a nothing he actually says seems to change it.

As to this particular point, the idea that the debate over gay marriage hinges on some semantic quirk by those who are "pretty religious" strikes me as a bit flippant, and rather, even extraordinarily, condescending, what with the idea that the "pretty religious" are just simple folk who'll be fine and won't give the nuances of "civil unions" any unnecessary thought as long as good, smart people like Dean and DC guy pat them on the heads and say, "Oh, no, no, it's not marriage, don't you worry your pretty little religious head about that."

(By the way, what's the criteria for "pretty religious"? To qualify, do you have to go to church a certain number of Sundays out of the year? Is there some sort of potluck or picnic cookoff to determine who makes the cut? Just wondering.)

This whole "pretty religious" comment is really a minor part of George Will's column, but again, it just seems pretty flip for a guy who's supposed to have such an awe-inspiring grasp of the issues.

[ December 08, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Actually I do know George Will, I don't know what I was thinking, I had just read an article posted elsewhere and had it in my head that that person was the author. I guess I'm as dumb as Bush too.

We all are, sometimes.

Geez William, I don't think I tried to make myself out to be better than everyone else. I'm just saying that to me, the separation between religious marriage and civial marriage is being lost in the debate (mainly because conservative groups want it that way). I didn't pat anyone on the head and your tone in your response basically stinks. I don't think I get too combative on this site, I just thought Will didn't make a very good case in his article, it sounds just like bashing.

Byt he way, Bush does get bashed in much the same way, however, being President, he's just had a lot more opportunities to show an inability to get his point across eloquently. For what it's worth, you'll never find me making fun of Bush's verbal mistakes. I don't really care how he sounds, I care what he stands for and I don't agree with it on many issues (but not all).

I don't support Dean for some intellectually superior reason, I like what he believes and stands for. He's not perfect, but he's got me more interested in a Presidential primary than any other time in my life. He's the first political candidate I've ever given money to.

Finally, if you want to see people who think they're superior, look no further than the new "South Park" conservatives all part of the hipster movement. That's a group that think they're more clued in than the rest of the world on issues of politics, culture and basically everything else. It's not just Dean supporters.

Personally I don't think Dean is a snooty intellectual powerhouse as you said William. I think the man is quite bright however. I don't know too many Doctors, who are not bright. I also don't think Dean is arrogant either, as alot of people on the right paint him out to be. He is no more and no less arrogant than the person occupying the White House at the present time. George Will, is an interesting study. I read his columns and am quite familiar with the man.Is a regular on "This Week" on Sundays with George Stephanopoulas. He seems to come off an an Independant with right leanings. I have seen several of his columns where is praises Dean to no end, then this latest one where he tries to pick apart Dean with his supposedly superior intellect..

Who are these hipster people you guys keep talking about? I've never heard of them, and I'm more clued in than the rest of the world on issues of politics, culture and basically everything else. I know they guys who do South Park are Republicans, but I don't think they're conservatives per se. My friends and I are trendy, well-dressed, well-read, up on pop culture, etc, but it's nothing new, it's been that way since I moved up here in 1998. Maybe people are just now catching up to us.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is a remarkably complex issue, riddled with various religious and secular interpretations and cloaked in eons of tradition.

Whatever. I'm all for essentially privatizing marriage, and making civil and religious marriages completely separate entitities, with churches deciding which marriages to bless and which not. (I'm a conservative. Can I just arbitrarily dictate that this is what the marriage debate will be about? If so, will somebody please send me a private message with details of how to go about that? Thanks.)

Not sure if that's what you're talking about, DC, but I think the question goes far, far beyond one word or some semantic debate. Such a plan, or any separation of civil marriages from religious ones, would require a major restructuring of marriage as we know and understand it, and lots of "pretty religious" people would have to understand why it would be a good thing for religion. This idea that "pretty religious" people are so shallow that it's just a word thing strikes me as absurd and, yes, condescending.

Well I for one have never considered George Bush stupid, per se. I do believe he is ignorant, that is to say, uneducated in the broadest sense of the term. I really don't believe Bush has ever had experiences outside his narrow rich-kid, Dad-will-fix-everything world. Dean comes from a very similar background, but seems to have grown more as an adult than Bush has. Not to mention Dean did not drink his way through some of the finest educational institutions in America. Bush may have the pieces of paper from Yale and Harvard, but he does not have the knowledge that normally goes with them (certainly the MBA did not seem to improve his record in business).

