By the time former Governor of Vermont Howard Dean was forced to abandon his 2004 Presidential run, few thought he would still manage to transform the Democratic Party. His tenure shortly afterwards as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee built on his pioneering use of the Internet to mobilize grassroots Democrats and accelerate fundraising from millions of small donors, strategies that have been used by the current Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama to great effect. His sometimes controversial "50-state" strategy has arguably made many "Red" (Republican) districts competitive nationwide, with an infrastructure in place to assist Democratic campaigns at all levels. In the midst of a historic and heated Presidential election, Dean spoke to Associate Editor Wajahat Ali to make his case for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, Democratic “cultural values,” the legacy of the Bush administration, the current economic crisis, and how to deal with the Muslim world and the “war on terror.

The addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican campaign, which has revitalized the Republican base and won over many undecided voters, suggests Republicans still maintain the stronghold on "cultural values." Republicans portray themselves successfully as harbingers of morality, security, God and stability. Democrats are painted as Godless, elitist, baby killing, homosexual pornographers. How do you convince the American voter that your party best represents their "cultural values?"

Howard Dean: All you have to do is look at the past 8 years. I mean Bush and McCain have talked for 8 years all about their "cultural values.” Look where we are today? We see bankruptcies. We see a government that cares more about mortgage companies than mortgage holders. In short, they’ve turned out to be a total fraud. Here, McCain is talking about what he’s going to do to change Wall Street. He was part of a huge banking scandal about 15 years ago!

The voters have figured out that the Republicans talk about values, but they don’t really have many. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been quietly plugging along, and really doing things for people. When we took over [Congress] again in 2006, one of the first things we did was we raised the minimum wage. That gets a long way to assure equal pay for women. The next thing we did was restore the Pell Grants (student loans) that Republicans had cut.

But I think we have much better values than the Republicans, which seem to be “you’re on your own, and we’re gonna’ get what we want out of the government and out of the tax payers.”

There is a Republican monopolization as the “Party of God,” and the party of “religious values.”

We’ve made a major effort to counteract that. We had an Imam from Chicago on a credentials committee in Denver. I think that’s the first time that has ever happened. We’ve really reached out to Americans of all faiths, including Islam. Because we believe the future of America is diversity. And young people know that. They get what the Democratic values are. They scratch their heads at how the Republicans have been saying all these things all these years, and been doing exactly the opposite.

Even before the addition of Palin, Obama was up only 5% in the polls. Now, it is tied. We have a three trillion dollar war, a recession, a mortgage crisis, a high jobless rate, record foreclosures, a massive deficit, and our international image is at its lowest ebb. If the Democrats do not win, what does this say about the Democratic Party and also the nation?

I mean - I don’t know. I mean, who knows? I’m not a political commentator.

OK, let’s move on. Let's be blunt about the economy. Who is to blame for the current economic maelstrom? Even if Democrats win, what can they do, if anything, to turn this tide?

I think we can do a lot to turn the tide. What Senator Obama wants do is instead of giving tax cuts to Exxon Mobil- what Senator McCain has proposed - we want to give tax cuts to the middle class Americans so they get the benefit of their taxpayers’ money. Secondly, we need to focus on students and make it easier for them to get into college and help [them] build a future.

Third, we ought to have a stimulus package. Fourth, instead of focusing on bailing out Wall Street firms, we should also pay attention to those who need help with their mortgages. What the Bush-McCain people are focusing on is bailing out the big corporations. What we need to focus on is that people can stay in their own homes.

Some commentators have said Democrats bear partial responsibility for Congress’ fidelity to Wall Street and their lobbyists? Can the White House and Congress free themselves of Wall Street influence?

It’s been the Republicans who have held the White House, the Senate and the House until 2006 - that’s when things went bad. Republicans had the Presidency. They have to take responsibility. John McCain said he doesn’t believe in regulation until he decided he did believe in it [last] Monday.

You know, these guys are completely incompetent. They’ll say anything to get elected, but they no have idea what to do when they do get elected, which is why I don’t think they are gonna’ get elected this time.

