Is anyone here worried about Dean's ability to beat Bush?

[WilliamPitt]

The trouble with Howard Dean

As a social liberal and fiscal moderate, he's lured students, professionals and the antiwar left. But he's more George McGovern than Bill Clinton.

By John B. Judis

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index_np.html

July 11, 2003 | Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential candidate who has stirred any interest beyond party regulars. He has established himself as the "straight talk" candidate in a field dominated by trimmers and positioners. He has shown Democrats that they can raise money without depending on big donors and soft money from labor unions. Yet if the Democrats nominate him as their presidential candidate, he is almost sure to lose to George W. Bush, and perhaps by a very large margin.

...more...

================

The Electability Factor

By Ruth Marcus
Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page B07

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61281-2003Dec12.html

DURHAM, N.H. -- Susan Roman cast her first vote in 1972, for George McGovern. She'd rather not go down that road again. And so, while she likes "a lot of what he has to say," she's worried about former Vermont governor Howard Dean's "electability factor," which is what's brought her to a post-debate party at Scorpion's Bar & Grill here to check out Wesley Clark.

The kind of New Hampshire voter who's generally made up her mind by now -- ordinarily she'd be stuffing envelopes and making phone calls for her candidate of choice -- Roman is "still struggling" this time around. Some days she's inclined toward Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry; others she's intrigued by the retired general as she imagines him taking on President Bush.

"Instead of feeling passion for a candidate this time, what I'm really feeling is passion to get George Bush out of the White House," she says. "Because I feel so passionate about that, I want to make sure I make the right decision."

Talk to Democratic voters here and you hear a fervor to defeat President Bush that often trumps any individual issue: "It's the president, stupid" could be this year's campaign mantra. Indeed, Dean's success in vaulting to the top of the Democratic heap reflects his ability to harness that anti-Bush animus and argue that he's best positioned to take back the White House. But among other voters for whom ousting Bush is the overriding goal, there is an accompanying anxiety about Dean -- not because they disagree with him or dislike him but because they fear a general election disaster.

...more...

===================

Why Howard Dean can’t win
By Andrew Hammond

October 20, 2003 in Viewpoints

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/articles/2003/10/20/why_howard_dean_cant.php

Howard Dean just announced that he raised nearly $15 million in the last quarter, effectively solidifying his position as the front-runner in the crowded Democratic field. But even if Dean gets the nomination, he won’t be able to win in 2004. Here’s why:

First, Howard Dean is Karl Rove’s dream candidate. Rove is going to sink his teeth into Dean the same way Lee Atwater (Bush Sr.’s campaign manager) devoured Dukakis: paint him as a northeastern liberal who is out of touch with American values. This doesn’t sound too bad to me, but it’s a red flag to most people not living on the East Coast. Rove and his cronies will make issues like gay rights and abortion central to the campaign, diverting people’s attention from the economy and Iraq. But Rove will do this for another reason—to scare the Christian Right into donating tons of cash.

Second, Dean’s experience will appear pathetic to the American people. Dean has been an executive, true—a governor for 12 years—but in a state of only 600,000 people. His supporters will say that he balanced the budget, which is no easy feat. I disagree. Dean balanced a budget that is smaller than the budgets of most major cities. It also is a little easier when the federal government picks up the check (the federal government paid for 21 percent of the Vermont budget during the year that Dean balanced it). Moreover, in the post–September 11 political landscape, it doesn’t help that Dean has no experience in foreign policy whatsoever. Sadly, if Dean and Bush were to square off, Bush would be seen as the foreign policy expert, giving the Republicans an advantage they don’t deserve. The fact is that Dean will be seen as a political novice incapable of leading the most powerful nation in the world.

Most importantly, Dean can’t build the electoral map necessary to win. He simply won’t be able to get the right states. It’s no accident that the only two Democrats who have won in the past 40 years have been Southerners. The Electoral College breakdown has not been kind to the Democratic Party in the postwar years. Democrats have seen their New Deal coalition of blacks, laborers, and Southerners disappear. African-Americans are being replaced by Hispanics as the most sought-after minority, and the Republicans have been shameless in courting them. Blue-collar workers are becoming increasingly conservative in their social values and the GOP has worked nonstop to pull them from the Democratic column. And I don’t even need to talk about the South. Thanks to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the South is the bastion of the GOP and only a southern Democrat can tap into even an ounce of its support. For any Democratic candidate to win in 2004, they’re going to have to pin down the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and steal at least a couple of Southern states the way Carter and Clinton did when they won. Dean, regardless of his platform, won’t be able to do it.

...more...

===============================

There They Go Again
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

December 6, 2003

http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/dean_cant_win.cfm

(snip)

First, geography. The only Democrats who have won the popular presidential vote since John Kennedy took office (when the Southern boom started) have all been Southerners: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Swing states are mostly in the South and Midwest, so the key for both parties is to find a candidate who can seduce "Reagan Democrats," like Ohio steelworkers and Tennessee tobacco farmers. Not another Michael Dukakis.

Second, style. Angry bluster rouses the party faithful, but it frightens centrists. The last two presidents who were fervently hated, Richard Nixon and Mr. Clinton, both won two terms; today's liberal disgust could do the same for Mr. Bush by leading to a nominee like Mr. Dean, who warms the hearts of the party's core but leaves others cold. Furious liberals already bear some responsibility for the situation because enough of them voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 to sink Al Gore.

Moreover, Mr. Dean is smart, but he knows it. America's heartland oozes suspicion of Eastern elitists, and Mr. Dean's cockiness would exacerbate that suspicion. President Clinton oozed charm and was fluent in Southern ("even a blind hog can find an acorn," he'd say scornfully), while Mr. Dean needs a Berlitz course in self-deprecating folksiness.

Mr. Dean's recent remarks about Southern men and Confederate flags showed both his awareness of this problem and his ineptitude in addressing it. He also described the episode as a "huge contretemps," and I seriously doubt that anybody who publicly uses the word "contretemps" can ever be elected president.

You get the feeling that if Mr. Dean and Mr. Bush were stuck together in a small Missouri town, Mr. Dean would lecture farmers about Thomas Paine's writings, while Mr. Bush would have the cafe crowd in stitches by doing impersonations of Mr. Dean.

The third problem is biography. Mr. Dean may be the one Democrat who is even more blue-blooded than Mr. Bush and who has an even lamer excuse for dodging Vietnam. Mr. Dean grew up on Park Avenue in an old aristocratic family, and after getting his medical deferment from the draft, he moved to Aspen to ski. Unlike other politicians, Mr. Dean doesn't even pretend to be particularly religious, and that's a major political weakness in the battleground states.

...more...

=====================

Why Dean can't win in '04 election
GUEST COLUMN | ZACH JONES

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24290

There's an old adage that, edited for content, goes like this: "If it walks like poop, talks like poop, it must be poop." I'm not sure if it was Confucius or Iggy Pop who said it, but from its simple logic comes the inescapable truth that Howard Dean must be poop (i.e. -- way too liberal to beat George W. Bush next November).

It's precisely Dean's transparent liberalism that makes him the guy Karl Rove "wants to face." Yet, strangely, Dean's loyalists insist the former Vermont Governor, despite his liberal walk and talk, is really just as middle-of-the-road as Bill Clinton. They'll call him a fiscal conservative, despite his raging tax-aholism. They'll laud Dean's moderate social ideology, despite his signature on America's only same-sex civil unions law. They'll even claim he's strong on defense, despite Dean's flamboyant opposition to the war in Iraq. My response: bull poop.

Dean fancies himself a fiscal conservative for his budget-balancing successes as the governor of Vermont. Kudos to Dean, but the accomplishment hardly qualifies him as a fiscal conservative. For ordinary Americans, fiscal conservatism doesn't just mean spending restraint, it means tax leniency. And in that dangerous realm for Democrats, Howard Dean has cast himself as less a Bill Clinton than a Walter Mondale, vowing to repeal the Bush tax cuts in their entirety. Newsflash to Dean: promising to punish the middle class is less fiscal discipline than political lunacy.

...more...

=========================

Any and all 'Poop' comments are welcome, as they will keep this thread nicely kicked. Thanks in advance.

[w13rd0]

1. Shouldn't you be more concerned with John Kerry's ability to beat Bush?

Oh nevermind.

[WilliamPitt]

3. I'm far less concerned about that

Kerry, unfortunately, has to contend with a guy who has effectively demagogued to the base, thus taking the easy path to nomination and eventual destruction.

[Closer]

4. Here ya go Will, got an editorial for ya to you enjoy.

"Kerry, tumbling in polls, should try reality check"

So far, in attempts to portray himself as all things to all people, we have seen him shooting pheasants, lacing up hockey skates, peering from the cabin of a fishing boat, riding a Harley onto the set of the ``Tonight'' show. And he wonders why no one takes his candidacy seriously? If he didn't know his limitations when he started, he surely ought to know them now, because everyone else certainly does.

http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/columnists.bg?articleid=43

Enjoy!

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfartinthewoods]

180. the only thing scarcer than tits on a hen is a dean supporter willing to

talk about why their dog won't hunt.

btw...i mis-read the new rule as going into effect at 10 'PM' .

my bad...it's not my style to flaunt rules in such a blatent manner. i apologize to the mods for making more work for them.

[virtualobserver]

186. Dean appears to be the only competent candidate......

Other than the Clark campaign, none of the campaigns have the foggiest notion of how to win anything.

I believe that other than Dean, only Clark has a prayer against Bush.

[LiberalBushFan]

201. very relevant

i'm not a kerry supporter, but that's just stupid

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Now it's the "destruction" of the party?

Been watching TV lately?

[boxster]

19. I believe he means destruction in the election, as in Dean loses big time.

That seemed pretty obvious in Will's statement.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. But why?

Other than a couple of opinions by other candidate's supporters?

:shrug:

[boxster]

90. Because not everyone thinks that Dean is the best candidate vs. Bush.

Some of us believe he's a poor choice against Bush for various reasons.

A lot of people on DU apparently agree:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=759

It certainly is not limited to "a couple of opinions by other candidate's supporters".

