Dean supporting the $87 Billion appropriations for Iraq then opposing it only after Kucinich, then Sharpton, the Edwards opposed it.
Who forced Dean to explain how a "peace candidate" could support keeping our troops in Iraq for another five years or more and also maintaining the same level of defense spending as we currently have? Hint: it wasn't the media.
I don't want to re-fight the primaries. This is about whether or not a moderate should have a position of leadership among the progressive movement. Would progressives accept a moderate like Lieberman as one of their leaders? If not, then why a moderate like Dean?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
