Kerry Says Dean Has No Chance Vs. Bush

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20031227/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_7&printer=1
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM, Associated Press Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. - With a month to go before the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry (news - web sites) made some of his strongest attacks yet against Democratic front-runner Howard Dean (news - web sites), portraying Dean as inexperienced in foreign policy, wrong-headed on the economy and a muddled thinker.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20031227/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_7&printer=1

than go with somebody like Kerry who constantly attacks his biggest rival-the way he's doing now.

Kerry and Lieberman are my least favourite candidates...because of what they say about the others running! Besides, Lieberman is a DINO, anyway!

:kick:

Kerry's going down. I can already feel
the flames but his campaign strategy has
excited precious few. With the right message
and delivery Dean is electable. Man, would I
love to see GW Chinnuts spend 200 million+ and
lose.

A.B.B.

No offense, I'm new here and maybe I missed some nuances, but why are you saying you'd rather go down fighting than have Kerry elected instead of Bush, and why does no one else think that statement is outrageous? If you don't think there's much difference between Kerry and Bush, why do you even bother paying attention to the election? Even Kucinich if elected would not be able to push through many more or different reforms than any other Democrat because he'd have to work with Congress and daily Republican opposition. Not to sound too jaded, but what do people think Dean would be able to actually accomplish in office that the other Democrats wouldn't? We didn't choose this (O.K., maybe some Naderites), we are presented with two pretty crude choices in American political life these days, symbolized by "pro-choice" and "pro-life". It's very Us vs. Them and the main thing to focus on is who can get your sworn enemies out of office by whatever means necessary. I'd rather win dirty as hell with any of the Democrats (well, O.K., I really don't trust Sharpton!) than go down fighting with any of them. Can't we agree that once in office there wouldn't be that much difference in our lives at the end of the day if Dean or Kerry were Prez, but it would feel a lot saner that it does now? One last thought, and again no offense, but some of you must have seen pundits speculating about a nominated Dean having an eventual "Sister Souljah" moment and ripping some flaky lefty group/individual/cause a new one to show his "realistic" credentials? Do you really think he is someone who is "above" that, and do all you Dean supporters feel out of that bullseye? Honestly, just wondering, because I have nothing against the guy, but I just don't see what is so special and how to sell that to people out there who don't read much (let alone about politics), are busy, and aren't too likely to be found on the net. If he had actually been in the Senate months ago, I don't feel I know how "pure" his approach to Iraq and terrorism would have been-for example, isn't his NRA membership a compromise of sorts? I wonder if people haven't been projecting a lot of hopes and even fantasies onto poor Dean. Is that healthy for anybody? I just hope none of us ends up asking :wtf:

Because your contention that Kerry can "beat Bush" isn't supported by anything more than personal opinion. Many other people believe that Dean can beat Bush, and if you look at the poll numbers, Dean and Clark are tied for first place when put up against Bush. Kerry is in third place.

Kerry would be an OK candidate and I will support him if he's the nominee, but I choose to support Dean because he is closer to what I believe is important (a domestic agenda). I was a member of the Kerry campaign early on but quit when he started resorting to personal attacks on specific Democratic candidates.

Your first post, #7 below, was fantastic!

We're all glad you're here!

:toast:

It is clearly evident Dean is much more on the ball
than any of the other candidates.

It is actually sad to watch people not be able to see themselves and the picture they are in.

And, I especially like Dean and Clark (and Kucinich, too). But, I don't like Kerry and his attacks on Dean. The rest of the Democratic candidates are excellent choices (except Lieberman!).

In the end, ANYONE is better than Bush...as long as he / she is a Democrat. But, my principles are aligned with Dean...that's why, if nominated...and, if necessary, I will go down fighting with the good doctor against Bush*!

But, I really believe we can win! And, as Bill Clinton has said, "Most of the time American (voters) get it right." I have to believe that.

:kick:

Skull & Bones association and his Iraq war vote. Nonetheless, I think all of us, if so forced by Kerry being nominated, would vote for him over Bush, and would fight for his election.

People are passionate about their candidates. Hoepfully, this passion will be channeled appropriately if their feet are to the fire.

