Is Howard Dean the Crypto-Republican Candidate?

This is going to make some people very angry. Too bad, DUers need to hear the truth.

Oh sure. Smart people know Howard Dean is no Liberal. They've been telling DU how they know that and how they're still for the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker. Still, how many know his roots are squarely in the other camp?

Go ahead and get mad at the messenger. I don't care. It's what I've been saying about the guy for a while. What matters is that it's better that DUers get mad now than get pissed come Inauguration Day 2005.

Good reading from Hermes-Press:

Is Howard Dean the Crypto-Republican Candidate?

By Norman D. Livergood

Why is the Republican-owned media giving Howard Dean multi-million dollar media attention? That's the question no one's asking.

Dean made the covers of both Time and Newsweek, was interviewed by Larry King, was the subject of a US News Special, and receives continuing major coverage on all the "news" channels: MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.

Even Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, was interviewed on Fox News' Fox Facts, and was interviewed on CNN's Inside Politics--all in July, 2003. Why is Dean the only Democratic candidate to be given this kind of coverage?

The Republicans and their media hirelings would have us believe that they're giving Dean the spotlight because he's an Internet phenomenon, that he's the leading Democratic contender, and because he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (a line Dean stole from the late Senator Paul Wellstone). None of the media's claims are true.

CONTINUED...

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

gets their picture on the covers, and gets interviewed...oh wait, Kerry et al are interviewed on Inside Politics, etc....it will be because they are crypto-republicans?

I'll check back with you in a few months.

This is the weakest attack yet folks. No, wait that would have to go to the thread about Dean supports killing innocent people.

The author makes his case based on the facts. Dean supporters may not want to see that, but that doesn't change the truth — Dean is no Liberal Democrat AND he would be crushed by Duhbya Bush in a general election. Sorry to have to spell it out.

Rigggght! Let's examine some "facts" stated in the article, shall we?

"Dean's supposed popularity is mostly in terms of Independents, as the New Hampshire polling data proves. Amongst Independents, Dean leads Kerry 26% to 15%, but among Democrats, Kerry leads Dean 31% to 16%."

It's always a BIG FRIGGIN' RED FLAG when poll data is cited without a source. Who knows where these numbers came from? (Probably out of Spleengood's liver).

But if support among independents is some sort of implied indicment of a democratic candidate, it's Kerry we should be worried about. NH independents favor Kerry 27% to 13% over Dean -- almost the exact opposite of what Spleengood "reports." Kinda calls into question his credibility a wee bit, dontcha think?

Oh yeah, among democrats, Kerry doesn't enjoy the 2 to 1 lead Spleengood states. It's a virtual tie. 20% Dean, 19% Kerry among registered democrats and 16% Dean, 18% Kerry among all voters likely to vote democrat.

Who is this spunkwad Spleengood anyway?

(SOURCE: Granite State Poll, July 7, 2003. http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/dem070703.pdf )

edit: spelling

I am not a member of any party, but no way even if he is on the general election ticket will I vote for Dean. Why? A vote for Dean is a vote for Bush that's why the Republicans put out millions for pro-Dean ads. Which by the way only divide the party.

The same exact thing happened with Nader, the Republicans put out millions of dollars to market Nader into the liberal dream team, and in the end the Republicans spent more on Nader's ads bashing Gore then Nader did himself in swing states.

http://antiwarmonger.com

"even if he is on the general election ticket ... A vote for Dean is a vote for Bush"

If Dean is the Democratic candidate, then how will a vote for him be a vote for Bush when HE WILL BE THE ONLY OTHER PERSON ON THE BALLOT??

Sometimes strict adherance to dogma leads one to become trapped in their own rhetoric to the point of utter contradiction and hypocricy. It's common among freepers.

Mr. pro-patriot act/ pro iraq war.

When did you convert? And what did you convert to?

Kerry voted to give the pResident authority to protect the US from Iraq. Considering the threat from terror is real, what's wrong with that?

What threat from Iraq is that again?

Even you know that.

That's kind of a strong word to use for support of a political candidate. No wonder you're taking Dean's popularity so personally. Anyways, it's not Dean's fault if Kerry needs a charisma transplant.

but as long as you are not excited about your candidate, that's better for us Deanocrats.

Stew in your jealousy of our champion, Howard Dean. It just makes us want to donate more to his campaign.

I've stated the reasons why several times. John Kerry is a war hero. Then he led the fight against the war in Vietnam. As a DA, he went after the Mafia in Massachusetts. In the Senate, he went after BCCI and Iran-Contra drug running. He'd do more, but most of the Congress doesn't like to rock the boat. As president, you can be darn sure his DA would work to put the Bush Organized Crime Family behind bars.

Oh yeah. Go ahead and send all the money you got to Howard Dean. He used to be a money-manager, so he knows what to do with it.

He should win handily in the Dem primary, then.

But no. Let's don our :tinfoilhat:'s and make up reasons why Dean is surging.

Pathetic.

needed, there is no way George W. Bush would have gotten anywhere near Al Gore.

Also, if Wes Clark jumps in, his resume will overshadow pretty much everyone including my #1 pick.

My sister is a Democrat, but she had a hard time listening to Al Gore speak because something in his tone grated at her. I think that John Kerry may have the same problem.

Nice last line:

" We must support the one Democratic candidate who can win against Bush in 2004: John Kerry."

:eyes:

This is what it is all about:



:eyes:

One night a few of us googled and googled. Everyone listed that quote, but it was never stated when and where he wrote or said this. Some of us think it may actually be a paraphrase of what Thomas said. I even searched some Jefferson archives and nothing came up to validate the quote. Could you let me know where he wrote this, or a link to a date and speech where he said this? I took it off my email signature until I can authenticate the quote. Thanks

is widely attributed to Jefferson, no one that I know of has been able to confirm it.

If he indeed did say it, my guess as to when, would be sometime between 1743 and 1826.

I love that quote, and of course, Jefferson's status sure gives it weight. But I am starting to think the Freeper who attacked me once over this quote not being one of Jefferson's was right. I've been looking again for attribution and can find none. I tried a search at 2 other archives of his work. Oh yeah, funny guess dates. :P

If you would like to post something about why I should vote for the person you support I will happily read every word.

I'm not reading any anti-articles about any Democratic contender anymore, I plan to avoid even the anti-Lieberman articles. I think they are destructive to DU and the Democratic Party at this point.