I like Dean, but I think that Bush and the media will make this election about the war on terror, national security, etc. In my opinion, Clark (my preference) or Kerry would be better suited to counter Bush in these areas.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. I understand, boxster.

By it's very nature, supporting another candidate means you think that candidate is the better choice with the better chance.

My question is about facts instead of opinions. Polls show Dean with Democratic support in the South, West, Northeast and Midwest. Maybe he'd lose to Chimp, but to say that another candidate who is trailing Dean is going to do any better seems fatuous.

[boxster]

131. Primary results do not equate to the general election

The primaries are not indicative of the general election, especially this year. The battles waged in the general will be quite different from those waged in the nomination process.

The general election, if Bush and the media have their way, will be about national security, the war on terror, and so on. They will have $200 million with which to attempt to do exactly that, plus a media generally willing to spout their message.

Do you truly believe that Dean is the best candidate in an election like that? I just don't see how he could be.

I don't care if he gets the nomination in a landslide, that still does not mean he can counter Bush and his false military bravado as easily and effectively as Clark or Kerry could.

If the focus of the election becomes anywhere near as narrow-minded as it was in 2002, we will need to counter Bush on those issues.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

134. Well, it depends.*

I agree that the primaries are different than the GE.

Please respond to these points:

1. Polls show Dean leading in the South, Northeast, Midwest and West among Democrats. Why is he not the strongest candidate?

2. What makes you think that Dean will LET BushCo frame the debate? He hasn't let the other Dems do it in the primaries, despite their better initial funding.

3. What will the economy be like in 11 months?

4. What will Iraq look like in 11 months?

5. Who will his VP be?

6. Why should I believe that a candidate that can't beat Dean will suddenly have the capacity to beat Chimp?



*Pending outcome of primaries, of course. Using the hypothetical.

[boxster]

140. Response

1) Already answered: "Among Democrats" does not equate to "vs. Bush".

Do you have links to these polls or are you just generalizing based on what you believe to be true?

From what I've seen, his leads in many states are small, he's behind in some states, and the undecides in many states are running nearly 40%.

Those facts make awarding these regions to Dean seem a tad premature.

2) $200,000,000

3) Dean better hope it doesn't improve, or my argument becomes even stronger, as it would be one less issue to distract the media away from the stuff Bush wants to talk about.

4) Very similar to today is my guess, though no one knows. I seriously doubt that it will change enough to make it a non-issue by November.

5) I'm not talking about VP candidates. I'm talking about the best candidate vs. Bush. Clark as VP, for example, doesn't counter Bush's false military bravado, because Clark wouldn't be debating Bush.

Besides, if we look for a VP hoping to strengthen the ticket, we're probably starting with the wrong candidate for President in the first place.

6) Already answered. Beating Democrats is one thing. Beating Bush is another entirely.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

146. re re

1)Agreed. But you need the Dem base for starters. I'm not awarding Dean anything. If you're not familiar with the Southern polls, just poke around DU a little bit.

2)Who'll have more money than Dean?

3)Same for all.

4)Add 300 dead, unfortunately.

5)VP is part of the deal. But you're right, unless he picks someone like Stockdale it won't be much of a factor.

6)Already answered. Without the Dem base behind you all else is futile.

[boxster]

165. ....

1) I think we have the base regardless of who wins the nomination. Dean is generally more conservative than most of the others, so it could be argued that he's less likely to keep the base, though I suspect (and hope) that most liberals will vote for him rather than repeat Nader 2000.

Nice brush-off re: the South. Dean supporters constantly talk about his "lead" in the South, yet no one ever bothers to provide decisive proof. I have "poked around" a bit. Have you?

http://www.electyou.com/electoralmap.htm, for one

GA: Clark leads, Dean is in 4th
AL: Clark leads, Dean is in 5th
FL: Dean leads, then Clark one pt. behind
NC: Edwards leads, way ahead
SC: Edwards leads, Clark 2nd, Dean in 6th (Zogby, of course, has Dean in the lead, Clark 2% behind)

From other polls, I've seen Dean ahead in VA and a statistical tie in TX. Again, show me where Dean is way ahead in the South?

I think that this is wishful thinking on the part of Dean supporters and not factually-based. Clark is likely a stronger candidate in the South solely because he is FROM the South. Many Dean supporters have suggested Clark as VP for this very reason, though as I've mentioned, I don't think the VP candidate holds as much weight as others do.

2) Bush, for one. Dean will not raise enough money to substantially change the focus of the election. Dean can spend tons of money and he still won't counter the Bush national defense, false military crap as easily as Clark or Kerry do by default. Their foreign policy and military experience trumps Bush at his own stuffed flight suit games, without spending a dime.

3) No, it isn't. If the economy rebounds enough to become a non-issue, the focus is even more on the issues I've mentioned. The stronger the focus on Bush issues, the stronger Clark or Kerry appears as a response.

4) Or more. I was against this war from (before) day 1, but my anti-war status does not lead me to Dean. Quite the contrary, in fact. I understand how effectively Bush and the media sold this war to the public. Realistically, we need to counter Bush as C-in-C. Clark and Kerry do that by default. Dean doesn't really do it at all.

6) Again, we're not likely losing the base, regardless of the candidate. I see little evidence that Dean is any more likely to keep the base than the other leading candidates would be.

[mikehiggins]

158. Well, here's some answers

1. Dean leads in a field of nine. He has nowhere near a majority of the votes in any primary state. Win twenty states with 30% of the votes and you still have only 30% of the votes. Win 30% of the people voting in the primary and you still have less than 30% of the Democratic Party, not to mention possibly 15% of the national vote. If he can't win a majority of primary votes after running since 2000 and raising all that money and enlisting all those volunteers, what would make you think he is electable at all?

2. "Frame the debate" is one of those cute focus group terms that means just about nothing. The incumbent sets the terms of the debate. It isn't fair, but it is the truth. Dean gives a crucial speech on foriegn policy, and Hillary does the same thing the same day. She isn't even running for anything but who got the most coverage? Bush will be worse. And "better initial funding"? Where did that one come from? Isnt' Dean the Internet poster child who raised a gazillion dollars at $60 or so a pop? Who exactly has raised the most money early on if it wasn't Dean?

3. The economy will look like whatever the media says it does. If the media keeps hammering away at how the Dow is up and the NYSE is through the roof and so on, and the unemployment "rate" is down, the anecdotal experience of the individual citizens aren't going to do to well in breaking through.

4. Iraq will be the great question mark. If the resistance continues, or mounts, there will be no avoiding it. However, as Clark says, "I told you so" is not a policy. How does Dean make a case for being able to bring things to an end, and bring our soldiers home on their own feet, instead of a body bag? Who will beleive him?

5. Graham

6. Because winning the general election is not the same thing as winning a vote among dedicated and interested Democratic Party members. That is the simplest part of the equation. If Dean gains the nomination with a total of real votes that amount to a third of that minority of total Democratic enrollment (I know we'll all vote "unanimously" at the convention like we always do, but that won't change the reality)he steps into the election facing an opponent who has the full backing of the Republican base and those Independents who can't see voting for a Democratic candidate who can't even get the majority vote of his own hard-core base.

Okay? See the point? Having Dean win the nomination doesn't put the best qualified candidate into the race, it only means putting forward the choice of a minority of active Democrats to face an incumbent President and a united opposition.

What exactly makes YOU think Howard Dean is the man for that job?

His record as the Governor of Vermont?

[Jai4WKC08]

141. Fact, not opinion

<<Polls show Dean with Democratic support in the South, West, Northeast and Midwest.>>

1. Polls also show that when each candidate is put up against Bush, Clark comes out better than Dean every time.

2. In most polls outside of Iowa and New England, Clark is within the margin of error of Dean, and in several places ahead or tied.

3. Dean has been running for the better part of two years. Clark for less than three months. Name recognition alone probably accounts for much of the poll difference, even in Iowa and New England. I expect to see that changing, very fast.

[Scott Lee]

114. Apparently most democrats do!

unless you haven't been following the polls.

[boxster]

133. Most? Sorry, but that certainly isn't the case.

In most of the national polls of likely voters in the primaries, Dean is pulling 20% or so of Democrats, at most. 20% certainly isn't "most Democrats".

The 80% who are either supporting other candidates or undecided would constitute "most Democrats".

[Scott Lee]

166. Thanks for the clarification - put against rivals, most support Dean

My bad.

[MoonRiver]

168. AMEN.

n/t

[TLM]

184. SImple...beacuse his guy is not wining....

therefore the sky is falling.

[bearfartinthewoods]

169. well when we lose this time and the courts get co-opted even further

how vibrant do you think this party will be?

[ClintonTyree]

76. "The easy path".............

being slammed by all of the other potential candidates as well as the Reich wing? Oh yeah, he's taken the easy path all right. Poor post Will. I'd expect more of you.

[brainshrub]

98. Dean won't lose.

[bearfartinthewoods]

173. nothing like in depth analysis to put our minds at rest.......

[brainshrub]

177. I call it Zen analysis.

It's not that I did write a detailed analysis...it was the potential of one being writen thats important.

The result is the same. :D

[Scott Lee]

113. Will, mark this. Kerry is done. He'll be out in a month or two.

Then won't you look back at all this malarkey you posted and be a little embarrased? I sure would.

[Cheswick2.0]

217. So what I get from these articles is .........

blah blah blah, yada yada, partisan opinion, yada yada... Blah, tortured comparison, ancient history, yada yada....mental masterbation interruptus, more blah blah and a dose of sour grapes

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boxster]

5. I find it interesting that everything Dean supporters post is "truth"...

and everything anyone else posts is "tripe".

Your post was extraordinarily helpful, by the way. Thank you for responding to Will's posting with such depth, detail, and eloquence.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. What were the odds of Dean overtaking Kerry a year ago?

Plus there are variables.


Who's his VP?

Is OBL caught?

Economy?

Deficit number?

Number of American dead?

Iraq?

etc...



To answer honestly, sure, there's always doubt. Nothing that scares me shitless, though. Why should I believe that another candidate, who can't beat Dean (pending primary outcome, of course) can beat Chimp?

[Zomby Woof]

8. I am more heartened...

...that more people are waking up to the reality of this huckster. Always glad to offer my ZombyKick to the right message, at the right time. :kick: and Woof!