As for Mr. Will - do you think he would ever write anything remotely positive about Dean? His thinking is too often lockstep with the conservative establishment, whoever they may be this year, and his stock in trade seems to be using polysyllabic words and overly complex analyses to arrive at the very same place that every other conservative has. Example?

In other words, Bush is cocky but his detractors don't believe he has any reason to be.

George Will is the epitome of the self-impressed thinker - so convinced his ideas and conceits are perfect that his political opponents must be idiots to believe the way they do. The ONLY thing I have ever agreed with him about is baseball, where he seems to be a passionate supporter of the common player.

We will see many more columns like this from Mr. Will if Dean does win the nomination.

Hipster culture is primarly a fashion fad (ever heard of Von Dutch) to most people, but has political ideals at its core group. I'm not going to go into much detail, because I get too frustrated. Hipsters are all the affluent, white, recently out of college folks you see walking around wearing trucker or farming hats with mesh backs and novelty t-shirts. Think Ashton Kutcher (Ugh, I hate thinking about him) They're very "clued in" to culture and all the new independent films and bands that come out every week. Typically tend to look down on most of the world as having poorly refined taste. However, lots of people wearing the clothes are doing just that and may not subscribe to this arrogance. Of late, it has become a lot about marketing instead of ideology.

The founders of the movement, also the editors of Vice Magazine, take it much further. They have reactionary political idea including sending all the foreigner in this country "back home". The essentially wanted to try and invent some sort of culture that would combat the pervasiveness of blacks in popular culture with hip hop and rap. They wanted something specifically white and preferably affluent only. They're midwesterners and so were most hipsters for quite a while. Now that fashion and marketing have gotten into the mix, it's being pushed to a wider segment of consumers and some of the original bigoted ideology has been subdued.

Some conservative commentators are marking this as the new breed of conservative. I think this is a big mistake, because it takes all the negative ideas of republicans and conservatives (affluent and white only) and mixes them with the bad stereotypes of the democrats (arrogant and holier than thou). I only hope it's something that will go away with time.

Arrogant prat. Just because you're "clued in" doesn't mean you actually have a clue. I bet I know far more about music--all styles, all aspects--than you do. I also know more about sports than you do. Others here could trounce you on other cultural issues. So you know a lot about politics--big deal. So do others here (hey Fantomas, how ya doin'?) and especially elsewhere. Typical Beltway smugness.

And if you're so "clued in", why haven't you seen this or this from the NRO, which you've linked to or any of the other articles on this?

Shorter W1865: If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

[ December 08, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

William,

I don't know where you lived before moving to DC. But as anyone who is really a DC resident can tell you, DC is NOT a place that can be described as "trendy, well-dressed, well-read, up on pop culture, etc" (and I'm saying that as a former full time DC resident who still loves the city)


Maybe compared to your previous residence (Branson? Norman? Tallahassee?) DC is trendier and better dressed. I mean.... there is a Saks-Jandel (not to be confused with Saks 5th) on Wisconsin Ave in Friendship Heights. But the closest thing to a Gucci boutique in DC is the Gucci dept at Neiman-Marcus. and the only way I could get my Zegna shirts and my Ferre suits was by special order from my personal shopper at Neimans. and I stopped shopping for conservative clothes in DC ever since Britches of Georgetown turned into another Gap.
(and no.. Abercrombie & Fitch in Georgetown doesn't count as "fashion")

DC is conservative, staid, calm and intellectual.(that's why I love the city) "trendy, well dressed and up on pop culture" it is not. ask all the DC club kids who have to travel to NYC on the weekends to have a truly "trendy well dressed" weekend. (here's a hint: Tucker Carlson is not an example of "hip") In fact, compared to NYC, LA, Paris, London, Madrid, Tokyo etc... DC is definitely NOT the city that the "rest of the world has to catch up to"

[ December 08, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Not to be mean there mr cnn, but charging up the the credit card on expensive cloths doesnt make you trendy, it makes you a snob. I'm walkin around with a mop top (thanks to mdphl that bastard) and i think thats trendy and breaking the mold. Plus it didnt cost 300 bucks a pop.

WM1865 IS well read, then again so is raze.

sweetie, What do you think "trendy and well dressed" means?

Please note. I simply gave the state of shopping in DC and how I coped there. Just the facts maam. I was not the one claiming that the rest of the world was just now catching up to him. In fact, I have never claimed to be "trendy and well dressed" Have I? In fact, I have no desire to be.