There seems to be a growing frustration among many Democrats, independents, and liberals about a perceived Democratic passiveness; that the Democrats don’t attack the right wing with the same amount of zeal with which the right wing attacks them. What’s your take on it? And if it’s true how can the strategy be changed?

I think we do certainly need to fight back, and I think that Senator Obama has been doing that. I don’t think we want to take the Republican’s example. What the Republicans have done is they have put their party before their country. They’ve managed to split the country in half using all these socially divisive issues. That’s very bad for the country.

One of the things I admire about Senator Obama is that he wants to be the president of all the people, not just those who agree with him. So I think the country will be far better off [with him]. Frankly, you can’t behave one way and then expect something different. I mean if people want four more years of George Bush, they should definitely vote for John McCain. If people want to heal the country, they should vote for Obama. You can’t behave one way during the election and then a different way afterwards and then maintain any credibility at all. That’s why Bush and McCain have no credibility.

Obama represents a new type of America, which is in fact a historical America. He is multiracial, has an Arabic name, he has a White mom, an African American father. Yet, he also represents another side of America. We see many people openly saying they won’t vote for him due to his race or due to his Arabic name, and there have been sleazy connotations and smear campaigns as a result. What do you think this reflects about America?

We now have two Muslim American Congressmen representing a very diverse group of people. The country has changed. You don’t have to be a particular race in order to get people to vote for you who look like you. It doesn’t work that way anymore. Again, there is unfortunately still some racism. But there’s a lot less than it used to be. And I think the rise of Barack Obama is really the rise of a new generation that has grown up in a very multicultural country, and I think that’s very good for America.

How can the Democrats woo the Muslim voters who are so disaffected and disappointed by the Bush presidency - one which they helped elect by the way – without being seen or targeted by Republicans as being soft on terror, coddling or harbingers of deluded political correctness? It seems Muslims are political kryptonite – Democrats and Republicans want their money and votes, but no one wants to be associated with them publicly. How can we bridge this?

First of all, it’s not true that nobody from the Democratic side wants to be associated with the Muslims. As you know we have two Muslim American Congressmen, and we have no Muslim American Republican Congressman.

There’s no question that the Republicans are charging us with being soft on terrorism. They would do that anyway. The truth is though if you look at what the Republicans have done – it is essentially nothing. They don’t understand fundamentally how to defend the United States of America. Defending the United States of America is not just about having great troops and well-equipped troops, but it’s also about having a high moral purpose in the world, and the Republicans have forfeited that. I think it’s clear the Democratic Party is the party of inclusion. It’s clear that members of minority groups do much better when seeking elective office as Democrats than they do as Republicans. Frankly the Democratic Party makes room for different types of people, and that’s not true of Republicans.

Specifically, the Democrats voted for the Iraq War, the Authorization to Use Military Force [AUMF], and Patriot Acts I and II. Yet, Obama now appears to be strong on national security, but also offering diplomacy. How do [the Democrats] ensure national security without overstepping constitutional limits of the Executive Authority - as Bush has done -or being seen as "weak on terror?”

First of all, Senator Obama has said we need to win in Afghanistan, that is a much graver threat to Americans than Iraq ever was. In order to do that, it can’t just be by force of arms. You can’t defeat a terrorist insurgency by force of arms. What you have to do is use arms, but you also have to make sure the economy is better, that people can send their children to school – both girls and boys- and in order to do that you have to build a nation.

Now, Bush pooh-pooh’d nation building when he was running for President, but then of course he kinda’ found when he grew up – a little – he found out that he had to in fact engage in nation building, and that’s what we’re going to have to do in Afghanistan. Not just a matter of having great troops, it’s the matter that in the long term [you are] making sure that we get rid of the terrorist threat by making sure it doesn’t get nurtured or spread in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And that takes brains as well as brawn.