Welcome to DU from another newbie!

...than sell out those principles by cutting a deal, with someone who said James Baker would be okay for a Cabinet position, to oust Bush.

my greatest concern with Kerry when he criticizes an opponent with a lack of foreign policy experience, is in all his 'experience' he bought into Bush/co lies, had inside information on foreign policy intel we common folk never see, and still failed to publicly question the garbage coming out of OSP. Then he chose to ignore the constitution, (only congress can declare war), and give an administration who had lied consistently in the first year and nine months a blank check to preemptive war. That kind of foreign policy savvy, we don't need in the Oval Office. Again, welcome to DU :-)

Shows how much Kerry's political prognostications are worth.

It's just too bad Kerry has never bothered to attack GWBush as strenuously as he does Dean.

He's just waiting for the right time, don'tcha know? ;-)

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

Kerry, Lieberman and Gepthardt may all be still
standing as testers for Bush. Which ever wind blows the strongest
will be the path Bush will take against Dean.

A sad time indeed.

Bush will never legitimately win. Hell, he couldn't even do that last time!

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

Obviously you haven't done much research on any of the Democratic candidates.

you're in the wrong place, buddy! enjoy your, uh, stay!

I feel that Kerry has really reached bottom. Up until now, I have respected Kerry as a statesman. I see now that he is all smoke and no fire--he is as pretentious and as tied in to the Washington code as the rest of the wimps on the hill.

NOT.

The whole world it seems is dumping on Dean. Next we'll hear from bin laden saying Dean doesn't have a chance against bushie. Me thinks the republican lite Democrats like Kerry, lieberman, Edwards, Clinton and the like protest too much.

The Amazing Criswell

Thanks for the laugh, I was once going to do a biography of the almighty Jeron Criswell. Found these hilarious books he published himself on how to "make it" on broadway and tin pan alley. I notice he did neither, but thank goodness he got into the prophet industry.

Geez, to read the opinions of some DUers (it seems even a majority these days), Bush is a virtual lock for the win. Why? Will the voters be clamoring to support him what with:

- His failed Iraq war

- Losing 3 million plus jobs

- Turning record surpluses into record deficits

- Overseeing a massive wave of corporate crime

- Tax cuts for the very wealthy

Exactly which one of these issues is Bush undefeatable on? Cuz I gotta tell you, he is the worst President this country has had in 50 years and it should be easy to beat that. Have some confidence from Christ's sake.

Even if they voted for Gore last time, simply because they perceive him as their president. These same people voted for Gore last time simply because he was their vice-president. They need to be reached somehow so they can understand that they deserve better and can have better than they have gotten.

Bush is formidable because, according to the latest poll, 63% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. With the exception of jobs, the economy is rebounding. In most people's minds, corporate crime is back-page material (which is where its been for the past 9 months). Since the capture of Saddam, Americans are 1/3 more satisfied with the war effort (again, polling numbers) and give people a few more bucks to spend each year and they do handstands.

People like Kerry who attack other Democrats with more anger than they attack Bush disgust me. There is a time when I held Kerry in extremely high regard. His pro-war vote (which could likely result in a return to the draft) lowered my esteem for him dramatically.

This rhetoric has eliminated what modicum of respect I had for him. It is clear to me that John Kerry isn't interested in the American people, or even the Democratic Party. John Kerry is interested solely in John Kerry.

Ditto for Lieberman, Gephardt, and the other pink-tutu Democrats who are arguing in PUBLIC FORUMS that a FELLOW DEMOCRAT "cannot win." EVERY fellow Democrat can "win." That should be the party line.

You hear that, pink tutu Democrats?!?!?!

Howard Dean can beat Bush.

Dennis Kucinich can beat Bush.

Wesley Clark can beat Bush.

Carol Mosely Braun can beat Bush.

Bill Bradley can beat Bush.

Gary Hart can beat Bush.

Michael Frickin' Dukakis can beat Bush.

WHOEVER the Democratic Party runs can beat Bush.