I vowed I would never post anything negative about another candidate, now I'm vowing not to read anything either.

:eyes:
Can't you guys find enough interesting and thoughtful material supporting your candidate, rather than single-mindedly focusing on Dean (not Gephardt, not Lieberman, not Graham, not Edwards).

Are you so insecure in your choice that you can do nothing but tear down the only person in this race (besides Kucinich) who is taking a stand, who is not afraid to call * for what he is, and who is actually doing something to energize the party? :wtf:

And I apoligize to them if they get ticked by me posting the article and every post I've made that was, or was interpreted as being, anti-Dean. Politics is not about politeness. This game we play is for power. We need to back the best candidate to win, or take back, power — John Kerry. I've been waiting since November 22, 1963.

BTW: Kerry called for "Regime change in America." Delay and the corporate media tried to roast him for saying so, attempting to smear Kerry as un-American. Kerry said he found it laughable that chickenhawks would question his patriotism. Once he officially declares his candidacy, the gloves will come off and the real fireworks will begin.

Don't forget...Dean also likes to kick puppies.

Vote Kerry!

Save the Puppies!

:evilgrin:

He really is an evil Republican.
Boy oh boy did he ever fool me!
Wait 'til I tell my friends, ha.. ha.. ha..
I can't believe that I sent him some of my money.
Thank you for showing me the truth.
I will begin to support Mr John Kerry right away!
And it's all because of your terriffic eye-opening post.
Aren't you proud of yourself?
Again - thank you so much.

*end scene*

(Now go back and imagine me reading that text to you in a hypnotized monotone voice.)

That was a fun performance, thank you, thank you!

boogie-boogie! He's in the GOP!!! Boo!

lol..

fiscally moderate and socially liberal. It's really tiring hearing about Dean as a Dino. He has done things not too many Republicans and even a few dems would not do: The Civil Unions Bill, Providing Health Insurance to most children in his state, and opposing an unjust war--among many.

Holy crap! Maybe he is electable!

;-)

Based on economic and social circumstances, I'd bet the majority of the population would describe themselves as Liberal or Progressive. The thing is that at least half of them stay home election day. So, the mobilized morons of Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson hold sway. To beat the devil, Democrats need every vote, from conservative to liberal.

Still, it would be nice to get a real Democrat like Kerry on the top of the ballot. Who knows? That might actually get people to get off the sofa and down to the precincts. The guy's coattails might even change the Congressional mix in our favor.

If your point is that we need a candidate who can moblize voters... I mean come on. Isn't it obvious who's doing that?

How come you didn't say right away Mr. Kerry that those medals weren't yours?????????????????????????????????????????????????

He's too liberal to win...He's too conservative to be a democrat. I got into a conversation with a Kerry campaigner this weekend who used those two arguments IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

For the love of all things hole-y make up your minds.

It's the "Your peanut butter is in my chocolate/Your chocolate is im my peanut butter" issue.

Dean is a centrist...not too liberal/not too conservative.

Not everybody likes him, but if his detractors are saying he's both too liberal AND too conservative, that tells me that both fringes have issues with him...which confirms to me that he's a centrist...

the anti-Dean people (and I am proud not to be one) say that he is too liberal in foreign policy and too conservative on domestic policy. That's the way it has always seemed to me.

why and when did he decide to be a DEM?

Why did he decide to move to Vermont to live in far from "Ritzy" conditions as a familly doctor?

Why did he hide the pre-med classes he was taking from his familly who wanted him to remain in Finance?

Why did he marry Judy Steinberg instead of an heiress?

Why did he occasionally have to wear a bullet-proof vest during the civil union debate in Vermont?

Until these questions are answered, this man is not to be trusted!

Not born dirt poor but decided to make something of himself on his own, anyway!

:shrug:

Then-Dr Dean was treating people who had little chance to get ahead in life. He realized he could make a big difference for them through the politic process and he decided to become a DEM.

Sorry I can't source the above right now, molly. I'm going from memory.

Even though Dean is:
1) against the war,
2) for a balanced budget
3) for dumping ALL of Bush's lamo taxcuts
4) for national health care
5) for revising NAFTA

he is, actually, a Republican in disguise.

Oh and Pro-choice!
Pro-Affirmative Action!
Pro-Environment!

Yep he's a Republican, no doubt.

What part of his record as govenor support this statement?

VERY pro-gay? What did he actually do as govenor besides sign a bill behind that scene that OTHERS worked to get passed? Did he do any heavy lifting for gay rights?

I'm just asking....

Land Acquisition Over 470,000 acres of land conserved through Dean’s leadership as Governor nearly 8% of Vermont. Properties acquired and added to the state’s holdings include important natural areas, significant waterfalls and gorges, critical wildlife habitat areas, key inholdings, access areas, recreation lands and important forestland parcels.
Storm Water Management Governor Dean pioneered a statewide program establishing permit authority over storm water runoff. Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources partnered with local authorities in towns and cities to give storm water controls teeth.
Tough Emissions Standards Governor Dean ordered emission controls Vermont to be more stringent than those required by the Kyoto Protocols. He has worked consistently and closely with the New England states to sue the Midwestern states to reduce coal emissions.
Lead Role on Mercury As a physician, Governor Dean took a lead role in VT and at the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers on eliminating mercury within the region within 10 years.
Thoughtful Development Governor Dean provided real incentives to keep development in downtowns and kept Vermont’s scenic vistas pristine by discouraging development near highway interchanges. Established a Development Cabinet and advanced the use of permitting as a tool to promote sustainable growth.


Efficiency Vermont Created the Nation’s first “energy efficiency” utility to provide statewide strategies for conserving energy and called for increased use of renewables, farm, municipal, landfill methane generation projects. Efficiency Vermont is a finalist for Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Innovations in American Government Award.
Founder of E-Vermont Governor Dean founded E-Vermont, recognized as one of the Top Ten Best Performing Clean Cities Coalitions in the United States. E-Vermont is an effort to explore advanced technology vehicles and electric vehicles.
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar power should be Vermont's first choice to meet the state's electrica needs for the coming decades.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_environment

The right-wing media are happy to hype him up as the Democratic candidate that will make for the most exciting to watch campaign against Bush*. They'll just wait until the last possible second to turn on him.

print media to....that will be the man that Rove has picked to represent the Democrats"

What other candidate has the kind of grass roots support he has? with over 80,000 people signed up for Meetups and organizing in every state, all major cities, and many counties across this country. What other candidate attracts crowds at rallies like Dean does--3200 in Austin and 4000 in Philadelphia--this early in a campaign. It is a real story and Dean has succeeded so far by taking strong postions and going after Bush.

on Dean as the antiwar liberal and ignoring Kucinich who was the ACTUAL antiwar liberal. Kucinich was speaking at antiwar rallies, and Dean was collecting antiwar $$$$ while staying away from those rallies, THANKS TO THE MEDIA.

is more like the momentum Dean has achieved using, primarily, the internet.

