Dean in 2008!!! (If Kerry loses in 2004!)

I had to post this.

While I will vote for Kerry this November, I still get unsettling feelings that he may lose. The reason? Money. Bush is miles ahead of Kerry in terms of donations. The country is also so polarized that one side is not going to budge to cross in support of the other candidates. I am also still troubled of the fact Kerry supported the war, the Patriot Act, and failed to show up to block the Medicare bill among other things. Not only that, his candidacy was going nowhere in January until he startedc copying Howard Dean.

I know I am going to get grief for saying all that but I refuse to be in lock step with the other Democrats in how I feel. If we all did that then we are no better than the Neocons.

I think if Bush wins, then it will be very obvious to me that the Democratic Party will (MUST) change it's leadership and direction. If it doesn't than the party will be as good as dead.


John

I'm concerned there won't be a 2008 election.

That's bushco's plan. That's what makes Cheney so perfect. He won't run in '08 for the top of the ticket.

Is because after four more years of the current policies there may not be much left of the middle class.

Will Dean want to be President of the smoking clump of charcoal that used to be America?

WHAT GARBAGE. PURE GARBAGE.

TIA

I was responding to the post initial premise.

Stop yellin at me.

Not yellin' at you.

While I respect your opinion, I disagree that we cannot air our concerns about Kerry winning.

To me, that sounds no better than Bush's censorship - that if you don't agree with him, you're unpatriotic.

This board sometimes sounds as if it would like to censor any digressors - which is just as dangerous and naive, and plain outright censorship. If that is the case, then the Dems are no better than the repugs.

Many of us have legitimate concerns about Kerry winning, and unfortunately, he has only a 50/50 chance of that.

Time will tell. In the meantime, some of us are observing and analyzing, and there is no harm in that.

My 2 cents.

Kerry must win and must use Dean or any other help he can muster.

i keep saying it to scare the freepers,pretty soon enough of them will believe it and vote for Kerry to prevent it's happening...

They'll vote *bush no matter what. They don't like Hillary but they love their bushies.

No matter what happens in November.

That is what I will work for.

Go Dean!

that there will be an America in 2008?

but all depends on the numbers in this election. If Kerry does lose and it's close, we can rally people with a number of candidates. If he loses big time, we won't have to worry to much who we throw out in front of the people for about the next 20 years or so because the Dems who poured out in these primaries will walk away in discuss if we blow this campaign and sound like the mush we have been for the last three years.

Ed Rendell / Harold Ford.... we win.... Dean?... we lose... in style but we lose..... now it may sound crazy but i don't want to lose!... so Rendell / Ford in 08 hey its not catchy but at least both of them are good on TV and moderate....

I don't get the DLC. I really don't. You guys seem to think that you'll win by just staying in the mushy middle. You cannot be too Democratic and you have to have the right amount of Republicanism in order to get votes. Do you remember what Harry Truman once said about if a Democrat acted like a Republican the voter will vote Republican everytime?

John

And to win, the extremes must push to the middle to win that vote.

If people are not exposed to new ideas and are able to decide for themselves, then we are not really a democracy. Maybe people are too afraid of thinking for themselves now. I think the motivation of the DLC is to neutralize the Democratic Party and appease corporate interests and those of the Republicans which are essentially the same thing. I am sorry but that is just my view. America was founded on extreme ideas. If this were the 1700's you would all be Tories and would not want America to break away from Britain. The reason? It is too extreme!


John

Exposing people to new ideas is great. Expecting people to embrace them instantly is silly.

Moderation.

People say they are moderate, because they have not read enough or paid enough attention to detail, to even KNOW what they are passionate about..

clean air
clean water
decent/affordable housing
good schools
affordable college
reliable/affordable energy
affordable healthcare/medicine
JOBS that pay living wages
secure old age


These are all things that every American IS passionate about, but none are achievable through "moderation".. These are all things that the right has targeted...and things that only the "preferred" class should have access to.. Remember affirmative access?? THAT's what it means.. Close enough to SEE it, but never quite close enough to GET it..

Access does not necessarily mean availability..

I could not have said it all better myself. I really cannot help but wonder if the DLC is a bunch of neutralized Democrats who are actually destroying the party. I really do. If nobody believes me then look at the last two elections we had.


John

What you mean to say is ridiculous?

Despite your flaming post, it is possible to endorse change moderately and not seek to overturn everything about society over night.

Wow... Thanks !!! :hi:

I must say.. No one has EVER credited me with being Flaming:)

People are moderate because they have read widely... that said many liberals and conservatives have also read widely...