It is absolutely disgraceful that McAuliffe isn't cracking the whip on these morons who are tearing down fellow Democrats in public, rather than offering real policy alternatives of their own. I take solace in the fact that Dean and his folks are likely to clean house of the moribund "leadership" who gave us the 2000 and 2002 election fiascos, and now this "Democrats cannot win" line.

They sold us down the river on the Iraq war, they sold many of us down the river on other important battles with the GOP, and now they're selling fellow Democrats down the river again just so they can claim power for themselves. Disgusting. :mad:

I have no problem with the candidates disagreeing with each other, but I see nothing productive in saying a fellow Democrat, who may get the nomination, can't win.

Yes I'm a Dean supporter, but at least he has always said that any of the 9 people running would be better than Bush.

who struck the first blows in this campaign, sniping at Dems with many more years in office than he has (and far better records as progressive Dems), calling them Bush Lite, saying he is the ONLY anti-war candidate, the ONLY white candidate to talk about race to white audiences, saying that as president, he would shine a bright light on Congress and make them "scatter like cockroaches."

A real uniter, our Dr. Dean. Just like the man he seeks to replace.


Vote for Dennis J. Kucinich, the most progressive Democratic candidate in many years. Americans want a real choice and will support Kucinich in larger numbers than they would support Dean.

Dean's "attack" was a differentiator that didn't name any other candidates.

There's a WORLD of difference between Dean claiming he's the first candidate to talk about race versus, say, Dean declaring that "John Kerry is a tired Massachusetts big government paleoliberal with foofy hair who cannot win the presidency."

The latter is closer to what Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt have done, and that's a big no-no. That's a direct assault on a specific candidate loaded with outright lies and viciousness.

Was Dean perfect in insisting he's the only candidate to talk about race? No. It's a silly claim considering that Carol, Al and Dennis are in the race.

Is that statement in any way comparable in severity and damage to the party that attack declarations of particular candidates' fitness for office are? In other words, Lieberman declaring Dean to be "unelectable and far out of the mainstream," or Kerry/Gephardt operatives running shady ad campaigns in Iowa about Dean? Absolutely not.

If Dean said "Kucinich is a crazy leftist with no chance to win" or ran shady ad campaigns against him, I'd quit his campaign just as I abandoned the Kerry campaign when it went negative.

I am a fan of Mr. Kucinich in many areas and am glad he's doing so well versus what the pundits claimed. I urge you to vote for the candidate you prefer in the primaries and commit to support the party's eventual nominee whoever he or she is (unless it's Lieberman!) ;)

And all Democrats should steer clear of vicious attacks on specific fellow Democrats, which do NOT elevate your candidate, but do tear down the party.

far more often than he does other Democrats. If you listened to Kerry, Gep, Lieberman, and Edwards you would think that Bush is a pretty good guy compared to Dean. That just isn't true, and its shameful that they are trying to make it look that way.

There is no truth in what you've said whatsoever.

...Dean was right to attack them. They failed us. On everything from civil liberties, to the environment, to war.

That's part of why Dean is the top candidate. And before anyone asks, no, my candidate is Dennis "Repeatedly Re-elected to Congress" Kucinich.

or his record, any responsible person would be right to attack him.

If one gives him credit for Clinton's win, I'm afraid that would be wrong. Clinton truely won because of Gore being the silent backbone.

I certainly would have hope the DLC would not have forgotten that.

I am so tired of hearing this crap from other dems who 'don't get it' and obviously never will. Kerry, Gephardt & Lieberman need 2 shut up or start talking issues. Every time they attack another dem candidate they sink even lower in the polls.

per Ken Kesey 'You're either on the bus or off the bus'. Guess who is OFF the bus?

You do the math on why the "New Dems" are scuttling every challenger.

Hint: THEY WANT US TO LOSE HOPE.

Lose hope in change. In justice. In accountability. In short, in our role as the employers, rather than employees, of the government.

a little mentioned fact (IMHO) is the need for new leadership in the DNC. Any candidate that bucks their party line direction will have my first consideration during the primaries.

eom

not every democratic candidate can beat Bush. Face it. He is generally pretty popular. The only candidates that have a chance are Clark, Gephardt, Kerry, possibly Edwards and we better pray Dean.