As you’ve been following Pakistan, you know Asif Ali Zardari is now the President. Bush recently ordered an aggressive offensive inside Pakistan that left 20 people dead. Of course, this didn’t go well with the Pakistani public. Even Pakistani General Kiyani said this would not be tolerated. How can we deal with Pakistan as a partner in the “war on terror” without offending them, and also not exacerbating the Taliban problem? Can we create a harmonious relationship, or are we doomed to some volatility? This is going to be some tough terrain for the next President.

I think we’re going to have some volatility. Somebody has got to deal with the terrorists. If it’s not going to be Pakistani government, then it’s going to have to be Americans and NATO. You can’t continue to allow terrorism to be in the Northwest Territories and threaten Afghanistan and NATO troops. So, we hope the Pakistanis regain control of those territories. But if they don’t, we’re not going to stand idly by as our troops are attacked.

Due to the Iraq war, the AUMF, the Bush regime, and the Bush doctrine, Muslim world opinion with regards to American foreign policy has soured. American popularity around the world is at its lowest ebb. How do we convince the Muslims that we are not their enemies; we are not bullies. How do we say, “Come work with us, come join us.” How do we regain that trust?

The first thing we have to do is get out of Iraq. Senator Obama has a plan to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and Senator McCain on that issue is 98 years in Iraq. And I think if Senator Obama wins, we will be out of Iraq within 18 months after inauguration. And that will make things much, much better. Secondly, of course is to make a real effort to get peace in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians, which Bush has essentially ignored for 7 years. That needs to be taken seriously. And third, this is a two way street. We really do need Muslim governments not to be sympathetic with terrorists - and many of them are not - but they feel bullied by terrorism, and we have to help them stand up to terrorists.

Muslims should flip the bird to these democrats and republicans and start their own political party that espouses Islamic conservative values while solving some of the fundamental problems facing America, especially economic and foreign policy issues. A party that is "Islamic" enough to garner widespread support of the various Muslim factions across America.

Using this base of Muslim support, this party, known as say ZABIHA PARTY, should build bridges with other independent parties across the USA, like I dono, "A Gun in Every Home Party" or "Mothers Against Drunk Drunkards Party" or maybe the "Chastity Ring Party" or perhaps even the "Use Cow Farts Instead of Gasoline in Cars Party" etc etc, whichever party has a platform that does not contradict any Islamic teachings directly.

Leaving establishment of Shariah law and the Islamic State to others, such a party should be more focused on America and solving its problems using Islamic principles where possible as generic solutions, yet not hiding its Islamic roots necessarily.

Over the next few election cycles, I envision the Zabiha Party will mushroom into a conglomerate of several major independent parties (or organizations), mostly of the family values and foreign policy and economic fiscal responsibility and environmental types.

Obviously such a party will face major major opposition from the military-industrial-corporate complex that is taking America to the dogs in overdrive. There will be other controversial issues like prohibition of alcohol and gambling or some form of severe penalty in indulging in such, but these are actual christian values, which the christians themselves do not implement in society! As such, no matter how unpopular such measures, help will come from numerous quarters, one underestimates the number of Americans who suffer from many of these ills in society and would like to see them banished.

Worse come to worse, the Zabiha Party will get butchered, no pun intended. The same money and resources could be thrown at the Democrats and Republicans for the next few election cycles and frankly the net sum of that is going to come out zero in favor of Muslims, so what is really there to lose? Nothing.

>> espouses Islamic conservative values while solving some of the fundamental problems facing America, especially economic and foreign policy.

Only the conservative values, or the liberal values too? What are they anyway?

>> whichever party has a platform that does not contradict any Islamic teachings directly.

Do co-educational schools contradict Islamic principles? Does affirmative action contradict Islamic principles? Does a party that endorses the free movement of women and their equal right to divorce contradict Islamic principles? Do Muslims support guns in every home?

>> ... the net sum of that is going to come out zero in favor of Muslims, so what is really there to lose?

You live work and practice your religion in the United States? Or am I missing something here?

>> Obviously such a party will face major major opposition from the military-industrial-corporate complex that is taking America to the dogs in overdrive.