I myself back in 2000 was most assuredly a liberal Dem... but since then I have trended towards the centre, I remain passionate about my beliefs in a clean environment, better health care and education and a sensible, responsible economic and foreign policy, however I no longer embrace the means to achieve these ends that I once did. Most people have similar ends in mind however where they differ is the means employed and the extent to which these ends can be reached... Suggesting that moderates are not passionate is ridicules, look at J. F. Kennedy and Carter to name just two moderates who where passionate...

why do the extremes on the left and the right think they have a monopoly on passion? it was Clinton who was one of the most passionate speakers of the last decade, and Al From is not bad... we differ to liberals only as far as our methods and what we think is practical we have the same goals generally... so grow up and stop claiming to occupy the moral high ground, you can be a passionate conservative, a passionate liberal and yeah a passionate moderate...

I am a passionate moderate because I don’t believe in dictating to ordinary hard working people how they live their lives as both conservatives and liberals would like to, and I am a democrat because we as individuals and as a society owe more than a dept to ourselves we are all in this together... and that is why I am a moderate democrat... we can only represent hard working people if we reflect their values and positions, No! we should never compromise our beliefs we are the party of the left in this country! We are the people’s party! We are the party of cooperation and universal worth! But we cannot be the People’s Party if we do not listen to them and we must do this! The fact is the electorate is moderate and we should reflect that while never compromising our beliefs, to be blatantly partisan and aggressively ideological only turns most voters away from politics all together we need to be relevant to today’s Americans not the Americans of the 1930’s or the 1960’s and today’s Americans are generally neither liberal or conservative most are moderate and if we claim to be the people’s party then we too must be moderate while at the same time championing the age old values of our party such as communitarianism and mutual dependence… you can’t just yell at people and tell them their wrong on core issues such as defence and taxes… you will get no where except marginalised….

Moderation is dilution.. It's necessary at times, BUT when it's time to run for office, people need to SEE the difinition, to KNOW what a person is passionate about..

"Um, I'm moderate, and I support the good stuff and hate the bad stuff...and I will 'work with the other side' to get things done".. and jive like that gets us middle-of-the-roaders who get nothing done..

I beg to differ about Kennedy.. He may have appeared moderate, but he was BOLD.. in ideas, and actions...

We are about as maginalized as we can be right now..without being off the page, completely..

I want polliticians who will stand up and say.. I am for "..." BECAUSE...and then tell us why.."...and then point out why the opponent is NOT for those things..

People need to be energized..the same old "cream of wheat" candidates, do not get people out to vote..

No one needs to yell.. just speak the truth..and mean it ..

I wonder ...

Bush is pretty darn extreme both Conservative and Authoritarian. Yet he has strong support on the polls. Could he be tapping into a new chunk of electorate that wasn't voting before because candidates were too Moderate?

So now we have Kerry who is very moderate. Is there an untapped citizenry out there too liberal or libertarian to vote for Kerry? Is the electorate impressed enough with running-mates that Kerry might tap into otherwise disenfranchised citizens by choosing a running-mate significantly more liberal than himself? Someone more on the lines of a Kucinich than an Edwards? Perhaps not Kucinich himself, but along those lines.

... if you want to be laughed off stage... sorry many will berate me put Denis is little more than a pest... he would bring nothing to the table he would boost Kerry by 2% amougst the Naderite 3% or so nationwide and then shave say 10-20% from moderates and independents it would be like Bush selecting Alan Keyes as is VP... in other words crazy and stupid!

The DLC needs to be driven from power and replaced by another centrist think tank, like New Democratic Network.

The DLC has had 12 years to run our party. While they have done some good things (ie. reverse Reagan/Bush Sr. national landslides in POTUS races) they have also cowered in other ways. They have echoed GOP talking points that the 1994 midterms were because Clinton wanted universal health-care and razed taxes. During the '90s, they let our parties grassroots stagnate, and drove the DNC into debt. By 2000, the Democratic Party relied almost entirely on $2000 contributions, had minuscule presence on the internet and on other grassroots levels, and alienated an entire wing of our party to Nader.

During the * Presidency, the regime of From & Reed kept telling us "oh we can't question this Iraq war, or else the public will never like us" or "we can't pursue Liberalism, because it means we're 'unelectable'". I'm tired of invertebrate telling us what to do!

The only DLCer who was successful in driving the agenda was Bill Clinton. If any of you think Clinton was liberal, I have beach front property to sell you in Iowa. While Clinton did some good things he was not a liberal at all. For example Global Free Trade, Gay Issues, Three Strikes you're Out, and the bombing of Serbia. The DLC and the other mealy mouthed Republican Liters cannot pull what Clinton pulled off. It is time for a change. A real change within the Democratic leadership. It is time to put people first not corporations. It is time to be bold. Not play it safe and kiss up to the Republicans.