How many other campaigns can come close to boasting so many small donors? How many other candidates have tens of thousands of people get together once a month, across the country, on the same day, to discuss their campaign?

Even the media-whores and Reich-wing pundits acknowledge the amazing fundraising success of the innovative methods by Dean's campaign and the passion he inspires. He's also being recognized for bringing a lot of formerly uninvolved voters in. The fact of the matter is that the grass-roots support Dean has now is unequaled by the other Dems and, considering how the Dems have sorely neglected this crucial group for ages, quite newsworthy in itself.

Criticism is good and constructive when it is honest (objective even!). ;-)

Julie

The press was pushing him as the antiwar liberal. But he was NEVER antiwar or a liberal.

Kucinich was speaking at antiwar rallies and received NO publicity. You would think a presidential candidate would get SOME attention there. Instead the press trumpeted every word that Dean would utter that would make him sound like the antiwar candidate and pushed the notion of him as a liberal. How often did they really examine his positions and actual record during those early months?

of the Democratic Party.

That line generated significant buzz. Now, I will be the first to admit that Howard Dean isn't the second coming of Paul Wellstone. But,
his firey rhetoric certainly captured people's imagination at a time when Democratic morale was at an all-time low. You may call that opportunism, but I call it leadership. By energizing the long-abused liberal base of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean's inspirational rhetoric has significantly helped our chances in 2004- even if he doesn't get the nomination.

Now why wasn't it Kucinich? That's hard to say, but I think that part of it is that Dean emerged from nowhere, whereas Kucinich was already a member of Congress. The media had a better angle on Dean than Dennis.
That's just specualtion, but it certainly is at least as valid as the wild claim that Dean's entire candidacy was fueled by Karl Rove.

this media blitz has been going on? Six months??

As I see it it is a very recent thing, like since he beat everyone else fundraising last quarter with many, many small donations. It really has snowballed but very recently.

Quiet fundraisers with a few wealthy, well-connected folks doesn't generate a lot of attention (it is the current paradigm to follow) and, since in the early stages nobody really got press, Dean was the one to fully utilize the internet--doesn't take a lot of $$ but has a very long reach--Brilliant really. It saddens me to see you so unwilling to concede this point of a very effective tool, we're learning the potential of because of Dean's campaign, when even reich-wingers agree--and are no doubt looking into ways to monopolize that too.

Julie

The Dean campaign was the first to raise money from the educated, upper middle class white liberals who were already on the internet and organizing. Good politics. So Dean's team, his campaign manager, and his staff, deserve a lot of credit - I'd vote for you for Party Chair or whatever job McAullife has - you all are great.

Now if you wanted an outsider, why did you go for Dean, who is such, well, an *insider* - the man is an aristocrat for God's sake, and not even much of a liberal. You could have found a moderate Republican and really got some attention. Why Dean, he seems to me to be the worst possible candidate when it comes to honest liberalism, electability, electoral college votes, and ability to inspire anyone outside of his expected demographic?

you need attack the real enemy, Bush. If your candidate can present himself and his platform as well as Dean does, there should be no need to do a Lieberman style attack on other candidates. Dean has described himself as a centrist. His point is that the center has moved so far to the right, it makes him look left.

His politics are left of center enough to make me happy, so bash the real enemy would you?

So that means I post, on occassion, about the 2004 Presidential Campaign. Why? So we DEMOCRATS can kick that pimply chickenhawk squatter George W Bush out of the White House.

John Kerry has what it takes to beat Bush — across the board and across the country.

What could Howard Dean do? He'd win a few states and DC — maybe. I'm sorry if you don't want to see that.

but Dean's views on guns could help us out but Kerry is preferable/

but i will vote for dean if he gets the nod and i won't even have to hold my nose ....only joe would make me do that....if i could

sorry if you don't want to see that.

You may want to know that the Number One topic on voter's minds isn't the economy, it's national security. Once Bush hammers home how nice he looks in his borrowed flight suit, and Karl Rove runs ads showing the still of Howard Dean skiing the slopes a few months after getting his deferment from the Vietnam draft, the majority of Americans — informed by the Corporate GOP press — will tend to go with the glorious wonder of the TANG who kept Houston safe from the Vietcong.

Still, there is great variation between the polls. That is due in large part, you might agree, to how a question is phrased and to which demographic sample is questioned.

Moreover, the polls change. Let's see how things shake down should China come down on Taiwan or back North Korean agression. Then there's the troubling question of where's Osama and when will he strike again.

"You may want to know that the Number One topic on voter's minds isn't the economy, it's national security."

YOU may wish it were so, but just because the almighty Octafish writes it doesn't make it so. Care to confront reality?

July 30
-------
"What do you think is the most important issue for the federal government to address today?"

Economy/Jobs/Unemployment: 40%
Defense/Military/Homeland Security: 7%

July 9
---------
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"

Economy/Jobs: 39%
War/Iraq/Foreign policy: 10%

(http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm)

Maybe what you meant to say is the number one topic on Kerry supporters' minds is national security.

Thanks for the links. Polls measure what polls measure. If the numbers show that most Americans think the economy is the main problem facing the country, that must be right and I am wrong. My sincere apologies. Oh, please notice the variations among the different polls on that website and the numbers you, er, selected.

Here's some anecdotal evidence for you to chew on: Ask married people what they worry most about, and they will say it's their kids' safety and well-being. The economy, of course, plays a large part in that. An even bigger part is played by national security. That's why the President is supposed to be Commander-in-Chief: to protect America from invasion by foreign enemies and the treason of domestic enemies. That's not my almighty position, that's what the Constitution says.

Well, as a married person, I would say I am not worried about my kids' safety and well being. They are fine thank you.

But if the Bush* economy goes any more in the shitter, then yes, I will be worried about that, because if I or my wife lose our jobs, house, cars etc. then it will be very hard to keep the kids safe and well.