[AnnabelLee]

9. I couldn't vote

I feel that no matter which candidate gets the nomination, a lot can happen between now & November, not to mention concerns about voting machines. Also, if I've learned nothing else over the past few weeks on DU, no one wants to be told to "get on the bus", so I would not do so.

[rucky]

20. I agree. Doesn't matter who the candidate is at this point.

n/t

[windansea]

10. poop spelled in reverse (NT)

[bearfartinthewoods]

174. barf

[ulysses]

11. no more so than with any of the others, at any rate.

Was Clinton even visible at this point in 1991?

[Zomby Woof]

22. Gallup had him at 6% in 12/91

The only poll I could google, anyway. Hillary recently claimed that he was polling at 4% then, so 4-6% sounds fair enough. Tsongas was the frontrunner, and yes, I recall "inevitable" being bandied about with his name too.

[ulysses]

41. I actually meant versus GHWB, not the other candidates.

Dean is Paul Tsongas now? Which of the other candidates has Clintonian political skills?

[Zomby Woof]

58. I thought you meant the primaries

I wish you had specified against Bush. I don't have those handy, but Bush was still around 60-odd percent in approvals I think.

I am not saying Dean is Tsongas, just that there is a lesson there.

My take has always been "history does NOT repeat itself - every situation is unique". So Dean is Dean, and that's all. Whatever happens with him will be his situation alone.

But even if history doesn't repeat itself, there are lessons to be learned, and one of them is to wait and see. Just wait and see.

[ulysses]

72. I'll agree with that. n/t

[wyldwolf]

12. Will, I think I finally figured it out...

To a small but vocal minority of Dean supporters who imagine Howard Dean as some anti-DLC liberal saviour, beating George Bush isn't the goal. Getting someone who they think is an anti-DLC liberal saviour the nomination is.

Beating the DLC is more important to them than beating the GOP.

[BootinUp]

15. Join the club n/t

[DancingBear]

23. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! n/t

[Closer]

27. Cheese

[boxster]

32. Wow, another thoughtful and reasoned response.

Apparently, the Dean supporter strategy now is to complete ignore the issues and personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoints.

Yep, that'll certainly help convince us to vote for your candidate.

Edit: Closer removed his personal attack of another poster, so my response no longer specifically applies to his posting.

[Closer]

42. It wasn't an attack

it was a play on words, and my pointing out how dorky the response was. But I decided not to even stoop to such nerdy levels. Hence my response of simply "cheese." Says so much with oh so little.

You gonna respond to this too Boxster? Please do. I just LOVE people tryingn to argue with me. Really I do.

[wyldwolf]

52. Sure it was, but you realized the mods would delete the post..

...for personal attack reasons.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boxster]

62. Believe that all you want.

Calling someone else names isn't a personal attack? Too funny.

Feel free to delude yourself. I choose to interpret otherwise.

By the way, a "play on words" is a pun, which your statement certainly was not. Nice try, though.

[Julien Sorel]

109. It's always been the Dean strategy.

1) Attack the messenger.

2) Attack the other person's candidate,even and especially when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand

3) Whine about being unfairly treated

4) Talk about how much money all these terrible attacks will raise

5) Whine


But Dean is a strong candidate, who can't be smeared because he will 'fight back,' unlike every other weak Democratic nominee in the past 3 decades. Or so they say.

[bearfartinthewoods]

178. just wait til they try and whine to rove.....

[wyldwolf]

33. Had to change that post real quick, didn't you?

I'm sure you have a little "whine" with that cheese.

[Closer]

45. Umm

Whatever that means.


Cheese.

[wyldwolf]

50. ummm... you used a personal attack...

I believe the word was "dork?"

[Closer]

59. You are correct madam

A very dorky response.


You trying to get me banned like many of you have the other Dean supporters?


Is that your tactic?


I got one for ya, WYLDWOLF, how about you go campaign for your candidate. Last I saw, he's not doing so great in the polls.

[boxster]

73. Here we go again.

So, if you get banned for personal attacks, it's Wyldwolf's fault?

Hehe, that's too funny, especially considering that your initial personal attack in this thread appeared to have been completely unprovoked.

Let me suggest that if you do get banned, it's likely going to be no one's fault but your own.

[wyldwolf]

79. Not only that, but I was called "Madam."

bwahahahahahaha!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

78. Now just how can I get anyone banned?

[TLM]

191. you can't when you're on ignore...

bye bye... the other baiters in my ignore file should enjoy the company.

[wyldwolf]

203. Woo hoo! Now I can talk about you and you won't see it!

And we can all laugh and you won't be in on the joke.

[diamondsoul]

108. And your tactic is not to respond to

substantive questions with substantive answers. I don't think you have the superiority to offer advice to anyone else simply because your guy has a few bucks and media whores covering him.

Spare us, ok? You wanna believe Dean is invincible, go ahead. You wanna pretend facts don't matter, falsehoods, discrepancies and "mis-speaking" won't hurt him against the GOP, go ahead, but don't expect the world at large to go along with your foolishness.

*and some Dean supporters call US "dreamers"!:eyes:

[adadem]

36. right on n/t

[boxster]

43. Another recent tactic of the Dean supporters....

is to completely ignore the issues and personally attack anyone who doesn't believe Dean walks on water.

This was, of course, nicely demonstrated by another poster until the hasty change.

[thinkahead]

209. None of the candidates walk on water

But Bush would drown if you guys wouldn't stop holding him up as some sort of invincible unbeatable messiah. Why attack our frontrunner who has the most support, money and grassroots energy mobilized when our opponents record is absolutely atrocious. You are allowing them to frame the debate, which is why we will continue to lose.

You people amaze me. Lets take the fight to them, not each other.

[Jerseycoa]

93. This is the conclusion

I've begun to draw myself. I think it is true.

On edit: Not that I didn't get the idea, but it's been confirmed since the Gore endorsement.

[thinkahead]

188. Absolutely wrong

Beating Bush is of paramount importance to the Dean campaign, and to the Democratic base. Why do you think we keep talking about sending him back to Crawford, and framing Bush as the incredible danger to our Democracy that he is? Who was beating up on Bush of the other candidates until they saw how well it was working for Dean? And it's not just the base that Dean is connecting to - it's independents and even some Republicans. Now we hear that Nader is even considering not running if Dean is the nominee.

We have an incredible opportunity that you guys can't seem to get a grasp of. The other Democratic candidates, in their desperation and fear of Dean are attacking him, and indirectly attacking the base in the process. Why, because they fear change, and don't understand the power the Dean campaign his harnessing. WE CAN WIN. It's not even going to be that hard if we don't allow them to frame the debate (Bush has had one of the worst records of any President). Dean scares the sh!t out of current Dem leadership, and while I can empathize with that, our leaders have certainly done squat with our party since they allowed the Republicans to demoralize us and pretend they had some sort of mandate (even after losing the popular vote). You guys have got to get serious, and come to terms with this very basic fact. Our leadership, as it is now, has been failing. Our party needs a makeover. Dean is raising more cash than Clinton did while he was President for God's sake.

We are not running the party off a cliff. We are not going to hand the election to George W. Bush. You all have the power to prevent that, rather than run from it because you are afraid of Republican propoganda. We are trying to rebuild our party, not destroy it. The very reason we are doing it is to take back the country from the GOP, which is nothing but a well funded propoganda machine built on a house of cards - and a monopoly on the effective (but not as effective as it use to be) medium of television and punditry. People are tired and want a change. We can and will beat Bush only when we are not afraid to do so.

Stop being afraid - and start taking the fight back to them, rather than your own allies for God's sake. Embrace the newfound success our party is having with the internet-driven grassroots. At least we in the Dean campaign are putting outmoney where our mouth is - and getting out there to make it happen, rather than whining about another Bush victory.

I'm tired of George W. Bush and hand-wringing Democratic Leadership, and that is exactly why I, and hundreds of thousands of others have signed up with Howard Dean.

[TLM]

189. I think I finally figured it out...

To a small but vocal minority of Kerry supporters who imagine Kerry as some DLC saviour, being a democrat isn't the goal. Getting someone who they think is a DLC saviour the nomination is, even if it means they vote for half of Bush's agenda while attackignt he real democrats who stand against it.

Being the DLC is more important to them than beating the GOP.

[Blue_Roses]

205. If this is

what you figured out, then with all due respect, I think you need to keep figuring. It isn't about being a Kerry supporter or a Clark supporter or any other supporter for that matter. For some of us who have been voting and working in elections for years now, it's about who can REALLY win. I know that may be hard to grasp for those who want so hard to believe that Dean is our new savior and will walk on water for us, but the truth is, he CAN'T and WON'T beat Bush. This comes from someone who lives in the south and knows first hand that the right-wingers will pull their forces together in the likes that it will look like Moses parting the Red Sea. How do I know this? I have a brother-in-law who is a southern baptist preacher and they are already "preaching" "anti-Dean" in their congregations. For one, they are opposed to gay marriages, that's a biggie. Abortion is another biggie, tax cuts (even though they shouldn't be bringing this up) are being weaved into their sermons as "social issues", and I could go on and on. Everything Dean stands for, they stand against. I agree that elections shouldn't be based on solely on God, guns, and gays, but sadly it is. They seem to forget that the very issue that they "preach" are the ones that they judge with such fierosity. In fact, I visited a church here in this new town we moved to a few months ago and I was apalled at the message the preacher was preaching. He even put a website up on the screen to email in order the make sure the marriage admendment was a keeper. I could go on and on, but I get mad just writing about it.

I'm tired of the naive thoughts that are going into this election. If Dean wins the nomination we are toast. Burnt toast. It's not about whether I like Dean or not, in fact I supported him a few months ago, but reality speaks and we need someone who not only can beat Bush, but someone who can put this country back on track. I'm not so sure raising taxes in the middle class will do that. His stance on repealing the entire tax cut bothers me and know many who feel this way as well.

[AntiCoup2K4]

204. "Beating the DLC is more important to them than beating the GOP".

Actually, the only way to beat the GOP IS to first beat the DLC, because it's obvious that they don't give a shit about stopping the fascist takeover of the country.