So sweetie, please stop putting words in my mouth and stop taking words out of others mouths also.

By the way.... believe me.. anything done in Phoenix is definitely NOT trendy.

[ December 08, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

mr cnn there is no other way to take your statement other than, if you dont shop at some little NYC shop... you aint trendy. Or wearing some frenchie-non-bath-taking-shirt...

And i beg to differ, the mop top has gotten me more attention than any shirt i've ever worn. Since i'm in phx, well hell yeah we are quite trendy then. But hey i wear flip flops, so what do i know?

Jimbo, I was being a bit sarcastic there, or at least facetious. Whatever. At any rate, NRO has gotten quite boring, in my opinion, and I've always found The Corner to be unbearable. Kathryn Jean Lopez seems like an idiot.

[ December 08, 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Wow -- that was below the belt. wink

Honey-pie, Zegna isn't french. It's italian.

well.. I suppose that's good for you, doll. But a pity nonetheless that you have to put on a "mop top" to get some attention. Me. I'm not so desperate for attention or validation.

Meeeee-yoowww. For what it's worth, there's a Gucci boutique out at Tysons - Fairfax Square, to be specific. Gucci, Tiffany, Hermes, and a few others, can't remember what.

Whatever. I'm very well-dressed, admittedly in a preppy sort of way. I find Gucci, etc. to be rather pretentious and Euro-trashy.

Jeez, Ung, what a bitchy little response. I've never.

[ December 08, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

william,

I was being a bit sarcastic and facetious there. Couldn't you tell?

Let's see if I can change the tone on this Howard Dean thread (not Zegna;Canali;Magli). The man is coming to Philly tomorrow for a luncheon. Expecting a good crowd. Maybe I can get him to wear an Eagles jersey so PhillyFan will become a supporter.

Lets get this back on topic. Just in from CNN, Al Gore (the man who got more votes than Shrub) has just announced he will endorse Howard Dean for President, and will in fact travel to New Hampshire with Dean. He will make the formal announcement on Tuesday. This is huge for Howard. The momentum just continues on and on and on. Go Howard Go!!!!!!

Oh baby doll touche.. that was quite good. I'm impressed.

Now if you'll excuse me i'm gonna go look up some big words so i can make myself look at smart as you...ummm and my euro trash gucci socks...

Good idea mdphl. My level of bitchiness was even getting on my damn nerves. wink

anyway, interesting article in sundays Times magazine about the gen-Zers working non-stop for Dean's campaign.

On one hand, I was glad to see support and devotion for Dean. But on the other hand I was sort of ..... scared? saddened?... can't think of the exact word. But the 20 somethings and the teenagers profiled all had no girlfriends, no social lives and saw Dean as something messianic. It was scary! (That's the word)

One Dean HQ worker even said that "Dean becoming president is only a side effect" to what the Dean campaign was trying to do. (huh?)

as I read the article, I kept thinking "what are these kids gonna do when the campaign is over?"

as for the Gore endorsement.... To me that is NOT a positive thing. Al Gore represents establishment, entrenched, Washington, Terry McAuliffe Democratic party as much as anyone. Dean had been running against that element as much as the W.Bush White House. And now he's campaigning WITH the loser of the last election? Ugh!

[ December 08, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

No.

Probably got to work for Goldman Sacks...geez, your bitchiness is wearing off -- or is that cynicism?

Puckman -- huge development about Gore. That will drive a stake through Joe Lieberman's heart.

W1865, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if you were being snarky--you're from Mississipi so I thought that you couldn't seriously be making that claim so I used the default "attack" mode.

Ung, I saw the NYT magazine at my friends house while I was watching football but didn't read the article on the Dean-ites. Other than the "never kissed a girl" aspect of it, is it any good?

The right wingnuts are going to go insane with the news of the Gore endorsement; the Republican attack machine is probably gearing up as I type.

[ December 08, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

The article was good. in that it was interesting. But it really didn't leave me with a warm glow about the Dean campaigners. Unless you're a fan of the "revenge of The Nerds" movies.

and yeah.... Dean can't possibly proclaim himself to be anti-establishment if he's sharing a bunkbed with the most establishment democrat pol out there.

mdphl: agree with you about stakes in hearts. Lieberman is toast, and always has been with me. Another reason this is huge, is that Dean is an outsider, and to have somebody as big as Gore the Insider supporting him is remarkable. Good, lets get the right wing all pumped up, because the left wing has been for some time now! As Shrub would say, "bring it on". Go Howard!