Sorry, here in Milwaukee, I don't think National Security is on very many minds, except the rabid right wingers, and the 2 or 3 Kerry Supporters that may exist here.

Nice try. Now why should I vote for Kerry? Oh yeah, he supported Bush* in the war vote and Ashcroft in the Patriot Act. Nice...

It seems the economy is very important to you. Safe to say, it is to most Americans.

For what it's worth, Kerry, as a Liberal Democrat, is very aware of the important role played by government in maintaining a healthy economy. He's also played an active role in promoting government's role in investing in education, infrastructure, and science for a healthy economy. That kind of perspective you won't find in many candidates. That kind of experience you can't buy in Vermont.

It's clear we disagree about the importance of national security. And while the rabid right wingers and two or three Kerry supporters there may be the only ones you've noticed, you might find there are quite a few people interested in America's future security.

Personally, I understand how Dean supporters would want people to think about something else. If they were to take a moment and ask people what they're thinking about when it comes to evaluating a president, they might quickly learn what the average person thinks about rich draft dodgers.

Get your facts straight before you start spouting off Republican talking points. Dean got a deferment, one he did not ask for, by the way.

You've just convinced me that if Kerry attracts people whose arguments are as dishonest as yours, he's not one I would want in the White House.

Unless you were talking about Bush*, then we agree...

Neither man is a rich draft dodger. While Duhbya kept Houston free from the Vietcong as a brave member of the TANG, Dean got a medical deferment for an "unfused vertebrae" that caused him pain when running. Absolutely true: I should have made clear that Dean is not a draft dodger, as he showed up for his physical and told them about his "problem." His condition didn't prevent Dean from celebrating his good fortune by spending that winter on the slopes. Go figure.

BTW: Here's Dean after walking the length of Vermont. At that moment, his physiognomy indicates he's not experiencing too much back pain. It's a miracle.



Here's the article:

http://www.aldha.org/howdean.htm

I'm definitely a Kerry fan and think he would be our Party's strongest candidate, no doubt. I also think he's got the goods on the BFEE and the stones to do something about it.

But I have no real issues with Dean...in fact, I donated to his campaign. The bottom line is I'll support any candidate who gets nominated at the convention and I hope all candidates will direct their fire at Bush, rather than on each other.

Good to read ya and I agree 100-percent with ya. If Dean's the nominee, I'll back him 100-percent. My thing is he's not the guy with the background or backbone to get the job done, IMO.

After posting this guy's slack-jawed, drooling, nonsensical, slanderous rantings.

And if you really do plan on supporting Dean if he gets the nomination, why are you expending so much effort in attacking him? What do you care who I vote for in the primaries?

I'd be happy to. Let's see... inquiring minds might want to ask Howard Dean about how Wal-Mart came to dominate retailing in Vermont, at the expense of the locally owned operators. Or we could ask Dean exactly who would pay for all the Medicaid benefits his "health insurance plan" would create? While we're at it, let's ask about raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 or was it 68? Either way, Dean's putting people in their "right" place.

Sorry, that's not the reason I posted the article. My POV doesn't enter into it, other than giving me an impetus to post it, as opposed to most pro-Dean supporters who would ignore what it says. The point: DU readers can learn something new about the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker. What's wrong with that?

I am sure that Kerry will bring the troops home...

:eyes:

Looking forward to the next rhetorical question. (Not.)

News flash. The "media" does not love or hate Bush*. The "media" loves ratings. The "media" is going to put whatever on TV they think will get viewers. The reason the "media" has been so easy on Bush* about the war is they know the rank and file Amerikkan *wanted* to kick some Iraqi ass, and they want said viewers to watch, so they tell them what they want to hear.

This can all turn on a dime as it *almost* did a few weeks back. There will most likely be a point in time when the "media" thinks it can get more eyeballs tapping into the popular disgust with Bush* than they can get with happy talk. That is the day we are waiting for.

People who think the "media" is some kind of vast conspiracy amuse me. Sure - there is bias - but it is not organized per se - talking points the media get from certain camps are but then any camp can issue them. The "medi" is a business with the same ultimate aim of all businesses, to make money.

Apparently, the "media" thinks a small-time governor from a small state becoming a major contender in record time in an entertaining human interest story. Who'd have thunk it?

Nor are they whipped into service by one iron glove. They do, however, respond en masse to the latest trend. It's like two dogs and a bone. When a bone lies in a corner of a room, ignored, neither dog will bother with it. When either dog shows any interest, the other will have to have at it, as well.

As you so well stated, when it comes to modern mass media, there isn't any one guiding principle other than profit. That's why they do all they do — to sell ads and commercial space.

One thing the mass media do do that is not readily apparent to the casual consumer or interested citizen is state their corporate perspectives plainly. For example, NBC, owned by General Electric, completely ignored the Hudson River environmental stories that would be of concern to the people of New York because to do so would draw attention to GE's responsibility for polluting the waterway. Same goes for their pro-Star Wars slant: They stand to make a buck off Buck Rogers.

For those who may be interested in learning more about this media mess we find ourselves in, GOOGLE Ben Bagdikian, author of "The Media Monopoly." In regards to modern politics, try Mark Hertsgaard, author of "On Bended Knee."

You've got a Kerry logo as your avatar, but so what? Your post reflects badly on Kerry. Is that your goal? Why? John Kerry is a decent and honorable Democrat. Why do you want to bash John Kerry?

Yours is a most interesting analysis. Still, it is wrong.

First, nowhere do I bash Dean. The author of the article makes a case, based on the historical record. Too bad we can't see all those gubernatorial papers Dean ordered sealed for 10 years, as it would clear up a lot of things, eh?

Second, it is true I am for John Kerry. The reason why is he has the best chance of beating George W Bush in November 2004. That's a fact that Dean supporters may not like. But, it's a fact.

Third, here are a few reasons why I’m for Kerry, culled from my posts over the past two years on DU, both as Octafish and as Oblomov:

Kerry Wants Regime Change in America

1. John Kerry wants to take out Bush Organized Crime Family as much as I do, which is almost as much as ANYONE who can remember back to November 22, 1963.

2. Kerry is able to do it, willing to do it and in a position to do it. He's also said he's going to go after them, saying he will appoint an HONEST ATTORNEY GENERAL. Kenny Boy Lay is going to look good in prison jumpsuit orange. So will George W. Bush.

3. Kerry has a track record of going after the BFEE — from BCCI to Iran-Contra to Ollie North & Contra Drug Running — while in the US Senate.