John

Most of the 20th century has seen ideas that were considered radical/progessive become common place. Civil rights, social safety nets the importance of education. These are things that almost everyone and moderates support. In any society what purpose if any is choosing philosophies that place an individual behind the curve ball in a growing and evolving culture?

The sad fact is people feel comfortable by belonging to the large bell curve area that is not labled extreme by the media. Liberal has become such a word and draws outright hostility from people. So even if the underlying ideas are sound the don't rock the boat sheep mentality is too strong to overcome.


xx
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
conservative-------------------------------liberal

Most radicals expect change over night. That is a silly concept and instead drives opponents further away from compromise.

if america is moderate then explain to me why congress and the white house is controlled by extreme right fascists? These people have made changes (and have plans to make more) of such an extreme nature you'd have to be daft to call it "moderate".

I don't get this. I really don't.

The repubs can run right wing nut cases (some of whom claim they personally chat with god) and win elections.

Yet if dems run anyone even slightly left they are "un-electable".

Sounds just like a repeat of right wing propaganda to me.

I agree with some of the things the DLC says. But you guys have been leading the party too long. We can't beat * by acting like him.

Truman said that if you have a Democrat pretending to be a Republican the voters will choose the Republican everytime.


John

Thankfully, the party has spoken in that regard.

Only a tiny percentage of the party had spoken when Kerry was annointed.

Those who did not vote have no gripe.

So he was not ANNOINTED as you claim. He was elected.

Dean had everything going for him and he put it all on one number and he lost. So don't fault anyone but him and his handlers for that one.

Again, not true.

I have yet to vote in my primary. Are you saying my vote is irrelevant?

And I WILL fault the DLC and the media for politically assasinating Dean. That is called reality.

The party has chosen its standard bearer for 2004. Either you support him, support another candidate or opt out.

Dean fell on his own sword, he didn't need the help. And to keep rehashing his failed (yep, he lost) bid for the nomination only serves to divide not unite us.

I don't like how the DLC (not the DNC btw) treated Dean, but accept the facts, people actually voted for Kerry. And the only reason why those primaries were front-loaded was to get a quick nominee, NOT to "annoint" someone.

And I am the Queen of Sheba. :eyes:

"...but accept the facts, people actually voted for Kerry..."

I don't swallow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30125-2004Jan19?language=printer

Hardly someone who was "annointed"

BTW, weren't some of the Dean supporters telling us to effively cancel the primaries back in Nov/Dec because he had a 30-40 point lead in Iowa and New Hampshire?

I won't.

As to the Dean supporters... show me proof. I think that's a crock of shit.

...against the DLC, "The Republican Wing of the Democratic Party" my ass... wants Dean any way his record in Vermont is DLC, DLC, DLC, "don’t throw stones in glass houses"... that probably the right term to use... the DLC has been far more loyal to the Dem party than the far left of the party and furthermore the DLC represents the Dem mainstream there are NO progressive caucus members in the senate and only a handful in the senate... last time I checked the majority generally had the last say... the thing I'm driving at here was that Dean hypocritically attacked the most loyal and hard fighting section of the democratic party since the late 1980's the DLC has fought tooth and nail for this party at every level while the far left (and I'm not talking about all liberals here)has repeatedly attempted "political blackmail " to force its agenda on the party...

...oh wait, that's probably not what you were trying to say.

Look, being a jackass won't win anyone over, on any spot on the spectrum. Furthermore, there are those on this board that spent all their energy trying to convince us Kerry was "more liberal than Jesus" and decrying Dean as a "moderate". But of course, where one falls on the spectrum isn't what the DLC cares about, it's that spigot from corporate cash. Now the "more liberal than Jesus" Lazarus looks to be our nominee, but since the DLC gets its way, we're seeing a run to the center that should make a "moderate" like you proud. Whatever... Yes, as was the case in 2002, we're oh so thankful the Democratic party is rejecting any attempts at a spine implant, and we'll surely see the rewards of that. Tell us again, what outcome are you hoping for?

But when I see a Dean 2008 post before the convention for 2004, I wonder if that's what everyone here actually wants.

...saying "If Kerry loses 2004"...

And it's not at all that surprising, is it? Even Dean supporters realize that he's an unlikely VP pick due to geographical and electoral concerns. So some of them look to 2008 and until then work on local and state races. So try to not act so surprised by it...

The reason? Money.

