Props to Raul Groom for his front-page article today

[Plaid Adder]

I am not a Dean supporter myself, but I am in total agreement with the argument on why the party insiders are scared of him, and I appreciate the historical context on the McGovern race. And I absolutely agree that anyone who thinks that Rove would deliberately plant items in all the RW mouthpieces saying what he REALLY thought needs to step back and think about that for a minute. Why, in the name of anything, would anyone who has been watching that man believe that Rove would ever, under any circumstnaces, *tell the truth?*

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Plaid Adder]

1. Guess I should have put DEAN in the header

Come on, people! Give it up for Raul!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[bitchkitty]

4. Excellent article -

thanks for posting it. I wish other users were as positive and polite as you.

[RogueTrooper]

2. It was a good article

It gave me a good deal to think about.

[RaulGroom]

3. Thanks Plaid Adder

I usually stay off the message board (I am a recovering MessageBoardAholic) but I wanted to try to get the Dean/McGovern parallel a little more fleshed out. Most of what I have read on the subject just strikes me as absolute hogwash.

I understand your reluctance to support Dean; I admit it took me a long time to finally capitulate and back the guy. In the end, I decided that the job of the executive who takes office in 2005 is going to be largely about putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, and I think Dean can do that and do it well.

Is Howard Dean's vision for this country similar to mine? No. In fact, I envision myself possibly backing someone else in the 2008 primary if Dean is in office (particularly if we are the majority party in the Senate at the time), but as far as the task that will face the executive from 2005 to 2009, I think he's the guy for the job.

Unfortunately I wrote the piece long before the Gore endorsement, so I couldn't deal with that in the article, but I think the big key of the Gore endorsement is that Gore almost certainly understands that suppression of the black vote cost him the 2000 election, and he will be able to help Dean make sure not only that a lot of black voters turn out in 2004 as they did in 2000, but also that their votes are counted, which they disproportionally were not in 2000.

Of course you can't say that in the mainstream media, so we have to pretend Al's endorsement means all sorts of other crap. But I think that's the main effect of it. We'll see, though. I'm often too optimistic about these sorts of things.

[RaulGroom]

5. BTW a correction is in order

I said that in the early 80's, Dems controlled the Senate and the House. In fact, they controlled the Senate until 1980 but lost it in the election that brought Ronald Reagan to power. I had originally been talking about the late 80's (when the Dems won the Senate back again) but I changed to the early 80's so I could use the line about Rehnquist being a leering right-wing vampire.