4. From Day 1, Kerry would know what to do as President and as Commander-in-Chief. Remember, as far as combat goes: Kerry’s been-there, done-that. He received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for bravery in combat.

5. Kerry’s the last real Liberal since Bobby Kennedy who has the “Credentials” needed to attract voters from the middle and, thus, win the Presidency. Who knows what he can do, given the chance. I think the majority of all voters would feel the same way.

GOOGLE Kerry and Ollie North or Iran-Contra or BCCI or CIA drugs, you’ll see the guy is a fighter on the side of good. While you sound like you already know this, the answer might convince others that Kerry is a candidate who would be qualified for the job.

Most of all, as a Liberal Democrat , Kerry would use the office of President to make this a better country for ALL citizens, doing all possible to improve public education, make higher education accessible to all who want to go to college, improve the economy and protect the environment. His entire career, Kerry has seen and demonstrated what government can do to protect the environment, improve the quality of life of all citizens, and made the world a better place through public service.

BTW: As far as Dean goes: He’s led a state smaller than Detroit with about one-one-hundredth the problems. Ask his supporters why the developers like Wal-Mart were able to spring up at the expense of opposing residents and environmental groups. Ask them why his health insurance system is basically an expansion of Medicaid coverage — the cheapest, lowest cost health care in America, paid not by the good folks of Vermont, but by Uncle Sam.

...Your behavior only reflects badly on the candidate you (claim to) support. So I'm wondering aloud, because I think Kerry's pretty decent, and your behavior will not dissuade me of that opinion.

What behavior are you writing about? The fact that I posted an article that says Dean may be a Republican in Democrat's clothing? If so, pardon me.

BTW: I really do want a Democratic president in 2005 (sooner if possible). The reason can be found examing this photo from a real False Flag operation.

For example it claims Dean's parents belonged to a country club that for decades didn't allow Jewish people. Uh, so what? Is that supposed to make me think Howard hates Jews? I guess that's why he has been married to one for so long.

Really bad hit piece.

What a wonderful example of journalism you found...the site goes on to say Dean smoked pot and drank large quantities of beer after he declined to go to Vietnam. That's a pretty amazing statement. First of all he did not decline, his physical gave him a deferment he did not ask for. As far as pot and beer, gee didn't Clinton, or for that matter anyone in the 60's do that too? Or is it only Republicans who drink beer, and BTW how the hell does he know how much he drank?

From a profile on New York Metro.com:

EXCERPT...

But the most revealing keepsake in this room is a collage of beer coasters, which Dean collected as an exchange student in England at age 17. It’s a memory of another life. Asked about Dean’s student hobbies, Dawson offers an amused reply: “Well, he drank.” Not anymore. “I quit drinking when I got married in 1981,” Dean says later. “I didn’t think I handled liquor well. Actually, I drank beer. I tended to misbehave. I had a hangover the next day.” He won’t elaborate but says he was never arrested for drunk driving, and there is no alcoholism in his family. “What’s funny when you’re 18 isn’t funny when you’re 30, so I just quit.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/n_8376/

BTW: Hermes-Press is an outstanding web site. For example, their article detailing the Bush-bin Laden connections make an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning about the Bush Organized Crime Family's ties to 9-11:

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

That article, full of unsubstantiated speculation, really makes a case for Kerry -- not!

Droning on and on about theories of republican "infilatration" of the Dean campaign, not a single reason is given why Kerry is the better candidate. Just the single sentence at the very end that posits, without comment, that Kerry is the "one" democratic candidate who can defeat Bush.

Spleengood chalks up Dean's support to medlesome republicans and thankful gays. Malarkey. This crap is an insult to democrats who are keeping an open mind about all candidates (including Kerry) and it does more to damage Kerry's image than Dean's.

I can tell you, if this is typical of the thinking and tactics of Kerry supporters, this is one voter who may have to put Kerry in the untouchable category along with Lieberman.

If Dean was a real liberal the Republicans would not go near any campaign political issues for liberals.

Dean is trying to tap into a base of support that transcends party boundaries. Republicans are coming to Dean events, and switching to the Democratic Party so they can vote for him in the primary. Whether this is part of a grand Republican scheme dreamed up by Karl Rove or not, it's providing Dean with numbers he wouldn't otherwise have. It's similar to the tactics the Republicans used in ousting Democrat Cynthia McKinney from her Congressional seat in Georgia: crossover voting.

Of the more than 100,000 campaign contributors Dean claims, Newsweek had to admit that some of those contributors are Republicans who believe that wherever Dean advances, President Bush gains.


http://antiwarmonger.com

I see you took out that quote. Hmmm, why would that be? Because you didn't realize that Dean's wife of I don't know 20+ years is Jewish?

Not only that, but children born to a Jewish mother are Jewish.

:hi:

and said that Dean had a bias towards Israel or something. I think the fact that his wife is Jewish may play some affect, I am netural and think the nation ought to be. Kucinich by the way has a Jewish girlfriend so maybe not. I am not sure. Not flamin or anything just asking an question?

It basically said Dean's parents belong to a country club that for years did not allow Jewish people to join. I suppose it is an effort to make Howard Dean appear to be a bigot, which is laughable when he MARRIED a Jew.

I wouldnt call him a bigot for that.

Ok let’s assume Dean was a liberal. He will lead us all into a nation of peace and tranquility. How will he do it? Will he do it by being a liberal? One of the main cannons of a liberal is to be anti-death penalty. Is Dean anti-death penalty? Is he a liberal because he has a Jewish wife?

Most people when they defect from conservative to liberal do so knowing they will never be a conservative or a Republican/ Democrat again.

Dean has no intention of not being a conservative so that just makes him another Republican Democrat like Clinton was.

The reasons why the people voted for Gore in 2000 was that Gore was to the left of Clinton, but Dean wants to campaign to the right of Clinton and thus will no doubt get no votes from liberals. Zero

Dean has always been against the attack on Iraq, so yes, we would be more at peace if he were President.

Not all liberals are anti-death penalty (my freeper brother-in-law tried to peg me with that one).

The Jewish wife thing is not about "liberalism" it is about debunking the article posted here in the original thread as hogwash.

Dean is not campaigning to the right of Clinton. He actually stood up against the Iraq war (unlike Clinton who apologizes for Bush). Clinton's liberal idea of gay rights was "Don't ask/Don't tell," Dean actually signed the civil unions bill.

