Since we're having yet another Deanapalooza today on DU...

:)

I have another question. It is the assrip-du-jour on DU to clobber Kerry (rightfully) for his Iraq vote.

But has Dean personally and specifically clobbered Kerry for his Iraq vote, in a speech or a position paper or something? I know a lot of the Dean supporters do this as naturally and constantly as breathing, but has Dean? Or is he leaving it to his supporters to haul that water?

Links would be cool.

. . . on Dean, and I've never heard him personally call out Kerry for his vote - now that you mention it.

But then, we're pretty starved for anything about Dems out here.

Anyone else?

rightfully bitching about the war. It wouldn't help him one bit to attack Kerry in this way. Sure, let the people carry the water here. And even if they weren't, I still don't think that Dean personally would attack Kerry over this.

I like Dean just fine, but the plain truth is he DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE on this issue...it's easy to defend a record when there isn't one.

Yes, he DID NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ISSUE.

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

i've noticed how no one has responded to your post... ahem

interesting...


these 'inquiring threads' are getting more and more rhetorical... glad to see you actually answered though...

I mean at least Dean HAS governed SOME sort of populace - a state. Unlike Kerry who has never been a governor. So really the plain truth is Kerry can't say he'd do this and that, because he hasn't DONE it. At least when Dean says stuff, he's done it toward a state government and likely could do it to a national government.

Sorry. Just playing the devils advocate! ;-)

Being a Senator is governing - there is a constituency, there are local issues by the truckload...and there are the issues panels like Intelligence and Foreign Relations where make-or-break decisions get made.

There's also that silly little Vietnam thing.

And I don't see how Vietnam has anything to do with it.

that Kerry fighting in Vietnam expands to him being a military leader for the entire US forces. That's like saying just because you were a student of public schools you are qualified to be a teacher. Students go through the process, teachers make the process happen.

Disclaimer: I have no problem with Kerry having fought in Vietnam, just saying that it doesn't make him more experienced to run the military.

War is extreme, dangerous, risky foreign policy that can and often does blow up in our faces, literally and figuratively.

Facing combat and retaining a healthy conscience, coming out the other side of war and not despising humanity for what it can do to itself, surviving war and seeing that it is more often than not the WORST foreign policy we can ever employ, that's when you know a Veteran is a leader.

When a Veteran is willing to sign on to a war or military force declaration, I wonder, both about the Veteran and about the declaration.

America is a pretty wealthy country.

You could govern it.

:eyes:

I of Kerry, Dean, and Kucinich the most gritty on the war issue was Kucinich, who voted against it, spoke at a war rally, and helped organized the house dems against the war vote. Dean is in second place for being against it. Kerry I respect him but he voted for it. Kinda odd that I would agree with Kerry supporters in that the arguement is overboard.

Just because he wasn't in the congress to vote on the issue that makes his opposition to the war irrelevent? What about Kucinich he saw the same evidence and still had the brains to know that Bush was lying and vote against the war. This arguement about Dean not being in congress to vote on the resolution really makes no sence imo.

but towards those who think speaking against the war equates with a NO VOTE

Kerry clearly showed that you could speak out against it and vote for it. Perhaps that's why his supporters are so willing to bring up the issue that Dean didn't have to actually vote on it. Obviously, if their candidate voted for it after speaking out against it, then naturally it follows that Dean would have done the same exact thing.

I tell you while I respect and like Dean I would have loved to have seen him at a rally or hear about him at one. That said if the war was the only issue between Dean and Kerry I would vote Dean, of course if DK was there too, I would vote DK. Thanks for acknowledging that DK had the sense to vote against the war resolution CMT. Thanks much, I appreciate it.

the war would turn out well and he wouldn't be 'Mr. Prezzy'. Death and destruction have little sway when vanity is front and center...and Air Force 1 is a very pretty plane.

Dean '04...

that he can see into the future like that.

Get real. Kerry and Clinton were working out a plan to stabilize Iraq back in 98. They switxhed to other measures (focusing on eliminating Bin Laden) when the allies were uncomfortable with removing Saddam. But, the policy itself never changed.

he'd have voted against the war? It's not as if he is developing a record for flip-flopping on positions as the electoral winds blow. Errr, wait a minute there...

and they apply to both Dean and Clark.