[Patriot_Spear]

13. I'm worried about the election in general- this is a ridiculous poll.

How about some substance instead of Nostrodamus-like predictions of the 20004 campaign?

[PDittie]

14. Yes, I am

and I consider all of what's going on -- here and elsewhere -- a healthy part of the candidate vetting process.

Steel is forged in flame. Either Dean will emerge stronger for it, or another man (sorry, CMB) will.

[White Mountain]

125. Dean

Dean is a Natural, man.

All my friends support him!

[quaker bill]

16. I am worried about everyones ability to beat Bush

The farther back in the pack, the greater my concern.

When a candidate goes from presumptive front runner to nearly dead last in about a year, my concerns become quite grave indeed.

[jonnyblitz]

39. same here. n/t

[boxster]

17. Prepare to get shouted down by the masses, Mr. Pitt.

Your concerns are voiced out of nothing other than jealousy, bitterness, hatred, and outright meanness regarding Howard Dean.

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but that's the common theme around here lately.

I think that two issues are very much going to play into election 2004 if Dean wins the nomination: taxes and national security.

First, Dean supporters can rant on about how revoking the middle-class tax cuts isn't raising taxes, but the American public is not going to see it that way, especially after Bush spends $200 million telling us otherwise. Joe Voter is going to say, "If my taxes are higher than they were before, they've been raised, dammit!"

Second, the Bush administration and the media will no doubt relentlessly hammer voters with the national security, war on terror, Bush is C-in-C crap. Dean cannot counter this barrage as effectively as Kerry or Clark could. I'm not sure how anyone could really believe otherwise.

[robbedvoter]

25. Poll numbers say differently. Pitt has the majority's consensus

Or you only believe Zogby?

[boxster]

29. Did you read my post? The first part was sarcasm and not my viewpoint.

The rest of my post is what I really believe.

[pasadenaboy]

81. A response

1) If you don't rescind the entire bush tax, want spending do you want to cut? you can't have it both ways. Are we supposed to be as fiscally irresponsible as republicans, lying to people that we can fund our budget without asking them to pay for it, instead passing it down to our children? I won't vote for a liar, republican or democrat, and I don't want us lying about the budget and taxes to get elected. The truth always strengthens democracy, even if it doesn't win you each election.

2) So, the media doesn't like the candidate, so we shouldn't support him? I think Dean's position on the war is very understandable, and easily explained. Roughly 55% of americans think the war in Iraq was worth it, 40% say it wasn't. Yet all republicans and over 50% of our frontrunning candidates say it was. Why is our leadership so opposed to the will of the democratic party membership? Why do we have to bow to these sell outs? Because the media and focus groups tell us to? That is the path of cowards.

[boxster]

112. A response to your response

1) If Dean thinks that revoking the tax cuts alone is going to fix the budget problems, he isn't looking at enough predictions.

And, of course the tax cuts should be revoked, but try convincing the average voter of that. The average voter WILL believe the barrage of ads claiming that Dean wants to raise taxes, because in reality, IT'S TRUE.

Revoking all of the tax cuts will raise the amount of tax that people will pay. There is no way Dean's "but your local taxes went up, so this isn't really a tax increase" line is going to convince the average voter otherwise.

In addition, Dean's claim that revoking the tax cuts isn't an increase is simply word games. Of course it's an increase. The average federal tax liability of most middle-class Americans will increase, and they will see it as exactly that.

All Bush has to do is point to some middle-class family with 5 kids who would pay several thousand dollars more a year in taxes. A friend of mine has exactly that family - he'd lose $400 per kid if the tax cuts are revoked - that's $2,000 a year, plus the difference in the tax rates that apply to his situation.

Sounds like a tax increase to me. No amount of misdirection or explanation is going to convince him otherwise.

2) I don't see how your response has anything to do with what I said. My point isn't that the media likes Bush - of course they do. What I'm saying is that the administration and the media will turn this into the national security, war on terror election, similar to 2002. In that eventuality, Clark or Kerry is a better candidate.

If you believe otherwise, please explain to me how Dean is a better candidate if this election focuses on foreign policy, national security, the war on terror, and so on. I just don't see that.

A final note: let me suggest that you not place artifically high standards ("I won't vote for a liar") on your candidate, as you are likely to be disappointed.

All of our candidates change their messages to fit their audiences, and I suspect that all of them have had to retract or apologize for statements that were inaccurate, the good Dr. included.

[BootinUp]

119. Fiscal responsibility is important

Clark has a sound plan which does not raise taxes on the middle class

http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

General Wesley Clark's "Saving for America's Future Plan"

Saving $2.35 trillion over ten years for deficit reduction and investment in priorities.

Wes Clark has a plan to save $2.35 trillion over ten years. The plan reduces the deficit and frees up money to invest in priorities like education and health care. Under Wes Clark's plan the deficit is reduced every year. But this plan is only a down payment on the challenging goals of a balanced budget and full readiness for the retirement of the baby boomers - and further tough steps will be needed. Deficit reduction and investment in priorities are key parts of Wes Clark's plan to jumpstart the economy and create jobs, save for the future, and invest in people.

[TLM]

193. Kerry idea of beating Bush on the iraq war...

is to vote with bush on the war so bush can’t attack him... IWO to keep bush from taking shots at him over the war, Kerry volunteered to save him the trouble by shooting himself.

[Closer]

18. Funny the DLC should get mentioned in THIS post

Ironic actually.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

21. What's the point of this poll?

Obviously, "I'm scared to death!!" is going to win by a landslide -- nearly everyone who doesn't support Dean is going to vote that way, and we know there are more non-Dean supporters on DU than Dean supporters. Big deal, there are still 9 candidates.

But what does it prove? I suppose if you are ABD, this is satisfying.

Otherwise, it's just silly.

Hey, maybe you should have color codes, like the Terror Alert Warning System:

GREEN means you're not concerned at all, you figure any Dem can beat Bush, most of all the Dem with the best fundraising and biggest organization across the country

YELLOW means that you don't see Dean as a threat, but you are starting to get a little nervous every time Drudge posts one of those scary pictures of Howard with flames coming out of his ears

ORANGE means you are fairly certain that Dean's sealed records will reveal that he is actually on the Halliburton payroll and Rove will announce this just before the election

RED means you are so scared of Dean that you are hiding under your desk sucking your thumb -- who can VOTE under those circumstances? Too dangerous!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Code Red!

[robbedvoter]

51. Actually the way Will worded the questions, favors your guy

He could have said:
1. I have my doubts
2.I am 100% sure he'll win.
The question is relevant and not manipulatively posed - like other polls I've seen here. Considering that HD's supporters are constantly touting this VP and the OTHER VP, I am actually curious- how much do you trust him to win? on his ownthat is?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

83. "Scared to Death"

is meant to draw in all of the ABD's.

But I see your point, he could have made it more manipulative, but he never would've gotten away with that. I'm not saying it's manipulative, but it's certainly fear-mongering.

I can't speak for all Dean supporters; I have no strong opinion about VP at this point. I like Graham, who seems to have the inside track, and I think Dean/Clark could be very strong, but I'm not favoring any particular VP choice at this point. It's way too early for that, Dean doesn't have the nomination locked up, and there's time for that if and when he does.

To answer your question, while I am apprehensive about what Bush/Rove have up their sleeves for this election, I trust Dean to win more than any of the other candidates. He's the only one who seems to generate much enthusiasm (other than Clark, who does the same but on a smaller scale) and the ability to raise serious money. He also gets a ton of "feet on the street" which is what we are going to need to beat Bush.

[Toucano]

24. I voted Yeah.

But in truth, I'm not "scared to death" and I'm worried about all of our candidates' ability to beat Bush, though I support Clark.

The Bush regime doesn't fight fair. I am worried that as soon as our candidate fights back, some of our own will jump off the bus in indignant moral protest because they have "principles".

The public is easily duped as the recent polls regarding Iraq reveal.

But it would be "wrong" for us to dupe them back, even if it's for their own good. <sarcasm>

[pasadenaboy]

85. Amen

you are exactly right. All of our candidates are in for a very tough fight. That's why I think Dean being such a good and innovative campaigner helps him. I believe in him for that purpose, or Clark for his unique biography are our two best bets. I don't see anyone else having the gravitas and providing enough of an alternative to allow us to win.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

30. <the following is an expletive-free response>

we wish you would.

[Michigander4Dean]

35. Look who's talking. nt

[DancingBear]

47. Gee, you didn't use "Poop" in your response

I'm disappointed. :)

[wyldwolf]

56. "poop" is pooped out...

RIP

[UrbScotty]

63. Look at post #40 below

He used a synonym for 'poop.'

[Scott Lee]

118. You'll get it when you use it. Simple equation.

[Bucky]

82. 208 Exclamation points convinced me. Had you only done 207, I'd sleep on

heh

[leyton]

28. The way I see it...

Pundits are paid to write columns, so by the end of the day, they have to find something to talk about or else no paycheck. So they write whatever will fit the facts.

Frankly, I think Joe Trippi has run a brilliant campaign so far and has energized the party, bringing new voters into the fold. I have faith in the Dean campaign, and even if he loses, nominating him will bring so much energy and so many new people to the party that in the long run, there will be a big payoff.

[Closer]

37. Will

doesn't call it "energizing" he calls it "demagoguery":

"Kerry, unfortunately, has to contend with a guy who has effectively demagogued to the base, thus taking the easy path to nomination and eventual destruction." - Will Pitt

Not that many of us care.

[diamondsoul]

115. "Not that many of us care."

How telling, but you may be surprised come primary results at just how many of us DO care.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

44. Indeed

This board has sunk to new lows, with even its intelligent posters throwing out this inflammatory "scared to death" nonsense. Don't we get enough of this "scared to death" shit from the WH? :eyes:

Thanks for the dose of reality. While 59% (and climbing!) of DU remains "scared to death" of a Dean nomination, the Dean campaign continues to add money, supporters and endorsements -- and continues to climb in the polls, statewide and national.

[adadem]

60. Actually

that's what I expected to see after 2000. Didn't happen. Country is split now as it was then.