I could go on, but I'm tired of this.

Perhaps they are not all against the death penalty but originally liberals were. I think what happened is that con men with a ton of money like Limbaugh called Democrats liberals, and from that the Democrats adopted reactionary politics from the insults of the right wing.

When one looks at the attitudes on this board this is the exact attitude of Democrats toward liberals now, but also these attitudes by Democrats towards liberals is the same now as it was more then 50 years ago when liberalism became a party, and a movement.

I can assure you if JFK was around the anti Death penalty would be a cause JFK would support. Why? He supported the anti-death penalty movement when the New York State liberals had it on their platform, and some say JFK being a card carrying member of the Liberal Party gave him the votes that were needed to be elected president.

As a liberal I sort of accept it as part of being a liberal, the attacks from Democrats and Republicans. When Limbaugh screams liberals are this and that, I actually smile, because he gives us much more power then we really have.

What Limbaugh really means when he says liberals is Democrats.

Note: I changed the article because I did not want to discuss
points that were in the article, when I seen it was and issue here. I mainly wanted to focus on are the Republicans sponsoring Dean on purpose, so they can win in 2004.

Welcome to DU. It's kind of a tradition around here that when you edit a post, you also add a little explaination of what you changed -- as a courtesy to other readers. Like:

edit: spelling
edit: grammar
edit: removed erroneous information

Kind of like that ;)

Why does it matter? If you make a mistake in spelling, grammar or just wish to remove your last thought, why explain it? You fixed it and posted it--fini--end of post. Why should anyone care what your edit was?


:shrug:

To maintain the integrity and consitency of the thread. If I post something and you refute it, then I go back and change what you refuted so as not to look like an idiot, the whole point of a threaded discussion breaks down.

Not everbody does it. Those who want readers to know that they are not changing the substance of their posts will explain an edit. Those who want to cover their tracks to avoid an embarrassing gaff rarely do it.

how Dean supporters are so "thin-skinned" that they can't take criticism. Hey, if shit like this is going to be thrown we'll throw it back. Please don't give me the crap about "Howard Dean started it." This is politics not recess.

Howard Dean EATS BABIES.

:eyes:

Sad, ain't it?

change minds or sway opinions for Kerry...you are going about it the wrong way.

That is a fact!

... Many people are turned off by anything negative when it comes to campaigning. That's why they have other people do the dirty work for them. One of the best at the game is Joe Trippi.

negative, that is...not best.

It's interesting, in a sad way, to read just how intelligent some on DU are. Why do you take it so personally? Big truck syndrome?

...is your absolute inability to recognize the same things in yourself for which you criticize others.
You've admitted politics is a dirty business...stop playing the wronged innocent when you get hit back just as hard. Dean's been a smart campaigner up to this point. The other major candidates have no one but themselves to blame for being asleep at the wheel and being clueless as to the mood of the electorate.

(that is to be expected) that bothers me. It is the "eagerness" with which some deliver it. It comes off as belligerent instead of informative. If you want to turn people on to Kerry...how about posting something positive...about Kerry.

Kerry is on my short list of favorites. If Kerry wins the nomination I will gladly vote for him...but it won't be because you or anyone else posted something negative about Howard Dean.

I like all the candidates...I just happen to like some a lot more than others.

edit: spelling and left out a word

for me to poop on.

Totally surprised me!

Two thumbs up! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

This is a Kerry campaign hack job.

There's something about his opposition that disheartens me. If Dean wins the nomination, I see it being VERY hard for some Kerry or Lieberman supporters to endorse him. On the other hand Dean folks would be enthusiastic to vote for Kerry at least.

edit: thought clarification

FYI: Going from memory, EVERY Kerry supporter and Lieberman supporter I've read on DU who's stated an opinion on the subject has stated he or she would vote for Dean, should he be the Democratic nominee.

MOST Dean supporters have likewise indicated supporting the DEM nominee. However, there are some who have gone out of their way to statey otherwise, such as this from the Old DU archive:

Kerry War enabler, BFEE member in good standing

Skull and Bones Brother to GW. Voted to take away right s and to institute Homeland Gestapo...I would not vote for Kerry for Dog catcher.

SOURCE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=13193&forum=DCForumID66&archive=#2

although I remember a poll supporting my statement (Zogby, was it?). I just see such a ferocious campaign against Dean that they make him look bad for the general election.

When Evan Bayh and Lieberman and co. tell the public that Dean is unwinnable that doesn't serve the Party well.


on edit: Thank's octafish!

Your guy is the worst guy ever ... almost as bad as bush himself... (as if this statement alone bolsters my guy) :eyes:

It is so much easier staying out of this whole fray on principle (it is WAY to early for me to back "a guy". Watching these silly threads that are very counter productive (don't see many converts being won) makes me think that the real point is to whip up support among the nonsupporters rather to convert either a) the undecided (ala salin), or b) convert the believer.

And ya'll do this - from each camp.

Ipso facto:

Wow, a Dean-bashing by a Kerry guy.
OK, then, just for that, I don't like Kerry any more.
Wait a minute though---it's so blatant that it must be
a Dean guy pretending to be a Kerry guy bashing Dean
so that it turns people off from Kerry.
So that makes me like Dean more, I think, but then again
it is such a tricky & malicious tactic to take
to get me to like Dean
that I end up liking Kerry more & Dean less.
OK now then I think I have it so
don't anybody say anything until the primary is over.

It's true. I support Kerry and have here on DU for more than a year and a half. I hope that doesn't turn you or any Dean supporter off Kerry.

That said, I don't have anything to do with Hermes-Press or Mr. Livergood — other than reading and recommending what he writes and is posted on that web site. Blast them for having an idea and putting it out where people can evaluate it for themselves.

OTOH: Those who don't like what I write, can blame me or flame me. I don't care which. While that's not psychology in reverse, it may be a sign of psychopathology.

You folks must be real desperate to think we are unaware of your usual crap.

Remember I didn't write the article. I posted the thing. Yet people up and down the thread have taken shots at me for having the audacity to give it a prominent place on DU.

My fault is in the posts I've written in the replies. There I've tried to respond soley to their messages.

Not funny. The thing that stands out is that if anyone says anything at all about Howard Dean, it's got to be a fawning apology — otherwise they're bashing Howard Dean. That's wrong and Dean's wrong.

That's the first lie in your thread!

You also failed to mention that Norman Livergood is a strong Kerry partisan. Talk about truth in advertising!