After what transpired with all the selection 2000 stuff, how can ANYONE trust this lying piece of garbage?

Name one thing bunkerboy had said that hasn't been a lie?

But some of these idiots will still "trust this pResident".

Anybody here believe that?

will grant the benefit of the doubt. It certainly is better than saying: "lying asshole scumbag".
Note, nowhere did Kerry say Bush is a competent.

The real idiots are the ones with a selective memory.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...
Howard Dean on Meet the Press, June 22, 2003

Riddle: what's the difference between Bush and a ham sandwich?

A: the ham sandwich isn't a fascist traitor who will stab you in the back while sending your kids off to die for imperial conquest.

(Okay, so I'm bad with riddles...)

<clap clap clap clap clap>

THIS post should be a seperate thread. Outstanding and welcome to DU! :hi:

he knows it. The words of a bitter man.

They are all Electable .

bush is the loser IMHO

That goes for that DINO Lieberman too. I used to like Kerry but that dumbass is doing the GOP's job for them. Can't the candidates look further down the road than the next primary stop. Dean is gonna be the candidate and all their negative mouthing off is going to haunt us in the general election.

Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt can't beat Dean yet they think Dean can't beat Bush. If they can't beat Dean and Dean can't beat Bush then it stands to reason that Kerry, Lieberman and Gep have an even worse shot at beating Bush because they can't even win over their own party members.

Regarding Dean, I wish Kerry would just STFU.

We've seen some stupid stuff in this campaign by the guys in the rear, but this really takes the cake.

So Senator Kerry -- if YOU can't get the White House, then NO OTHER Democrat will!!!!

What character and leadership he is demonstrating! /sarcasm off

Gee -- I actually used to respect this guy. I actually think he is a good man, under there somewhere, but he sure is pulling us all down with him. But he is dead wrong on how he is running his campaign, and this latest fit is just plain bizarre and destructive.

John Kerry -- if you are not the frontrunner -- it is YOUR fault. Don't blame it on Dean. Don't hate him because he has campaigned far more successfully than you did.

Johnn Kerry -- what are you doing -- again! -- delivering us over to Bush, again? Wasn't giving that bastard the green light as a Senator on our behalf bad enough, but now to try and sabotage the whole fucking election for us? What are you going to do when Dean or Clark get the nomination -- flip flop yet again?

I see -- Kerry's strategy (today) is not to appeal to the base, but to piss off the most energized voter base in decades royally, and denounce their current popular favorite of Americans in your party in the strongest possible manner. Who's running his campaign these days -- Ann Coulter?

Ooops! This candidate just dropped off *my* radar screen.

That is why he is so damn bitter. Chin up Kerry, remember the cause?

At this stage of the game in the 1980 cycle, many Republicans were concerned that Reagan could not beat Carter.

if Independent candidate John Anderson had not siphoned off 10 percent of the "progressive" mostly Democrat votes. It was a real shame.

At the time, many people were disillusioned with Carter because of high inflation and oil prices.

Anderson got about six percent. Reagan got just over 50. In the end, Anderson wasn't much of a factor. Much of the shift to Reagan took place in the last week before the election, after the final debate.

I, too, was frustrated with Carter and contemplated voting for Anderson, even as I stood in the voting booth. I decided I would never forgive myself if I voted for Anderson and Reagan carried California by one vote. I voted for Carter and Reagan carried California by a lot more than one vote.

In any case, I bring the matter up because, unlike Dean and the other Democratic candidates, Reagan was well known nationally before running for President. He had a reputation as a rightwing moron which was not totally undeserved. Many people voted for him in spite of their misgivings about him.

We could have the same thing at work next November.

:hi:

Sorry Turbo Super-fast light speed, but there just is no effective siphoning effect for supporters of progressive politics: this country needs a progressive social(ist) movement, and compromise betrays the working class. That 10% would have been 98% had the movement been organized.

Welcome to the DU.

You won't see me around much anymore, a corporate-whore of a restaurant owns my ass 6 days a week.

MRSAV

Hostages held in Iran were released on Raygun's inauguration day, thanks to the work of Poppy Bush.