Why? Most Muslim governments are heavily invested in the complex in some way or the other. Russia and China can't supply all the worlds weapons. Wouldn't that be positively unAmerican?

I like the idea of the independent party. Given the "jihadi menace" being manufactured by the military-industrial complex, Muslims in North America may be entering a 20-30 year phase in American politics where they will be replacing the Soviet Union as the main "evil force in the world". Especially given that the real post-Soviet evil force originally envisioned some years back, the Chinese, now own 1/3rd of the US debt and perhaps half the trade imbalance as well, so they have become too important to be cast in that role. For now.

In this hostile environment, Muslims as a political entity in North America are marginalized to the extent that one envisions them begging to be taken seriously by the two party system for decades to come. Not only are they are now expending all their resources kissing up to Democrats and Republicans just to be treated like normal Americans, they are doing so for no fault of their own.

Most Muslims in North America will simply be so turned off by this scenario that they will likely not participate in the political process. It is like a child being told that "Ok, you have to do 25 push-ups before every game unlike everyone else if you want to participate in the school soccer team". Why? Because the captain of the soccer team "claims" he saw you stealing some of the team shirts from the team locker. If I may use a poorly constructed example.

End result, you end up expending all your energy doing push-ups and do not contribute anything on the field. So you are useless to the team, when infact you had some great ideas of how to improve the team performance, but no one will listen to you because they think you are a thief. You can't "vote for the captain" and pass on the ideas to him (or her, wink, wink), because he/she/it is the one castigating you as the thief to start with.

Anyway, I belabor the point. In such an environment, it may be more practical to energize the Muslim polity by starting a party from scratch. Take away the narrative from those who try to box you into their agendas. Best way to distance yourself from being boxed in as "soft on jihadis" is to set your own agenda as an independent. Talk about what is important to you instead of wasting resources talking about what others want you to be hamstrung by.

>> Do co-educational schools contradict Islamic principles? Does affirmative action contradict Islamic principles? Does a party that endorses the free movement of women and their equal right to divorce contradict Islamic principles? Do Muslims support guns in every home? <<

As an "outsider party" that relies on support primarily from a not-so-poor Muslim North America, you can now take on some of the unpopular measures for reform that are good for America, but are too unpalatable for the greedy vested interests of the two-party system. Reforms that would attract attention of similar minded groups across the American spectrum and would give a positive image of Muslims at the ground level. (such as gold standard i.e. pegging of the American currency to gold which is suggested by some islamists and by some mainstream economists as a solution to some of America's economic excesses of the past 40 years).

Insofar as what values to promote and which not, this is open to debate, I am a computer program, not a Muslim leader. But I imagine there would be some sort of "cost-benefit analysis". The more conservative the values, the more inclusive will the party be in terms of support from Muslim masses. Which at the same time will alienate more of the American mainstream. So there is a sort of "point along the curve" where you want to position yourself, so that you garner as much support from Muslims in America as your backbone and at the same time stay as palatable to the mainstream as you can as a Muslim party (a la Justice and Development Party in Turkey). It is a tricky problem I think.

Whatever those values end up being, they will certainly not be popular, as any addition of morality and austerity to society seems to me to have negative economic consequences, in a society where unbridled capitalism is seen as the defacto moral code.

Mr. Ali- When I see an interview conducted by yourself- I read every word.

Mercy Hajibaba- you invent a political party in your mind, and then imagine it's eventual corruption.

EID MUBARAK GHULAM-

>> Muslims in North America may be entering a 20-30 year phase in American politics where they will be replacing the Soviet Union as the main "evil force in the world"

You mean that 6 Million American Muslims will replace 20 thousand Nuclear warheads and an empire of a few hundred million people? You need to answer the questions. Because you're making assertions about Islam and Ummah and Muslims and other people here, but you don't respond to opposing questions and evidence.

EID MUBARAK MRS.A - EID MUBARAK EVERYONE.

>> I am a computer program

Computer Programs are coherent lol EID MUBARAK to you too Haji.