But earlier you said the right wing was already all pumped up over Dean. You want us to get pumped up more? Isn't there some Lords of Acid song about pumping your body up or something? Is Howard Dean a metrosexual Lord of Acid from the Soviet Union? I swear, this whole campaign just gets curiouser and curiouser.

William -- curious is an interesting word choice -- I think strange might also work. And just think -- we haven't even begun the election process.

He's a white Republican, not an Arab.

Mdphl, I know what you mean. I have this weird combination of utter rage at BushCo. fighting for space in my head with utter bemusement at how stupid politicians and the political process are. It's the old laugh/cry dichotomy. I've been through some rough political battles, like Proposition 206 here in California in the 80's to quarantine all AIDS/HIV + sufferers, but this presidential election is going to be on another level altogether. It's going to be brutal which is why I have to stay away from the P&R thread and the blogs I read for a few days every once in a while to recharge. There's a looonnngggg way to go.

Ung, thanks for the capsule review of the NYT Dean-ite article. I'll read it online. Revenge of the Nerds? Anthony Edwards standing around in wet underwear when he still had hair? I'm so there.

[ December 08, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Dean is obviously smart; as others have said, you don't get an M.D. in the United States (even at the worst medical schools, and Dean went to a very good one) without having some brains. But being smart and being intellectually curious to the point of genius are two different things. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Wilson, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and most recently Bill Clinton, were not just sharp, but generally considered to be intellectually dazzling. (A corollary is intellectual suppleness, which can slide in slipperiness, which was Clinton's problem.) That said, only a few of them were truly good presidents (the Adamses were both awful in the top job, Wilson was so-so).

I think it's generally agreed that George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan, to name another group, were perhaps not the brightest folks among their peers, but all possessed qualities that made them leaders. One very interesting thing about Washington, Roosevelt, and Reagan, to pick those three, was that they did possess some intellectual curiosity; Reagan's mind may have been going during the 1980s, but before that point, he did read books, think and attempt to articulate the ideological positions on which he ran for governor and president.

Then you have the Nixons, who are very smart and intellectually supple but morally bankrupt; or the people like Warren Harding who were acknowledged to be neither bright nor possessed of leadership but in the right place at the right time....

Now, I'm no presidential historian, and I suppose there are always the examples of Millard Filmore and William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor to throw up with regard to intelligence not being necessarily even a secondary issue of importance for election, but I would venture that W is one of the least intellectually agile people we have ever elected, as a nation. He cannot speak off the cuff on almost any topic that pertains to his job; he admits that he is doesn't read very much at all, least of all, it seems, the news, or think things through; and I think his 3 years in office have shown that he is just not possessed of much intellectual wherewithal at all. BUT...a huge but...he is a SHREWD politician, with a gift for seducing people that I'm sure his father, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale, would have killed for. Or rather, he is able to seduce the media, which interposes itself between the government and the people, and in this regard, he has certain skills that I think Al Gore, a far smarter man, simply did not possess. But W is not a very good leader at all. He's awful, and eventually, the steady diet of lies and half-truths and charades he and company are up to will come back to haunt him, and us.

As for Dean, I am going to vote for him if he gets the nomination, and I believe he's quite smart, but that he's not intellectually all that curious, and that he's also a bit...nutty. Or rather irascible and emotional and incapble of admitting mistakes (here we go again!). Arrogant. And, I have been listening to his answers to voters' questions, and he often doesn't say anything that strikes me as new, or interesting, though sometimes he does appear genuine. He doesn't pander like the saccharine sops Edwards and now Gephardt (okay, we got it, your dad was a milkman, your son almost died but you had healthcare, you're from the heartland--please, find some new things to say!!!), nor is he trying to be something he's not, like Kerry, nor is he a whining conservative crybaby/onshikenish like Lieberman. But he's...strangely off key a lot. Like, when Demo voters in Florida (a state he now must win because of the Census shifts, and which is winnable), were asking him about the future of decent-paying jobs, or the threat of non-paper-producing voting machines, or racial issues, etc., he sort of goes on his tangents, but DOESN'T ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS.