Here it is only April and already I'm tired of the Bush ads on TV. Even if I liked the man, I would be tired of it. If Bush is spending his money this way, I think it might be counterproductive in the long run. I'm actually glad that Kerry ads have not hit the air just yet. I dread a whole summer and fall of sniping ads from both sides, and truly wish each candidate would just focus on his own plans for the future.

I'm also afraid that the 9/11 commission report will be kind to Bush and harsh on Clinton. We've heard from Clarke, but Rice is likely to nullify any good his statements have done for Democrats. I'm sure she'll give it her best shot.

As for Kerry, I think he is comfortable being human and sometimes admitting that in hindsight, knowing what he knows now, he probably would have done differently. Bush, OTOH, positions himself as infallible, even when his nose is rubbed in it. I want a human being in the White House, but after 9/11 there are a whole lot of people who want someone who never says he's sorry.

If Kerry should lose this one, we're all in for some bad times. Really, though, Kerry is not the only Democrat who rolled over for the war, the Patriot Act, the Medicare, and so on. Even though Democrats are not in the majority in Congress, they can still stand up for principles.

There is no comparable precedent with men who have made it to the Presidency.

Dean's campaign is not comparable to that of any predecessor. It's new breed.

She has been very visible the last few weeks--seems to have acquired the gist of it all now. One thing I will say that she appears to be true to her word, and is serving the people of New York like she promised. Word is she works hard at it. Interview with Al Franken the other day -- she sounds very relaxed. Gave many kudos to Theresa Heinz--she is her own woman, she has an independant mind etc. to paraphrase. Sideswipe at the banal, insipid frump 0 lump? From Hillary? Nah :-)

my two cents

Can't Dean supporters at least wait for the election and actually root for our guys for a while...

and I was a huge Dean supporter in every way. I think Howard blinked--I became convinced that he didn't really want the nomination after he refused to follow some incredibly common-sense advice to 1. capitalize on his history as a physician and 2. trot the wife out. And wearing a new suit would have been nice, as well. No, none of those mattered to me, but they sure as hell mattered to undecided voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. I guarantee you that Dr. Dean will not be back for a retry for the Presidential ticket--he doesn't want it.

... in the first place…

Before Iraq he was going to be the Moderate former Governor from Vermont…

Then he delivered what was a great speech at the Sacramento Convention and suddenly liberal activist and Dems generally had their spirits lifted, all through the summer this continued… however he took it too far he was still stiff and ungainly on TV he accelerated his move to the left and by Iowa had pretty pathetically attempted to outmatch Dick Gephardt to win the Union vote in Iowa and then he thought the Caucus… by now Dems who had warmed to him in the summer saw him as a poor TV performer and someone too keen to just drift to the left and as we know he was crushed under the wheels of the more moderate Kerry and Edwards… both of whom mirrored Democrats’ views and concerns more than Dean had come to…

In reality I think Dean expected to be able to raise some issues and build a national organisation for the future perhaps… but beyond that I doubt he ever expected to go as far and fall so fast as he eventually did… Had Dean been “the moderate former governor from Vermont” and perhaps had a better TV manner and not been the pinup boy for the liberal left I think that he would have come from behind in Iowa and beaten both Kerry and Gephardt and then I believe he would have won NH in a tough battle with Kerry and Clark and then it could have been wide open between Clark, Dean and Edwards… that was the kinda race which he was expecting not the one defined by him attacking his own party and becoming the liberal candidate… he wanted to be Bill Clinton instead he became Jerry Brown!

other side is that the other side will vote for their own candidate anyway, and those who don't like the opposition candidate will stay home. I guess I really didn't like Lieberman for this reason and am very lukewarm about Kerry, although I will vote for him, others have already indicated they will stay home.

Bummer.

Nobody -- and definitely not Mr. Scream -- is going to be able to stop her.

After 8 years of service as VP?

... yeah Kerry/Dean now that'd work.... Kerry liberal senator from Massachusetts, Dean wild-man of the mountains and leader of the liberal wing of the party... watch as Shrub scoops up every moderate independent he can find to vote and we lose even more ground in the Senate and the house... the sad thing it is some people here would say we lost because Kerry was too moderate!...

behind the scenes where he does not have to play the diplomat constantly, e.g. in a Karl Rove type role. Too many in this country are not yet ready to have his straight talk and common sense way of doing things up front and center stage.

I'm working on the premise that Kerry's going to win in 2004. If he does a great job over the next four years, I'll be inclined to keep him in the White House through 2012. But I'm keeping my eye on Dean for future reference. I caucused for him as a senatorial delegate this year, and I think he's given the Democratic pot a much-needed stirring. But he needs to learn how to better manage his campaign money, or I'll be hard-pressed to trust him with the Federal budget.