The "inability" to free the hostages hurt Carter a lot.

Boy o boy!!!

Just follow those black oil tracks and you'll find alot of causes
for politcal and economic disaster.

that's the obvious extrapolation from his statement.

Because if Dean beats Kerry, and Dean can't beat Bush, then Kerry really gets slaughtered by Bush.

A=B=C

the Emperor has the next election fixed - so no democrat will win. But I had rather go down with a real democrat (Kucinich) than go down with a Kerry, or any of the other accommodtators!

e Deibold machines in place in key states
and enough stall tactics to allow those illegal,
unconstitutional, non accountable machines to be used un 2k4.
The trick is to bust these assholes in their next 911 terrorism on their own people

There WILL be another US terra event before the next election--
Guaranteed--
but when you think about how stupid they were to send anthrax to Democrats only, well, there's a damn good chance they will get caught in the act!

Wouldn't that be GREAT!!

BAYBEE BUSHEE,Cheney Rumsfoold, and the whole crime family in jail FOR LIFE !!!
Oh what a JOY when the bad guys get theirs !!


.

EOM

The risk has me very concerned.

For the record, I am a life long resident of Massachusetts, and I do not support Kerry. I will probably vote for Gep or Clark.

guess who else doesn't

has a better chance than Kerry does of beating Bush. Not meaning anything against Kerry, but he simply doesn't understand that the paradigm has changed and that old ways of campaigning against the pubs no longer work.

Dean at least has been innovative and nontraditional in his campaigning style, and will be difficult for the pubs to really pin down. He is also a fighter, which none of the other viable candidates except Clark, have proved to be. I think these will be the major factors in winning next year.

I actually think that Dean and Clark are the only ones who have much of any chance at all.

I found this article interesting!!

Aussie paper says Bush leery of Joe as foe
(December 23, 2003)
New Haven Register


WASHINGTON -- Who strikes fear in the heart of our commander-in-chief?

According to the Australian, a daily newspaper Down Under, it's U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn.

Editor and columnist Greg Sheridan reported as much in the newspaper's Dec. 18 edition:

"When U.S. President George W. Bush visited Canberra in October, he told his friend (Australian Prime Minister) John Howard that the Democratic candidate who, if he won the primaries, would be his most formidable opponent in the 2004 presidential election was Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman," Sheridan wrote.

In the piece, Sheridan notes the apparent blow the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein dealt to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's antiwar campaign.

"One thing you can say about Bush is that he is expert at winning elections and his assessment of Lieberman -- Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and the most hawkish of the Democrats -- is a fascinating insight into the role he thinks national security will play in November's election," Sheridan wrote.

Lieberman campaign spokesman Adam Kovacevich called Sheridan's assessment "very interesting."

"This is the same argument that Sen. Lieberman has been making, that he would be the toughest opponent for President Bush because he's both strong on defense and strong on the economy as well," Kovacevich said.

"George Bush has been a bad president, but we have no problem whatsoever with his political prognostication," Kovacevich said.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, said that he "can't comment on any private conversations that the president had with Mr. Howard."

Heather Layman, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, declined to speak specifically about Lieberman and Dean.

"Each of the Democratic candidates has strengths and weaknesses. Regardless of who the nominee is we expect a close election, and the party will rally around whoever the nominee is," Layman said.

Layman called Kovacevich's critical aside about Bush "pessimism and attack -- just another example of what all the (Democratic) candidates are doing.

Dean campaign spokesman Eric Schmeltzer accused Lieberman of being a conservative in Democrats' clothing.

"The fact is, the only way to beat George Bush is to give voters a clear choice, not try to be 'Bush-lite,' " Schmeltzer said.

"One thing Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman agree on is that George W. Bush is hardly an expert at winning elections, considering Al Gore got more votes than him in 2000," Schmeltzer said.

Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," House Majority Leader U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said that the leadership of the Republican party "would love to run against Howard Dean" in the November 2004 presidential election.

"He is so far out there on the fringe," DeLay said.

Recent polls of Democratic voters show Lieberman tied with retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark in second place nationally behind Dean.