Here is Livergood's article in which he tells us "elites" why we must vote for Kerry. If the arguments he uses sound worn and familiar, perhaps it is because we have heard them before in DU:

Why Americans Must Support Kerry
By
Norman D. Livergood

Thinking Americans are people who reflect on issues and carefully examine candidates' records to develop informed opinions. They don't have knee-jerk reactions like conservatives. When I read an article or read an email which says merely: "I like Kucinich" or "I like Edwards" or whatever, the answer must be, "So what." Who we happen to like (because of the last speech we heard on C-SPAN) or what we like (this or that speech we read in the alternate press) is not the point: the point is that we must defeat Bush II in 2004 and only John Kerry can do it.

http://www.hermes-press.com/kerry_yes.htm

:puke:

Thanks for the link! Sorry I failed to mention that Hermes-Press has come out in support of John Kerry because he represents the best chance to kick the unelected fraud out of the Oval Office. Gee, if we measure truth-telling by posting all information of relevance in every thread, you would have pointed out that you once were a big Kerry supporter on DU, IndianaGreen.

No matter. Here's what some REAL lefties at CounterPunch have to report about Dean:

Meet Howard Dean

The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal)

by MICHAEL COLBY

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

As the son of a wealthy Long Island family (his father was a prominent Wall Street insider), Dean's used to having his golden path well greased. After dutifully attending Yale and then medical school, Dean looked for a state to launch both a private medical practice and a political career. He chose Vermont as much for its beauty as its lenient mood toward carpet bagging politicians, thus joining Brooklynite Bernie Sanders as a born again Vermonter.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

With his sights now set on the White House, the Dean team has been doing its best over the last year to polish up a mediocre gubernatorial record. They're also trying to position Dean as "the liberal" in the Democratic field so as to grab the much-coveted early primary voters.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

Sorry I failed to mention that Hermes-Press has come out in support of John Kerry because...

This is a bit like saying that Fox News supports Rupert Murdoch:

Click under "Publisher" and voila, it is Mr. Livergood!

http://www.hermes-press.com/indexhermes.htm

http://www.hermes-press.com/ndl1.html

that were amazingly supportive of Kerry where you praised all the progressive work he has done over the years. Since Iraq you threw him over for someone far less progressive and who only differed slightly from Kerry on what version of the Iraq resolution he supported.

And you are right, my dear blm! Prior to 9/11/01 I thought John Kerry was the best candidate. Then came Gore, for whom I did not vote in 2000, and he shed his advisors from 2000 and started to say things that needed saying.

I found myself supporting Gore then, in rare agreement with w4rma, with whom I had clashed so often about Gore and the 2000 campaign. W4rma and I had become of one mind: Gore was the only candidate with the combination of intelligence and experience that was needed to put our once great nation on the road to recovery. I still think that Gore is the best qualified for the job!

I still remember the high of watching Gore on SNL, only to see him drop out the following Monday.

Then came Dean! While Kerry seemed to have trouble remembering the sort of man he was when he opposed an evil war in Southeast Asia, and had no qualms in supporting a new evil war in the Middle East, Dean spoke loud and clearly against Bush's doctrine of preemptive wars and the unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Much was expected of Kerry based on his own personal history. Kerry is the biggest disappointment of campaign 2004.

on ignore. I have not time for this shit.

Dean is not a Liberal. Dean doesn't have a clue. And Dean is not electable.

right? Not really about some big grand discussion about some article.

Did it work? Did you get any converts?

Convince any undecideds? (not this one.. bored *yawn*)


Silly rabbits - candidate flame threads that convince noone of anything... are for kidds (those who like to continue butting heads for the sake of butting heads as the practice is not actually accomplishing anything).

It was not to argue, butt heads, or make converts out of anyone. From what I can see, most in the choir are decided. Its intention was to be of benefit to those who still have an open mind and those who may not know the whole story about Dean or the bottom line for Democrats.

Oh thank you soooo much. Without you finding all the right threads for me to click on, I might have been a hopeless Dean-o-crat and voted for the wrong guy. Woooo, that was close.

Oh thank you thank you thank you.

Your link-generosity is sooo amazingly selfless.

You help the "people" read it. Without you we are lost.

Yes, I'll vote Kerry now. You've convinced me. How can I ever thank you for your insightful, informative and completely original thoughts?

You are my hero...

Bob Kerry in '04!

(What? The other Kerry? Oh, never mind...)

Now that you mention it, Bob Kerrey might've made a good President.

BTW: Glad to be of help with your reading comprehension.

didn't work. No inflamatory piece that is inflamatory for the sake of being so is going to work. Just as I dismissed all the, in my mind inflamatory and silly "skull and bones" threads and "he didn't really throw HIS medals away" threads and "his vote against the war makes him as bad as bush" threads against Kerry. (And I am decidely anti war but that argument didn't hold - for Lieberman, Gep and Bayh - different story). Those were fluff, biased threads. And when posted were not really geared at swaying minds - in the same way that this (or the other thread that is going concurrently citing this same exact article) is going to sway minds.

These are all much more about whipping up ones own supporters - by creating a common enemy.

I read above and elsewhere your perspective, salin. You know I value what you write. So, when it comes to smear tactics, I'll follow your advice and keep things strictly business.

When I was new to DU as Oblomov, you gave me some valuable tips on how to protect my ID from the disruptors and freepers after I got slammed for posting something about Poppy, Meese, the Christic Institute and the LaPenca bombing. Your help then, as your thoughts now, are appreciated.

Of course, when it comes to posting about Dean, I'll give as good as Kerry gets from his detractors in that camp. As you remember, my guy's been slammed wrongly and frequently to the point where it seems to have permanently stained his image in the minds of some DUers. The intent with this article was to get people aware of the true picture, not the airbrushed version gladly provided by the DDF.

BTW: I started to post as Octafish when the Iraq Invasion was launched. The old moniker had too many hurtful memories for me, so I changed it when I kicked in a few pesos to keep the DU bandwidth alive. You may notice that Oblomov has not posted since then nor have I under any other name.

To tell the truth I only scan most of these threads -as they are highly "partisan" (in an interparty sort of way). Very little new information. Most undecideds KNOW that Dean is pretty centrist. And know that while he was more quick to go on the attack against Bush that some other candidates - he was also one of the first to start going after other dem candidates (one of the reasons I am hold-off on him.) But we also see - outside of DU - the ability to mobilize a grassroots organization - a year out before the election. ANd frankly with the apathy of even partisan voters, that too does get attention.