We are well on the brink of a world catastrophe. It's critical that the right man, the best man get our vote.

Peace

And thank you to all my Dean friends at DU for being so understanding and so kind and supportive about getting through this together. If Dean wins, I will be ecstatic for you and tremendously proud of your hard work in getting him elected. And if you and the Dean camp help me get over my problems with him when the time comes, I will be proud to vote for him.

How come no one is pushing Dean and Kucinich by the way? Seems to me to be the most compatible and logical choice...

I think I'll start my own "meme" ;)

He's clumped all those who voted for the war into a group and 'clobbered' them. BUT never, to the best of my knowledge, has he attacked Kerry in name.

If he hasn't, he should.

Yet would it further split the party?
I don't think so, most Dems were clearly against this mass murder
without reason.

I do believe it was those self centered Dem Senators that ultimately
displayed a weakness. Or they could have been scared to death that
Bush would shoot down their plane or send a letter of anthrax.
Either way it shows weakness all the way round.

There are quite a few people that still are able to see that
action speaks louder than words.

Dean's stand on the war is pretty much the hood-ornament reason why a lot of DUers and others support him...and why Kerry is the whipping boy on the issue. Just kinda funny that Dean has not pressed this advantage.

Just as it has backfired on Lieberman and Kucinich, it would hurt Dean. Given Dean has a massive lead on Kerry, I expect he'll take the "high road" on all of that stuff.

I of course never candidate-bash. O8)

We're making process day by day. Also I thought Dean was liked by you all for him attacking the democratic establishment, not gonna be a jerk about it but Kucinich rarely ever attacks fellow democrats, he does distinguish his views and the like from Dean and the others which isnt attacking.

Including Gephardt and Dean. Kucinich is usually a nice person, but looked very nasty on several occasions. As a result, he is at 0-1% in the polls in key states with negatives WAY out of proportion to his name recognition.

Maybe my eyes are wrong but I think I have read that by many of you. Kucinich didnt come out good I agree but its still early, and I am not ready to give up.

Hold on, Hold on
Keep your eyes on the prize*

*civil rights anthem

:pals:

I can see it. Thanks though. Also no one seems to respond to my comment that one of the reasons why people were attracted to Dean was his attack on the establishment yet it seems thats a ok but Kucinich cant criticize Dean. Sorry guys I hate to be mean but thats one of your guy's trademarks to attack establishment Dems, if you have a problem with Kucinich attacking Dean, I am sorry then but it aint Dennis's normal behavior, and I know many of you were attracted to Dean by the rhetoric I speak of. With respect and hoping you realize what I mean.

LOL!!!

But I must say...it is nice to hear all the voices ring!!!

as far as I'm concerned. According to the same sorts of polls at the same time, Carter shouldn't have won either.

And something else for you to chew on, there are working people who have touted Gephart for 40 years who have torn up commemerative photos of him and sworn to support Kucinich because "Gephart sold us out!". Likewise there are people who liked Dean until that debate and turned tail headed for Kucinich. Why? Because he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't, and what he IS is a fighter for the people.

He keeps his word and he doesn't hide from unfriendly truths.

Dean has been attacking the establishment and it drew many to him yet Kucinich attacks Dean, and boom people just are pissed off at Kucinich for being honest about Dean's posistion also I think if Dean would had admitted his lie at the AFL-CIO the union members would had been mad.

Green-eyed monster does not look good on anyone, and it seemed like the week Kucinich attacked Dean was right after the Time Newsweek, etc. covers, was jealousy. I like DK but after those personally addressed attacks I am still reconsidering.

On the other hand, Dean asked why Dems were voting for the war in Iraq, why for tax cuts etc. - not any one specific person, that I heard anyway.

I'll tell anyone who cares to listen, Dean supporters will defend Dean when the personal attacks begin, and it will cause more problems than it is worth for first tier candidates that try it.
It'll make all the independents and non-voters just stay home in Nov. 2004, if Dean loses the nomination due to personalized attacks.

Ive defended Dean against attacks too in the past but I think Dennis while he may have made a bad impression that night was trying to explain the difference between him and Dean. I dont think he did it right honestly. That said I dont find Dean to be horrible but I do not agree with him much on economics.

It isn't Howard Dean's fault the press feels like treating him as the golden boy of the day.