...he's gonna get his ass beat no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Joe Lieberman doesn't have a shot for the nomination anyway (neither does Kerry), so it's a moot point.

<edit: FYI James - when you post copyrighted material, you should keep it below four paragraphs. The mods will shorten it for you if you don't.>

Welcome to DU! :hi:

"One thing you can say about Bush is that he is expert at winning elections...

Yeah? Then why did he LOSE the last election, Sheridan?

Then again, what do you expect from a Murdoch rag? Bullshit, that's what.

that's wack

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

I am repelled by Kerry's sour grapes desire to scorch the earth in front of his ignominious retreat.

Ever since I met this guy nearly 30 years ago, he's come across as an arrogant elitist. He has little empathy for actual human beings, particularly those who don't measure up to his social status. He takes the position that if he can't win it, he'd rather see Bush re-elected. What a prick.

ass or just shut the hell up already!!

Ok, I read the article, and I didn't find anywhere it in a place where Kerry said that Dean had "no chance" to beat Bush. He said a lot of things that implied that Dean would have a tough time beating Bush, as well as things that implied that Dean would not make a good President (actually I think it was more than the latter), but for any Democrat to claim that someone who could very likely get the nomination has NO chance of beating the incumbent is grossly irresponsible, and I'm glad that Kerry didn't say that. I'm not glad that yahoo decided to say that he did however.

Last time I checked this guy only advocated what was popular for the times. And not even what was THAT popular.

Hawk, Dove, Hawk, Dove, Hawk....

I do SO wish he'd make up his mind about if war is a good thing or not... I mean hey, I can understand how he doesn't want to be called "baby killer", but he DID slaughter innocents in Indochina....not to mention his support of the latest Crusade...

Dean at least has been uniformly anti-war....and for that I have to give him credit, where Kerry has been consistently inconsistent on that subject.

Kerry's campaign is doomed, and he knows it. He's attacking out of desperation, and trying to drag down the ultimate Democratic nominee in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. If by some freak occurrence Kerry got the nomination (like, for example, Hell froze over) I'd have to thing about voting for somebody else (like Nader) or not voting at all. I couldn't vote for such a petty person in good conscience.

Fucking Bush enabler.

...

...is blasting the guy who is raising millions and inspirring thousands as unelectable.

Never let it be said John Kerry doesn't have a sensae of humor.

Good thing I am a fan of irony. ;-)

Julie

And it's time for Democrats to realize that in a primary fight one's opponent is not the opposite party.

I fear that Dean will not have the ability to beat the incumbent President in the General Election. If he is the candidate I will fight with everything I have to get him elected but I think other candidates would do a much better job against *.

I think John Kerry would do better with rank and file voters of all parties. His record on the environment, foreign policy experience, and military record put Dean's past to shame.

Kerry is an idiot!

:hi: B'Bye Senator...

Dean is a disaster, but so is Kerry, our only hope is Clark.But ABB.

......no one I talk with seems to get exicted by Kerry.

No offense but he always looks like he just got out of bed, and is tired.
:boring:

perpetuating the myth that the Failure in Chief has done ANYTHING positive for this country. Keep pretending that * is a winner...it helps your opposition, Kerry, if they are the opposition, that is.

Have you noticed all the Republicans posting to this board....attempting to get us all resigned to losing? What you think they check your party affiliation before you post here?

GET A GRIP.....There is a year before the election. The Bush Empire has made some tragic mistakes, they will become obvious before the election.
Anyone will be able to beat Bush. I really don't think all the "terra" alerts in the world will be able to cover their indescretions...

As for Kerry, he is gonna lose his house and his nomination because of his big fat ego. Talk about a guy with an anger management problem. I would still support him if he got the nomination (or a paper bag) but he is at the bottom of the barrel along with Loserman. A couple of shitty "little" mean men.

Kerry will get every dollar and dime back from his campaign, even after it officially folds, by holding fund raisers to put the campaign debt aside or by transferring some of his Senate reelection funds to pay his Presidential debts.

There is no point in feeling sorry for Kerry. Feel sorry for the over 10,000 Iraqi dead and countless Iraqi maimed and wounded that Kerry's IWR vote brought about.