Maybe the consultants have told ALL of these folks (except Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton and Red Army affiliate Dennis Kucinich) NOT to answer questions truthfully, but to babble in buzzwords and other nonsense that polls well, but it's starting to bother me that Dean at times really keeps talking as if he hasn't a clue. I think he does have more of a clue than W, who's policies are truly harmful to the vast majority of Americans and who instead of a clue has conviction and zealotry, but Dean really doesn't articulate well that he is going to address the concerns of the mass of America, who could put him into office. Maybe I'm just catching the wrong bits, but as I said, if he gets the nomination, he'll get my vote. My passion for the guy isn't there, though, and I know that if he turned on the core constituencies, I wouldn't feel ideologically betrayed as I did repeatedly during Clinton's first term.

[ December 08, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I don't have a link, so I'll just paste this from the Talking Points Memo blog: Ouch: "That is why I kept my promise not to run". Bitter, table for one. Uh, Mr. Bitter, your table is ready. Will Gore be on Lieberman's Holidy card list?

[ December 08, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

JA, puckman, et. al., I don't think this is the case at all.

Looking at the Gore endorsement strictly from a political perspective here, this is what I am convinced of, beyond a shadow of a doubt...

Gore does not believe nor truly want Dean to win.

Gore has serious eyes on the 2008 nomination. He never wanted to do it in 2004, figuring he'd bide his time till 2008. This is quite understandable.

The Gores are also not on the friendliest of terms with the Clintons right now, and the LAST thing Gore wants is for Hillary to go for it in 2008. If Dean wins in 2004, this pushes back both Gore and Hillary until 2012 conceivably. However, if Dean wins the nomination but loses the election to Bush--as I am convinced he will, and handily--then this positions Gore very well for 2008, as Bush will be done.

Why push Dean right now, figuring he'd lose? Well, for one thing, Gore's troops are at Dean's disposal. When Gore runs in 2008, Dean's troops are expected to return the favor. Indeed, many of Gore's supporters happen to be present Dean supporters, and with Dean trounced in 2004, they're free to go back and be a part of a Gore campaign in 2008, returning to the roost, so to speak.

Republican and Democratic politicians do not make such choices lightly. They look at the big picture when making such endorsements, and this is exactly what Gore is doing. He can really care less about Dean as a credible candidate. He cares even less for Hillary. What he's eyeing is 2008.

If this board were around 5 years from now, I'd take bets on this.

[ December 08, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

MIB -- I don't agree with you most of the time but I agree with your general outlook on Gore's motivations here. As soon as I heard about the endorsement I thought it was a shot at the Clintons.

Al Gore is taking a book from Richard Nixon's mid-60's strategy. I am convinced that he will run again for president in the future and I wouldn;t be surprised if he doesn't win. Hillary is his main obstacle at this point.

BTW, Dean will not be in Philly this afternoon for his fund raiser for obvious reasons. They didn't cancel the luncheon but I've decided not to go.

With regard to Leiberman -- who gives a crap about the guy. I blame him for the 2000 defeat.

Is this information from your always reliable "sources" or did the men in the black helicopters swoop down and inform you of this information?

Political endorsements are not always about a politician supporting whom they think the best candidate is. Although I'm not as convinced as MIB, I can certainly see his scenario. I have always believed (just a gut feeling, no inside info) that Hillary Clinton wants Bush to win reelection, so she would be a viable candidate for 2008. And it makes sense that Gore would run again in 2008, and try to get some of Dean's supporters (I'm sure Dean won't run again if he wins the nomination, but loses the election). Also, if it looks more and more that Bush will not win reelection, I wouldn't be suprised if Ms. Clinton jumps into this race.

I will respectfully diagree here with some of you who suspect that Gore has ulterior motives here in endorsing Dean. I just don't feel that its in Gore to make another serious Presidential run anytime soon. I feel that he still is smarting from what happened in 2000. What will be most interesting to me however, will be to hear what if anything the Clintons have to say about the endorsement. I truly believe, that if Gore does go out on the road with Dean, it will energize the Democrats, and Dean supporters even more.

Hey maybe gore can help him lose his home state of VT? That'd be the best thing gore-bad-loser could do.

Carry on Dean-O's

Thats so funny....I forgot to laugh......

At least he and Dubya will be starting off with a similar footing there. (Of course, the Resident doesn't usually *take* questions.)

Angling for a cable talk show? That's unworthy of you. I should throw $20 at Dennis K, who, unlike Dean, doesn't change his ideology depending on what he's running for...

[ December 09, 2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]