[deutsey]

Good point

and welcome to DU. :hi:

[gristy]

31. Interesting I can only vote two extreme positions

I can't agree with (or vote for) either.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

75. "You're either with us, or against us!"

I think that's the point of the poll. Either you are "SCARED TO DEATH!!!" of Dean (CODE RED) or totally on the bus.

So much for rational discourse.

I'm sticking around, hoping people come to their senses, but it seems to be disintegrating, and I'm quite surprised by who is leading the charge.

[diamondsoul]

121. Sorry, fellow supporter, but I have to disagree here.

No offense, but the gist is not "scared to death of Dean" but rather "scared to death of Dean's chances against the GOP machine". It's stated out there in the initial question right up on the top.

I'm worried about Dean against Bush, too, but here's my statement to that-

We AREN'T ANYWHERE NEAR THE BATTLE TO BEAT BUSH YET! Right now the issue is who is the guy we think is best armed to defeat him and who carries the message we want sent to politicos and Washington. For Will that appears to be Senator Kerry, whom I respect a great deal, for you and I, that's Dennis Kucinich, for others, that's Dean.

That, my friends is the whole point of this process. Which of us garners the most agreement from the masses? Might be Dean, but then again Kucinich may well shock everyone including the pundits with a shocking count in Iowa and other states. Kerry may come back and bite Dean in the rear. Gep might take all the major Union support some were counting on and rip them all up. We don't know.

I like John Kerry. He's raising/raised some impressive young people. I listened to his daughter yesterday, and she's a smart young woman, well spoken, outgoing and just generally a genuine person. I've read comments by Chris, he's also a smart young man, well-spoken and clearly strongly in Kerry's camp. Those two people alone are a testament to the fact that John Kerry has respect for individuality and an ability to communicate well with very different people. Kids don't become what parents want them to be, they become what is already existant in them as individuals combined with how well they are educated, i.e. given full information on both sides and allowed to choose their position. John Kerry has taught his kids how to do that and do it well. That's impressive and worthy of respect.

I think, and I'm stunned you'd disagree with this, there are candidates who are vastly under-rated in this race. Yes Dennis Kucinich is among them but he isn't alone. They're overshadowed by Dean's apparent and possibly questionable popularity. I'll leave it at that, and cheers, my friend.

[frustrated_lefty]

34. Will

One question comes to mind. I know you've spent time speaking with Kerry, personally. Have you done the same with Dean? I wouldn't be suprised if the answer was "yes," but if the answer is "no" I have trouble accepting your credibility on this topic.

[wyldwolf]

38. Will did a pretty in depth interview with Dean if memory serves...

[RevolutionStartsNow]

49. He did do a Dean interview

and it was good, but it seems like ages ago, before he was taken over by this newfound fear.

[frustrated_lefty]

68. Ok, fair enough

I'm glad he made the effort. I don't understand the fear, but that's another issue.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Closer]

53. Not only that

it's a pathetic attempt to save his candidate's sinking "real deal" ship.

[Zomby Woof]

65. some say unelectable

My preferred word is "undesirable". :-)

[paulk]

I'm very worried

Not only that Dean would lose the GE, but that he would take the rest of the party down with him.

The foundation of Dean's campaign is a lie. He has misrepresented himself from the beginning - who he is, what his politics are. You can fool some of the people, etc., but in the long run it's a recipe for electoral disaster.

[adadem]

67. Me, too n/t

[deutsey]

95. "take the rest of the party down with him"?

Jesus, just how much lower can it sink?

[paulk]

102. a filibuster proof Congress

that's how low.

[deutsey]

103. We're already there, dude

when the Dems vote for everything Bush wants, what is there to filibuster?

[paulk]

144. we're not already there, dude

It can get much, much worse.

The reason Justice O'Conner hasn't retired is that Bush knows the Democrats would filibuster the right wing fruitloop they'd want to replace her with. This is the simple truth. We may only be holding on with the skin of our teeth, but we are holding on.

The strategy of Karl Rove, etal., is exactly what I've described - a filibuster proof Congress. Three branches of government where Democrats have no voice at all. An advantage they will use to fundementally reshape our government and our nation.

A Dean candidacy, IMHO, makes this a very real possibility.

[deutsey]

161. Yeah, I'm sure Rove and the GOP are just a-quiver about the fearsome

Democratic party in Congress.

You're afraid that the Democrats "will" have no voice at all? They have no voice now, and they're complicit in having their vocal chords removed. If the Democrats had half the brains and spine you assume they had, I might agree with you about hanging on by their teeth. Again, even if you're correct about that, they've put themselves in that position since 2000. Bush Inc., has pretty much got what it damn well wanted since stealing office.

How many filibusters have the Democrats done to stop Bush from "fundamentally reshaping our government and our nation" since then? A couple? If that's your measure of success, well, then, yeah, I guess we can sink lower by a fraction of an inch or two.

How many times have the Democrats failed to stop Bush? How many times have they voted with Bush? How many times have the Democrats allowed the Bush junta to get away with lying, bullying, cheating, and "fundamentally reshaping our government and our nation" without so much as barely a whimper?

And then Dean comes along and now the entire nation is in jeopardy?

Hell, we've been in jeopardy for some time now and the congressional Democrats put us there.

We been down so long, I guess it looks like up to us now (to paraphrase Richard Farina).

[deutsey]

195. And furthermore

This will be my last post on this thread, a thread that has remained alive for far too long, in my opinion, based on the facile argument presented in its opening premise.

My worthy debate opponent here has claimed that the Democrats in Congress still have a voice and that Dean imperils their ability to stave off the GOP attempt to redefine our government and society. One thing I neglected to mention in my rebuttal is that the Bush White House has imperiously decided that it will limit queries from the Democratic party about Iraq or whatever policy matter is at hand: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9708-2003Nov6¬Found=true

That's some voice...Dean will certainly destroy their ability to counter Bush's absurd demands. :eyes:

What's the point of having a voice, one that is apparently minor to begin with, when those who have power are able to limit that voice as they see fit? In all seriousness I ask: What are Democrats doing to challenge this decision?

I also just read something in the January 2004 Harper's that reinforces my point of the so-called Democratic "opposition" to Bush:

"Unless Congress either cuts the president off (freezes the deficit) or puts hard cash into his account (raises taxes), he's free to keep living in his Skull and Bones brat's dreamworld, running up the largest tab in history. There is no sign that Congress as currently composed will do anything of the sort, of course."

That's page 68 in the January 2004 Harper's "Letter from Washington".

Yeah, Dean's the threat here all right. :evilfrown:

[Demobrat]

46. Not at all.

Considering the Dean can't beat Bush BS is coming from candidates with whom Dean is happily mopping the floor.

[JohnKleeb]

48. Hey Will

Neither, I am not ready to jump on the bus, but I am not scared really. I say he has a good chance.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

61. Thanks John

for not buying into the inflammatory "scared to death!" nonsense.

I miss the days when everyone agreed that any of our Dems could beat Bush. I know Bush has had some "victories" lately, but c'mon, he's hapless. All of our candidates could wipe him out in a debate.

[JohnKleeb]

64. Sure

Its just that I prefer someone else, should he win the primary, I'll happy to what I can.

[seventhson]

54. The emotion I feel is DESPISE: Your efforts to help Bush Win

This is to me a clear cut attempt to sabotage Dean in teh general.

I am alerting.

It is flamebait and you should be ashamed of yourself

[adadem]

69. Not sabotage

only reality

[Closer]

80. Be careful calling it a "flamebait"

that in and of itself might be "inflammatory"

I got a warning because I called his post "tripe."


Seventhson, looks like we're outnumbered here at DU. Gosh darnit.


Good thing in the REAL world, WE outnumber THEM! :D


Just remember that.

[Rose Siding]

96. I'm here

I just see no point in getting wrapped in this absurd argument. A mirror post could be made on ANY candidate.

But the REPUBS manipulate with fear and I hate it, so this engenders no fondness in me.

How frustrating it must be to have actually written the BOOK on why bush's argument was tripe and then have your candidate ignore that gift of information.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oasis]

152. Maybe it's a Bush/Kerry plot to ensure "Skull and Bones" remains in power.

Yes, that's gotta be it. :scared:

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfartinthewoods]

176. there lies the rub

people really think that what you said is true. i can't believe it but it seems that a lot of people here really believe the left is the majority.

we are soooo screwed.

[Tatiana]

196. I'm getting that same feeling N/T

[wyldwolf]

84. Here is another example of that minority Dean supporter mentality

Questioning Dean = helping Bush win.

seventhson, doesn't you constant conspiratorial rantings about Clark also, in effect, help Bush win?

[Zomby Woof]

87. don't forget the ones against Kerry too

nt

[wyldwolf]

91. oh, yeah, here's one of my favorites by seventhson about Kerry...

[seventhson]

97. I have also said I would vote for Kerry over Bush

probably Clark Too.


Kerry's membership in Skull and Bones with the Bushes is well known: a SECRET order with an oth of loyalty to the organization and its members as well as life long secrecy. THAT makes him a BFEE member IMHO.

But I STILL think he can and should beat Bush if he is the Candidate.

Bush is worse and ANY of our truly viable candidates should be getting SUPPORT in the General election and NOT attacks like this which ONLY HELP BUSH.

This, to me , is an example of why posts like these by Pitt make me believe Kerry is a BFEE collaborator.

Peace.

[wyldwolf]

106. Being a member of the same organization or club does not..

..make one a "collaborator" with someone.

[seventhson]

101. Well, theoretically, if I am correct in my beliefs about these things

if Clark or Kerry wins then Bush wins.

But a Bush win is a bigger loss for us of Bush stays in office.

[wyldwolf]

110. That's the problem, though...

All you have is your theories and beliefs. No facts. Equates in my mind to either wishful thinking or paranoid delusions - though I'm not qualified to make that prognosis. (Just as you're not qualified to make a war crimes charge.)

[boxster]

86. Alerting what? A bunch of quoted articles?

I seem to be missing something. Will's commentary is based on several articles that were printed in various publications.

That is flamebait in what universe?

Geez, I'm not even a Kerry supporter, but this is getting incredibly ridiculous. Contrary to Dean supporters' beliefs, every word said suggesting he doesn't walk on water is NOT flamebait.