Duhhhh.

Any candidate not in the lead in a race will say anything and admit to nothing as long as they are still in the race. To do otherwise would be suicide politically. Same with talk about a VP slot.

Politics 101.

inexperienced in foreign policy, wrong-headed on the economy and a muddled thinker.

Well... any chance he was talking about Bush and said Dean by mistake? One can always make Fruedian styled slips, You know.. when you think one thing and say your mother.

But Seriously, I think we are going to have one hell of a time in November 04, reguardless of who we nominate. Were playing against a stacked deck. Bush and company controll the vast majority of the American media. TV, Radio, Newspapers. Most Americans do not realize that they can no longer trust these sources to relay accurate information. They may not even have noticed the gradually increasing conservative slant in just about everything their exposed to. They are being told only a fraction of what's really going on and on top of that are being told how they feel about it.

A quote from "GI Jane" comes to mind "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

And then of course there's the voting machines, doing all the decision making for us.



I still think we can win.

I have not chosen any single democratic candidate, but I will support the nominee 100%. Truly... anyone but Bush.

From what I've observed of the dem canidates so far though. I think Dean has got a better chance than anyone so far. He's had the forsight to use the internet to his advantage. And the internet is the one vast media source that isn't under the direct control of rabid right wingers. You'd be amazed what one can find on the web... even unbiased news!!! If enough people can be convinced to abandon watching Faux News and instead click on the BBC website, or one of the many other reliable news sites, we could really nail this thing shut. The American public needs to be reminded of what real journalism is like. If they demand it, if they accept no less than true proffesional, unbiased news, maybe it will return to the United States.

portraying Dean as inexperienced in foreign policy, wrong-headed on the economy and a muddled thinker

Replace "Dean" with "Bush" and you have the truth. I will never understand why anti-Dems (Repubs, Media, and DINOcrats) constantly bash Dem frontrunners using these descriptors. The same thing was said of Bush, during the campaign for sElection2000. The only difference between then and now is then is was known truth passed off as campaign rhetoric. Now it is simply the truth.

before he stole the election? I think the same can be said for Dean. Did Bush have experience in foreign policy? No. Did he have a good economic plan for Texas? No. If fact he didn't even know who most foreign leaders were. I believe Dean with blow Bush away in the debates. The election will be a close one. Oh, and don't forget Bush and Rove have an October surprise up their sleeve. You heard it here first.

is his campaign's focus on bashing whoever is in the lead according to the polls...democratic-wise that is. I wish he would spend more time focusing on why he would be better than Bush than beating up on Dean.

Kerry's burnt toast.

From personal experience!

:wtf:

Ya know, I was gonna take those words back, but I decided to let them lay, because this is just how jumpy this exercise in candidate bashing\candidate sticking up for, has become!

I'm NOT proud!

:puke:

--Kerry polls consistently at less than 10% as the possible Democratic candidate. He does not inspire enthusiasm or commitment among voters. And he thinks he has the answer as to who can beat Bush?

Polls don't give delegates to any candidate. Let's see how the Democrats vote in primaries and at caucuses. Then we can say who's able to get votes and who isn't.

talk about spin. I see this as more media manipulation of the primary.

were really what Kerry said.

Kerry also defended fellow Democratic hopefuls from some of Dean's campaign charges and claims.

"Howard Dean says he's the only candidate who talks about race in front of white audiences, but many of the candidates in this field have dedicated themselves to this cause," he said. He called Dean's claim an insult to the two blacks in the race, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun.

Talking to reporters after his speech, Kerry stopped short of saying Dean was unelectable.

"All I'm trying to do is point out clear, real differences that matter to people who vote," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20031227/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_7&printer=1

Folks, if you were fooled by this, maybe you should re-examine just how many lies you are believing uncritically. Here is a clear case of media distortion, swallowed hook, line and sinker by most of the people in this thread.


"Kerry stopped short of saying Dean was unelectable."

somehow becomes, basically, the exact opposite in the headline:

"Kerry Says Dean Has No Chance Vs. Bush"


WAKE UP FOLKS! You are being manipulated.