We also see that Kerry and Kucinich (in different ways) are the real progressive liberals on a full range of categories. Less known, because it has fallen between the cracks, is that Kerry has gone through his career NOT taking Pack money (ala Feingold). That is very impressive. But there has been a bit waivering for Kerry on the BIG issue and I can only speak for myself on this - rather than speaking for undecideds - I do understand the context. I give him much more leeway than I do Lieberman, Bayh (who DOEs have presidential aspirations - no question about it) and Gephardt. Their actions by going to the Rose Garden speech sabatoged ongoing negotiations on various amendments in the senate that were bipartisan and would have put (more - some??) limits on bush on the resolution. We'll see if Kerry can excite and mobilize voters as Dean has done. It will be important.

The short shrift goes to Graham (who though conservative, I have long respected and brings some gravitas as both a governor and senator) whose coverage is lighter and thus less is "widespread". I know that his reasons for voting against the war - were not really "anti war" as much as "wrong war at this time". Not a problem, except that he wanted more (sole) power/discretion given to the president than was in the resolution. (Among democrats his view was particularly unique). Also short shrifted is Edwards who is even less widely known, aside from his strong presence and speaking skills.

Of course there is that looming wild card.

The point is - we undecideds are paying attention overall - but we are also not really paying attention to the intercandidate/supporters squabbles. It is "noise" that we just filter out.

I can understand the compulsion to "set it right" (one's own viewpoint as to what that is). But then I also recognize the other party's compulsion to respond to "set it right" (from his/her view) and on and on and on it goes.

The damage isn't, as some suggest, that the fighting give ammo to Rove. Rove is so clever/devious that he will come up with ten times worse ammo on whoever wins. Playing the electibility calculus based on who the WH can't attack in the same way - is naive. Look at Cleland. Any dem is going to get it even more vitriolically than Gore. They (and their campaign, and their fans) have to expect it and be prepared for it - and have strategies to win that go BEYOND beating off ROVIAN television ads and the like.

So the damage instead are that really needed folks - grassroots worker bees - will become so alienated or hostile to the eventual nominee (whoever that might be) and his(her) supporters. If we cut such deep hostile lines - it will be hard for the former Dean supporter to come across and support Kerry or even Gephardt at the level is needed (being involved enough for more grassroots work). Or for former Kerry or Graham supporters to turn around and work hard for Dean.

I don't know how to change the ugly dynamic going on. It sure doesnt help that spokespeople for the DLC *not the DNC* are feeding this kind of rhetoric.

I just suggest that starting these threads - that do little towards ones goal (finding new selling points - new policies announced etc.) and serve to antagonize people with whom one needs to be allied with in the future, and tire/irritate/frustrate (and at times disgust) the folks everyone seems to be coveting - we undecideds.

Thanks for listening. Every now and again we all need the chance to vent. I will just spare all by not creating a new thread to cover the topic ;-)

"Dean is not a Liberal. Dean doesn't have a clue. And Dean is not electable."

So, you're saying Dean is not electable because he's not liberal enough?

Dean is saying what the crowds want to hear. What positions did he hold before he ran for president? He says he's pro-environment, etc., but we have to take his word on it because he ordered his gubernatorial records sealed for 10 years.

"(Dean) "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

SOURCE (you can also hear Dean say it on Vermont Public Radio's archive):

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=441887

Furthermore, as governor of a state with the population of greater Memphis, he does not have the experience needed to tackle the job of President. How's he going to know what to do? Trust his advisors? That doesn't work that well, as evinced by what's come to pass since the selection of the chief executive — war on terra, economy in the doldrums, record deficits, etc. Americans, by and large (IMO), understand there's no time for On-the-Job Training.

Wake up! Why would liberals be critical of Dean and the Republicans sponsor Dean? If you all want to do the right thing for the party encourage Dean to drop out and have him back General Clark. General Clark is the real thing, and also he will win.

crap in one place.

Next time I'll know what the shitslinging Dean-bashers will say before they it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

:hi:

Glad to see someone appreciates a kind word or two on their favorite candidate. BTW, the stuff mentioned in the Hermes-Press article is referenced and linked at the bottom. If you're interested in learning more about the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker, you might want to check out his position on Social Security:

Whopper of the Week: Howard Dean

"Oh, that statement about raising the retirement age …"

By Timothy Noah
Slate.com
Posted Friday, August 8, 2003, at 10:16 AM PT

"Dennis Kucinich: y good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70.

<…>

"Howard Dean: hen we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.
"I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."

—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

<…>

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."

—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995

CONTINUED...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

I'm going to bookmark this thread. It will be a valuable resource when I want to find a quote to point out the idiocy of Dean-bashing- or candidate-bashing in general.

Incidentally, each of the charges listed here has already been patiently refuted by Dean supporters in one thread or another. Occasionally they even concede that Dean has made a mistake. In the interest of fairness, I respectfully suggest that you do a little research and find the answers in those threads for yourself. This way you can actually advance the conversation, instead of pointlessly rehashing the same-old tired accusations.

Thanks again.

Good luck in your research!

The only reason I would vote for Kerry if he were to win the nomination (at this point any way) is I realize this is coming from Kerry supporters and not out of the mouth of Kerry himself.

If Kerry ends up comporting himself like Lieberman, however, I will relegat him to the rubbish can of politicians along with *Dumbass and Lieberman.

They're just trying to mess with your head. :P

do not forget, the objective is to get El Presidente out of office and back in Crawford. Dean is the only one of the bunch with an ounce of charisma, to say he's a Bush clone is absolutely outrageous. Stop your fighting and back the guy, he's going to get the nomination. If all moderates and Liberals banded together, 100 million plus, the Republicans would not stand a chance. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!

dean is not the candidate however, with your idealogy a candidate truely for the people has the power of voters to win, embrace the candidate that can save the people of this country from the rampant government, expansive corpratism and global imperialism...

Republican. I thought we were agreed (for the most part) that we, as Democrats would vote for whomever won the nomination. The job now is to get to the voters who are either A. Republicans who are fed up with Mr. Bush and Co. and B. Fence sitters. How can a man against the war, for civil unions be a republican? My husband is a liberal thinking,non partisan, gun owner. How can this be a bad thing??? You sound plain angry. It's unfortunate you choose to take it out on fellow DU-ers.

Peace, Laura