[WilliamPitt]

130. Quack quack quack

Your diatribe in the Admins forum doesn't answer one question: The first of five articles cited above (all laden with facts, btw) was from Salon. In the last 48 hours, DU has enjoyed the multiple posting of another Salon piece by Joan Walsh attacking Kerry. Where was your outrage then? Wasn't the posting of that article an attempt to sabotage a candidate?

No. You have no leg to stand on. Peddle your papers somewhere else.

[wyldwolf]

150. I just read seventhson's Admins forum post...

... It is recommended reading for those who agree there are some Dean supporters who feel Dean shouldn't be criticized but other candidates can be and should be.

Sad.

[thinkahead]

210. Maybe we should stop listening to

conventional wisdom, and try some independent thought. Every attack on Dean has made his support stronger. That is a fact. I encourage you to continue your crusade - it makes Howard Dean more electable by the second - exhausting the options the Republicans can use against him.

Fire Away, if you must - but know we WILL kick George W. Bush out of the White House even if we have to drag your fear-driven hand-wringing a$$ with us.

We have an incredible opportunity to defeat Bush - I can't believe how scared you guys are of him. His success is based on nothing but lies and propoganda. We have to take the fight to them, and not each other.

Yes, I'm ready for my lecture about the brutal primary process now, lay it on me.

[incapsulated]

55. Yes. But..

I'm worried about anyone beating Bush. Dean moreso than others, but even with the "perfect" canditate by anyone's measure, we are in for a battle we may not be able to win.

[adadem]

70. True n/t

[gristy]

77. Yes

It's gonna be a tough slog with any of our candidates. The primaries will give us a good choice, but there will be no way to ever know if it is the best choice. Once decided, it will be important for as many of us as possible to accept the choice and charge full steam ahead into the GE.

[scarface2004]

71. we don't have to win...

to win. if the dem candidate again gets 50% of the vote, wether he wins the electoral vote or not, it proves bush is an asshole who will rot in hell!!!!!!!!!

[HFishbine]

74. The Paridigm of Fear has taken on a life of it's own

Well, well, well. It looks like the home of the brave is being successfully converted to the home of the chicken shits. We used to bemoan Bush's tactics of using fear for political gain, but I guess some "democrats" have decided if you can't beat 'em (which they can't), join 'em.

60% "scared to death." If only that were literally true.

[seventhson]

92. My point is that this is flamebait which helps BUSH

And demeans DU.

The fact that 60% in a self promoted poll are allegedly afraid that Dean cannot win and are using this forum to support that position is a direct threwat to the purpose and mission of DU.

It is a clear attempt, in my opinion, to damage Dean in the general election.

This is typically, IMHO, how Skull and Bones operates, Rove also.

Is this a tactic that is acceptable here at DU?

I began clashing with Pitt when he did this exact same thing to Gore in his support of Kerry.

Yo me it is personally revolting.

It is subjective tripe and flamebait and prone to freeping by the ABD team from, the Clark and Kerry campaign.

I think this shouild be locked because it is so clearly flamebait and such a blatant attemtp to hurt Dean and help BUSH in the general election if Dean is the Democratic Nominee.

I may despise the dirt on Clark and Kerry but there is NO WAY I am going to trumpet an argument that they cannot and should not defeat Herr Bush.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boxster]

139. Demeans DU? Are you serious? Speaking of demeaning....

"It is sad that all indications are that this board is overrun by a bunch of little Rove trolls." (Your response #107 in this thread)

Seventhson, if that isn't an example of "demeaning DU", I've never seen one. Your hypocrisy in this thread is simply incredible.

Will's posting contains several articles available to anyone who wanted to find them and little else.

If posting articles critical of one of our candidates is "tripe, flamebait" and "demeans DU", then we better just shut DU down entirely.

"I may despise the dirt on Clark and Kerry"

Doesn't sound like it to me: Wyldwolf's quote of another of your postings: "Kerry is a BFEE collaborator".

Dishing the dirt that you so despise?

And, how is quoting publicly-available articles flamebait, but claiming that "Kerry is a BFEE..." not?

Interesting standards you have there.

[bearfartinthewoods]

187. It is a clear attempt to keep dean out of the general election....

he's already damaged goods.

[rucky]

104. I couldn't have said it better myself

More DU drama.

[TLM]

194. Well like Kerry, these folks sided with Bush on everything else...

from teh IWR to no child left behind... so it is no surprise that they'd again side with him on keeping people afraid in order to win elections?

[JVS]

88. What makes any of the other candidates more electable?

Kerry can't outpoll Sharpton, what chance does he stand against Bush?

Clark has never held elected office, despite claims of electability he doesn't seem to be doing too well.

[deutsey]

89. Well, then I suppose we're doomed

because his rivals are sure as hell not demonstrating very well that they can beat Dean.

And just because these opinion pieces you cite express the point of view they do does not mean that they are accurately reflecting which way the wind is blowing. I think there are plenty of examples (both recent and in the past) where the media were out of step with the prevailing mood in the country.

A quick Google search turns up opposing views (one of them in response to Hammond's link and one of them the GOP pollster memo asserting that Dean can win...a dastardly Rovian trick, no doubt :eyes:):

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000482.html

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/articles/2003/11/21/in_defense_of_howard.php

http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml

http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/000779.html

[Tatiana]

94. YES, I'm concerned.

Dean enjoys tremendous support from Democrats.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 15-16, 2003. N=356 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 6.

"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ."

12/15-16
%
Howard Dean 27
Joe Lieberman 12
Wesley Clark 12
Dick Gephardt 7
John Kerry 7
John Edwards 6
Al Sharpton 6
Carol Moseley Braun 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
Other/None/No opinion 18

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Dean is the front-runner. But you really can't call him the front-runner when 73% of Democrats would rather support someone else. When you get down to it, I believe the supporters of the other candidates don't feel Dean represents their interests. Once the field narrows and there aren't so many wonderful selections in the democratic buffet, who is going to be the choice? Who will Democrats be most likely to tolerate as their second choice? Will Dean be able to get Lieberman's supporters? I doubt it. But would Lieberman's supporters go to Clark or Kerry if Lieberman wasn't an option? I think so. Are Al Sharpton's supporters going to join the Dean camp? I doubt it.

It saddens me to see our side so fragmented. I guess it's just a necessary evil of the primary process and having such a large field of talented candidates. If Dean and Kerry go head to head, I think Kerry wins, because he'll pick up the support of the other candidates, plus some undecided voters. If Dean and Clark go head to head, I think Clark wins for the same reason.

I'm worried. If Dean is the Dem nominee, he's definitely got my vote. But I don't think he'll get the votes of the majority of Americans. These are strange times. People vote for candidates that they "like," such as Bush* and Arnold. They're not voting on who is most qualified, who has the most experience, or who has the most intelligence.

[bigtree]

116. This is a calculation that nags me as I hear of Dean's inevitability

For instance, if one of the other's find momentum into New Hampshire what will happen to Dean's lead. Can his supporters be peeled off? Can the other's? Still much more to play out in the next month.

[MaineDem]

100. Yes, I'm concerned

The one thing I worried about in the George Bush presidency was his lack of knowledge, especially foreign relations. That's played out just like I was afraid it would.

The Presidency is not the place for on-the-job training. Unless we have a very strong candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Bush and debate him on every point (and WIN those debates) we Democrats won't have a chance in November. I don't think Dean is that candidate.

That is my my fear and my opinion.

[opihimoimoi]

105. Lets count the ways Dean CAN and WILL WIN

1. Able to energize

2. Passion

3. Inspires

4. Is an example of success

5. Wisdom

6. Connectivity

7. Choice of Staff

8. Stands for the Common Good

9. Has Respect, Credibility, and good timing.

10. Vision and Leadership

The overall score shows Dean is the Man. He connects. He appears to be the strongest of the Lot.

We must remind ourselves the Dem Party is not ONE MAN. What are we that we look for a miricle leader to take us out of the desert? No, we choose the best among us and we all work together to find the path to the Promised Land.

Come, we go look for compass at the Navigation R Us Store.

[Zomby Woof]

122. Opi?

Credibility? Dean?

I agree with your sentiment, but not your conclusion. Supporting Dean will hardly reap any of the benefits you outlined. "Better than Bush" is not enough. We need someone better than Dean too. Otherwise, the status quo remains, and the conservatives win.

[opihimoimoi]

136. Hi there Zomby, I guess its a matter of perception, we all have ours.

I have ta tell ya tho, his numbers are looking good at this point.

Come, we drink some kawa, good for soothing the spirits.

[Zomby Woof]

159. you're my bud no matter what

Come, we unify when waves are high. :beer:

[diamondsoul]

154. According to who?-

And where is your source showing most of America believes the same. Ask me any of the above about Dean and my reply will be "Not even close" on every one. There's another candidate that fits that bill for me and a whole lot of other people so please don't behave as if Dean is IT.

[Scott Lee]

111. This again? How many "Dean=McGovern" novelas are we to bear?

It seems to be a cyclic habit on DU to find as many different ways to post the same old boring and irrelevent question as possible.

Is it advancing anyone? For any reason? Or is it simply feeding the well worn egos of a very few who just can't stomach Howard Dean?

How many ways can you make an omelette?

[Bill of Rights]

120. My response to posters who say

if the other candidates can't beat Dean, how can you think they can beat Bush?

Well, elections for the democratic nomination and the general election are two different babies. Sure, Dean might be able to drum up the Democratic activists that vote in primaries, but can he drum up the support of the whole US population (who at least toy with the idea of voting in the general election)?

It is important that we pick the candidate who can most strongly fight Bush. That person is NOT Dean.

[Scott Lee]

124. You realize what you are suggesting is paternalist pedagogy?

As in, the party apparat telling the members who they will have as their nominee, rather than the nominee chosen by most of the members.

Is this OK with you? Aren't we trying to break the back of the paternalists telling us what to do, how to think and how to live?

[TexasPatriot]

128. there is a parallel here

imagine the argument were that the christian right, who tend to dominate the republican political primaries, were to argue that because a candidate were able to win the republican primary that makes them viable in the GE. I think we'd laugh at them.

[FubarFly]

138. We did laugh at them.

And George W Bush is our fucking president.

Go figure.

[Scott Lee]

149. Ouch! Spot on.

[TexasPatriot]

182. Bush II is an interesting case

His father was really an unpopular entity with the Christian right. Bush himself, though very much the born again, also played the 'uniter not a divider' card REALLY hard, and tried to make the case he was a centrist.

I've said this before, but remember how many of those debates between Gore and Bush had the 2 of them agreeing on all sorts of stuff - as they both tried to play to the center.

The thing was that Bush didnt have to play to the christian right out loud. He took them out of the equation early by locking up massive campaign contributions (and was thus ordained long before the first votes were cast). Only when people got angry about that - and we saw the brief rise of John McCain - did we see Bush actually get into the campaign proper (and only then by smearing the crap out of McCain and squeezing out his cash).

In the end, people in general expected a relatively weak president, serving a term in a divided Washington, where very little would be accomplished. Only 9-11 allowed him the lattitude to advance his agenda - and even then he hasnt been able to do quite the degree of damage the far right would have liked. He still hasnt remade the SCOTUS, and he's expanded govt dramatically due to the floundering economy.

This isnt a matter of being too much of a 'chickenshit democrat' to run a lefty against George II - this is a matter of looking at the cards we've got and making the best hand, because we HAVE to win this. I'm not a gambler. Losing this is going to suck a lot worse than most of the people here have so far imagined.

[FubarFly]

132. Yes, because Democratic primary voters are such freaks

they can't possibly be representative of society as a whole. Keep repeating the "liberals are bad" mantra. Really, it's worked so well so far. And by all means, let's listen to the wisdom of ominscient pundits like William Kristof rather the voice and will of outcast naive liberals who obviously can't see a good thing when it's presented to them- re: Iraq.

Chickenshit Democrats scare me more than Howard Dean ever will.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

123. YES

You're not alone on this.

If I recall, you support Kerry. I'm leaning toward Kerry, I think he stands a bit more of a chance than beating Bush than Dean does.

[Duder]

126. Like Sam Smith said...

This story will continue to be reappear until the Washington establishment either convinces Democratic voters it is right as usual
or until it has to make peace with Dean.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

129. My Biggest Fear About Dean Is Indeed His Electability, or Lack Thereof

It's possible he could beat Bush; it's just that his odds are much worse, IMO, than Clark's. A couple of percentage points nationally is HUGE, especially when coupled with better electoral vote math (just for starters, Clark will win AR, while Dean's VT is already in the safe Dem column; Clark is a Southerner with a military background, Dean is from a stereotypically liberal New England state that elects Socialists to Congress and avoided service; etc. etc.).

No one here has ever been able to allay my fears even remotely. All I hear is the standard rote response of, "He'll bring new people into the process (so did McGovern); don't worry, my dog could beat Bush (blatantly untrue, people who think Bush will be anything but formidable are fooling themselves); we need to rally the base to win (self-identifying Democrats make up about a third of the population these days, and ask Dukakis how this strategy worked for him)."

DTH

[RetroLounge]

137. DTH, thank you for the reasoned response.

I also think Clark can beat bush, and probably 3 or 4 other of our candidates can beat bush.

it's just that his odds are worse, IMO, than Dean's.

But I don't want to destroy Clark, and I don't think you want to destroy Dean.

That, I believe, is a fundemental difference between many posters here on DU. Their EGO's demand destroying the other candidates.

My ego demands that we beat bush. period.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

220. Thank You, I Agree, I Don't Want to Destroy Anyone

I've already said that unless Dean goes nuclear on Clark, I will work hard to elect Dean as President. And I certainly hope all of you die-hard Dean supporters will be able to tell me, "I told you so," if Dean pulls it off.

Part of me is still really worried, though. And while we may disagree about who the stronger candidate would be, IMO the electoral vote math stacks up pretty clearly in favor of my guy. No offense. :-)

DTH

[RetroLounge]

135. Yawn

:boring:

How many time are we gonna see the same stuff recycled, over and over, ad nauseum.

Sorry, if your guy can't beat Dean, then, by the process of the Primaries, HE DOESN'T GET THE CHANCE to beat Bush. We call those candidates, who lose the primary, LOSERS. So saying my or your guy has a better chance to beat bush is pure conjecture and pure opinion.

But if Dean wins the primary, then it's a FACT that he beat your guy and anything else said after that about your candidate is just sour grapes. And the same goes for Dean.

I can hardly respect the other posters in this thread who claim to be ABB but in reality are ABD. :cry:

[Scoopie]

142. Of course

I'm scared he won't beat Bush. In fact, I'm 99.9 percent positive he won't.
And that's one of the many reasons I don't support him.
The other reasons are the reasons others won't supports, making him one of the least likely people TO beat Bush.

[JustJoe]

145. It's gonna be fun watching (some of) you Dean denigrators

do a 180 in the GE and talk about what a
great guy Dean is and how he can and will
beat Bush. I hope Dean supporters don't rub
your noses in it ... too much. All for one
and one for all, ya know.

[mikehiggins]

160. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to have to worry about that n/t

[mzmolly]

147. I have to choose between a bus ride and being 'scared to death'

:scared:

Nice. The answer for me is NO. I am concerned about Bush winning, but am less concerned if he runs against Dean.

[Spinoza]

148. Considering the stakes,

and the Machiavellian abilities of Karl Rove, how the hell can anyone NOT be "scared to death"?

[FubarFly]

151. Because the emperor wears no clothes.

And no amount of media spectacle will change that.

It's our job to unite as Democrats and provide a clear alternative. Luckily for us, the alternative will be decided not through DU flame wars but rather, legally and fairly through the primary process. If Dean wins, the most helpful thing you can do to get b*sh reelected (short of supporting him), is to be scared to death of his democratically nominated opposition.

Let's stop playing by their rules. Let's stop being afraid of being Democrats, by not being afraid to support Democrats.

[gulliver]

153. If it were 2000 again, Dean would win.

Dean is a better candidate than Gore. Were Dean the candidate in 2000, we would have beaten Bush soundly, IMO.

But it is 2004, and I don't think Dean can win in the current climate. People will see him as trying to take the country back for the Democrats instead of taking the country back for Americans (and from the store-bought Bushists currently in the Oval Office).

[FubarFly]

155. What part of Dean's message of

employment, health care, and security do you think will not resonate with most Americans?

Please. I can respect people who think Clark is a better candidate than Dean, (although I disagree), but the argument that we must elect Clark because Dean can't win is foolish. The only thing about the current climate that has changed is that more Democrats are in a state of panic and despair than in 2000. Strong confident leadership is the antidote to this, which is a quality I believe both Clark and Dean possess. The key to winning isn't to capitalize on voters fears, but to alleviate them. Clark and Dean can BOTH win.

[oasis]

156. 2000. That's the year Bush was helped by lefties who thought "sending a

message" to the Democratic Party was more important than retaining the White House.

History seems to be repeating itself.

[FubarFly]

157. Are you suggesting that Howard Dean is somehow

a "stealth Green" candidate? Please elaborate.

[wyldwolf]

163. No, he implied...

... Dean has taken the role Nader did in the hearts and minds of some far lefties.

[TLM]

197. Oh NO! You mean Dean has brought the left base back to the party...

Oh no! How ever can we hope to win with millions more voters casting a democratic ballot.


No no we should be tryig to be more republican like Kerry and Clark, because we've seen over and over when republicans have to choose between a republican and a republican leaning dem, they always pick the republican leaning dem.

That's why we did so well in the 2002 elections.

[jonnyblitz]

198. yeah that annoys the DINOs

who apparently think we need two right wing political parties.

[wyldwolf]

215. The "left" of which you are a part of was never the base of the party...

[oasis]

171. No. The Doc wants to "cure the ills" of the Democratic Party as do

many of the Dean faithful. Other candidates believe that it is more important to rescue the nation from the clutches of GWB than to-- "remake the Democratic Party" as Al Gore said when he annointed Dean.

[FubarFly]

175. Hmm...

You're missing the fact that they go hand in hand: the way to remake the Democratic Party is to first beat b*sh. Sending a message to the Democratic leadership is irrelevant unless we have the White House to go with it. Is that so complicated?

[oasis]

181. Nothing "complicated" about Dem leadership being perceived by some as

"drifting" to the right. Nothing "complicated" about a half-baked crusade that seeks to save the party for it's own good.

Nothing "complicated" about middle of the road Democrats who are contemplating another four years of Bush in the White house.

The aleination of centrists and cultural conservatives does not go "hand in hand" with winning the White House.

[FubarFly]

185. Except that Dean is a centrist running on a centrist platform

which should in theory, appeal to centrists.

Just a thought.

[rumguy]

164. This is the paragraph from Will's post that really gets to me

makes me uneasy..

"Second, Dean’s experience will appear pathetic to the American people. Dean has been an executive, true—a governor for 12 years—but in a state of only 600,000 people. His supporters will say that he balanced the budget, which is no easy feat. I disagree. Dean balanced a budget that is smaller than the budgets of most major cities. It also is a little easier when the federal government picks up the check (the federal government paid for 21 percent of the Vermont budget during the year that Dean balanced it). Moreover, in the post–September 11 political landscape, it doesn’t help that Dean has no experience in foreign policy whatsoever. Sadly, if Dean and Bush were to square off, Bush would be seen as the foreign policy expert, giving the Republicans an advantage they don’t deserve. The fact is that Dean will be seen as a political novice incapable of leading the most powerful nation in the world."

Especially the last half of it...imagine Bush looking like a foreign policy expert to the American people, it could happen...

[wiley]

167. Dean

I like some of the candidates, but Wesley Clark is the only one that will win a general election. Why can't we be like the Republicans and just all get behind someone who we all can live with, then make sure our voices are heard when Clark is in office? The reason why so many blue collar workers and other Americans are not liking Democrats of late is that there are so many who really have not had experiences in their lives comparable to what we go through every day in this country. I liked what Howard Dean had to say a year ago, now I can't believe a word he says. Why? He keeps saying things that trash Clinton, then tries to back out of what he has said because it doesn't go over well. Howard Dean is a politician. Wesley Clark is a leader with a long history of serving this country, fighting for the principles upon which this country was founded, and making something of himself when he didn't have much to begin with. That's what us guys have to do. When some fool calls to ask us who we favor in a poll, we just hang up. Dean lost it for me after Saddam Hussein was captured. Yeah, a lot of us blue collar workers have friends and family in the military,because those are the jobs we can get. I didn't vote in the last election because both Gore and Bush made me sick. Wesley Clark is a lot like Clinton, but without the problems. He's disciplined. He's had to do things on his own. And he's no better than I am, except I think Clark, not Dean or Bush is an honest guy who will help this country. That helps me and the rest of my brothers and sisters who work every day.

[quaker bill]

170. An alternate view

If Charlie Murphy needs help in Washington, the state representative from Burlington calls congressman John Tierney. Lexington Representative Jay Kaufman calls congressman Edward J. Markey. Cambridge City Councilor Ken Reeves takes his troubles straight to the office of Massachusetts' senior senator, Edward M. Kennedy.

The man none of them call on Capitol Hill is Senator John F. Kerry, the state's Democratic presidential hopeful. "Why bother? You'd be lucky to have anyone on his staff call you back," says Murphy, who traveled with a group of Massachusetts elected officials to New Hampshire yesterday to campaign for Howard Dean.

Murphy and his colleagues say their support for Dean has more to do with the former Vermont governor's strength as a candidate than Kerry's weakness, but it is clear that among many local officials in Massachusetts the state's junior senator is reaping what he sowed.

Imperious, arrogant, and indifferent are a few of the milder adjectives some use to describe their increasingly rare dealings with Kerry. Anecdotes abound about being shut out of his campaign announcement and then invited at the last minute when it looked like he might not fill Faneuil Hall. Especially irritating to many is that after his hard-fought reelection victory over William F. Weld, Kerry acknowledged that he had not been sufficiently responsive to local officials and vowed to change. "Ha," scoffed Reeves, a former Cambridge mayor who has held elective office for 16 years. "Nothing changed."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/12/14/kerrys_style_a_real_turnoff/

Nobody knows you quite like the hometown crowd. These would be elected officials in Ma. speaking.

Just a sentence more:

"Dean would be a president of all the people because he listens to people. Kerry listens to himself."

[bobthedrummer]

172. Dean will beat Bush if he's the nominee in 2004

eom

[billbuckhead]

183. I won't vote for Dean, I find him morally repugnant

Cato Insitute, NRA and the Confederate flag? He's not from any wing of the Democratic party I've ever supported.

[TLM]

199. And George Bush thanks you for your support...

I'm sure.


And I thank you for showing us that the anti-Dean hate is not so much about beating Bush as it is about beating Dean.

[CMT]

179. I'm afraid none of our candidates will beat Bush

Not specificially Dean who I believe potentially could perform better than any of them in a general election fight against Bush.

Right now everything is going George W's way. The pundits are in his corner, the economy is getting better statistically, the war news is brightening with the capture of Saddam and the news out of Libya gives them a bit of a moral victory. The phony prescription medicine bill is a propaganda victory which won't be tested really until '05. Bush has the power of the incumbency and I wouldn't be surprised if somehow they find Bin-Ladden in some cave by the conventions next year--"Greetings From President Bush" times 100.

Right now I put the Democrats chances of beating Bush at about 4 out of 10 (a month ago I would have said even money)primarily due to Bush's power of incumbency and ability to shape events and the whores in the media who will go to all lengths to bolster him.

Now as to your specific question. I think the democratic party needs shaking up and Dean is the only candidate, imo, who is doing it. I think in a general election campaign he will unite the left and do well enough with Greens (especially if news that Nader won't run if Dean gets nomination are true). I think his message can bring in some independents too. He will offer clear distinctions with Bush and take Bush on at every level. He is not going to run the type of McGovern disaster laden campaign but a politically smart campaign and will not let the media throwing bricks at him stop him from articulating his agenda and challenging Bush. In many ways I think if the Democrats have any chance to win it is actually to nominate a maverick like Dean--and let him loose. He will give George W. hell in a Trumanesque manner which way resonate. By the way, Truman in his '48 give 'em hell campaign actually received lots of negative press for the way he conducted his campaign but the masses like a fighter. Frankly, with the exception of Dean I don't see any candidate running who has proved to be able to take on Bush as effectively as Dean does.

Finally, my feeling is that the best candidate and most battle tested will be the one who comes out of this process and is the Democratic nominee. The first few primaries will widdle down the field and when it comes down to Dean (yes, I'm assuming Dean will be one of the finalists) and someone else--instead of a field of nine--and if Dean continues to win primaries and is our nominee--he will have proved himself to be the best candidate to go up against Bush. If someone else defeats Dean in the primaries then he will be the best candidate because he survived the process.

[shivaji]

190. Edwards has the best chance of beating Bush

Then Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, Sharpton, Braun & Kucinich, in that order.

Dean will energize the base more than anybody. Can't beat Bush if the blacks stay home on election day. He has THE MOST IMPORTANT leadership quality--picking the right staff. Notice how successful his campaign has been so far compared to all others.

Edwards has honed his debating skills in courtroom trials and the senate. He knows how to act subserviant to a judge. He has looks and a gift of gab.

Gephardt has labor support and therefore campaign cash + manpower.

Lieberman is closest to the center where most voters are.

Kerry has many years in senate, money, brains, and combat experience.

Clark has the advantage of being a unknown, has no political enemies since he has no political history. His drawbacks are his ego, he is used to giving orders, and will not work well with congress, and he is bypassing Iowa. A dem has never been nominated who bypassed Iowa.

The others all have marginal support.

[Capn Sunshine]

192. Third Choice: I'm not worried, YOU SHOULD BE

if "someone else" running a "traditional" campaign against the Bush machine runs, THEN there would be a problem.

But the populist candidate of the outraged masses?
No , I'm not worried. But the MACHINE POLITICIANS ARE SCARED SHITLESS.

[TLM]

200. Bingo... Dean is the only one who can win....

Because he is the only one with the support base strong enough to take on Bush in any effective way.

That's why folks like Will are focused on attacking that base.

[quaker bill]

206. I agree

They are going to pound on him, because mobilized proles 'taking back the country' is the biggest threat of all.

What if 2 or 3 million people pass the hat and fully fund their own candidate? Then the President might be not need to be answerable to the corporations and foundations. He might not return their phone calls...

This cannot be!

[imhotep]

202. 144 people who are scared

well you can all go hide under the sheets, because I know most Democrats are not afraid.
Oh, and when Dean is the nominee, all the people who are afraid please stay under the covers because no cowards allowed when we fight Bush.

[KoKo]

207. Well, Will, you're guy is "tankin'" in the Polls so now you're a Clark

supporter? You compare Dean to McGovern? Well....this is sad...but go on and be disillusioned. You're young enough that you can take the "kick in the kidneys."

I didn't read this whole thread, because I'm "dial up" and maybe what I just said has been posted already.

I'm glad you are "romantic" enough to be out there looking for the "dragon slayer." And, I'm sorry that Kerry (let you down, like he did, myself) but to compare Howard Dean to McGovern makes me wonder how much of the Repug Media Stuff you've swallowed in your "quest for your new profession."

Sorry....that was a kick in the kidneys to repeat the Repug lie about Dean. "Pile ups" are what you say "Politics is about." Well, that's what it's about to you.

[KoKo]

208. And...as I said on another thread: Kerry got Bad Advice from his Advisors

and he toadied and listened to the "Experts" just like Gore did in 2000 and where has it gotten him?

At some point candidates can be "over-advised" where they seem to pander more to their "handlers/political operatives" than to the American People. They don't want to bother..they are short of time, and the "political consultants" (Kingmakers, if you will) become more important that "WE, THE PEOPLE!"

So Kerry digs himself into a "similar"hole that Gore did in 2000 by being "over-orhestrated" and he "falls on his butt." He does "Harley Fly Boy" after voting on IWR, and he tries to do a "Macho Image" to counteract Bush.

Dean, OTHO, has been true to "himself" whether you like him or not or think he's too "angry" or not. He really isn't "Controlled" and shoots off his hip. But, Americans just love the Chimp and Dean might be the most appealing to those who appreciate "men who aren't controlled."

It just depends on whether the "shooter from the hip" is a Dem or a Repug. I, personally would trust the Dem who shoots more than the Repug!" At least with the Dem, I have a chance to survive

[bitchkitty]

211. I'm not worried at all -

and the sudden influx of newbies who post hate-Dean threads only tell me that far from wanting Dean, Rove fears Dean.

[Paragon]

212. Pull the pin, count to three, and throw

Turns out this is NOT a flame grenade - but filled with sleeping gas...this kind of shit is so tired it's putting me to sleep.

[clarknyc]

213. In a word:

NO!

[Myra]

214. Interesting DU name for a Dean supporter Clark. :)

Sorry. It's just funny.

[Myra]

216. I'd rather not find out first hand. I'm tired of media darlin' Dean.

There is a reason why the mainstream media is crowning him
before a single primary. It's because he's a weak candidate.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

218. Dean was my #1 until I started to hear more and more experts come out

and say he couldn't win. It's very important for me to beat Bush and I will vote for the person that I feel can best beat Bush. Those people are Clark, Kerry, Gephardt/Edwards in that order. I also feel that Clark, Kerry and Gephardt are the most competent when it comes to foreign policy, etc.

[arewethereyet]

219. not worried about it at all

its a lead pipe cinch that Dean will lode and probably lose badly.

I'm worried about how many COngressional races will be doomed as well. That would appear to be up in the air.

[flpoljunkie]

221. Kick.

:kick:

[HuckleB]

222. Dean can beat Bush as well as any current Dem candidate.

I can see the argument that Clark might be a stronger candidate against Bush, though I find it wanting, as well. As for the argument that any of the others would be stronger than Dean against Bush, I don't buy a one of 'em.

[LuminousX]

223. Moderately concerned, so I'm busting my ass to get him in office

Oh, wait, that applies to each and every candidate. oops my bad.