He wasn't attacking anyone, he was challenging his opponents to meet his offer or beat it. They couldn't do it, and that's not Kucinich's fault anymore than the press silence on Kucinich is Dean's fault. You can't take the heat, don't come into the kitchen. That's healthy democratic debate, and it's a necessary part of the process.

I guess Dean doesnt look all that good

I've seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact I've seen a heightened response from elderly folks and people nearing retirement age who looked twice because of his challenges to Dean.

Dean's stand on the war is pretty much the hood-ornament reason why a lot of DUers and others support him...

I'm having a little trouble quite understanding what you're saying here.

I can only speak for myself. I don't believe I'm going to be able to vote for anyone who voted for this war. Dean got my attention for 2 reasons: he was SPEAKING UP (about everything) and he had it right about the war. He had it right about the war at a time when that wasn't all that popular, and when most Dems anywhere saw it as politically risky -- politically deadly, even. Right there, I saw backbone and character. THAT is what drew me initially. It wasn't entirely that he was "anti-THIS-war" specifically -- Kucinich would've worked, or Sharpton, or Mosely-Braun -- it was that he had backbone and character and unapologetically stood up for the right thing.

I guess I could say it was as much he was against this war for the right reasons than just that he was against this war. AND that he was willing to say so, and say a lot of other things too.

And as I've said so many times before: if I'd not already been a supporter when he gave his stellar CA Dem Convention speech (March?? was it?) and shouted out: "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!" he'd have gotten me as a supporter with just those 5 words. FINALLY, someone willing and able to give voice to what we've ALL said, felt, prayed. Finally. Finally, at long, long last, thank GOD, finally. Even now, I can burst into tears, as I did that night, remembering those 5 words, and his impassioned delivery.

He's not only not let me down since, he's continued to delight and surprise me on many occasions. I don't expect him to be perfect -- hell, I voted for Clinton twice. But I have come to expect integrity, character, straightforward delivery of the truth from him. None of the other front runners offers that (I think Kucinich does, for the most part). And I've already written (hope you read it) about what else the Dean Campaign is making possible in this country -- a reinvigoration of the democratic process itself.

Here's something that so moved me I copied it. It was posted on the blog today, in the comments after Dean's entry:

Governor,

It's some years since we met at Riley Rink in Manchester after you signed Act 60 and not quite so many years since you were campaigning here as well. We were on opposite sides then, but I never doubted your sincere manner and have always had the greatest respect for you. Differences on one issue, do not preclude support on another. This Bennington County Republican, like so many others, is strongly supporting you. As Eisenhower once said, when asked about his party affiliation, I say "American".

Other bloggers, it took a lot of guts for the Governor to appear in our town to take the heat and try to explain the statewide property tax. Lesser men would have avoided it. Howard Dean doesn't duck issues! That's why all of us are here today.

As one "flatlander" to another, you're doing the right thing. No handlers, no fakes, no testing the waters. Just continue saying what you believe in. The GOP likes to talk about a "bit tent". "Dean for America" is the biggest tent this country's ever seen. God's speed, good luck and go easy on the donuts!

Posted by Joe in Vermont at August 31, 2003 02:17 PM

--------

Quite simply, he's the real thing. That's what people are responding to. Yeah, he had it right about the war -- that was the "symptom" not the core of the matter, and yeah, it attracted a lot of attention. But the core of the matter is not just that he was against the war, the core of the matter involves his principles, his ability to see things clearly, and his willingness to speak clearly about what he sees.

Eloriel

The hood ornament is the first part you see of a car coming at you.

you bring tears to my eyes and thats not easy. Good work. Go Dean:toast: :toast:

came back to check this thread one more time! :-)

You're able to articulate so well the attraction that Dean has! I recognize some of these same things and am just so happy that Dean is in the race!

Thank you!

Dean is truely a good, intelligent, democrat who wants Bush beaten above all else. He has said he would never run as an independent, and would support who ever gets to run. After todays performance by Kerry on MTP Dean would have good reason. Dean said who voted for the war, all of them, what more needs to be said? What bothers me the most is the people hear knew Bush was lying about the reasons for war, Teddy knew, Levin knew, Graham knew, Byrd knew, why not Kerry?

Dean's dissent on the war issue was significant. I do believe however that this was only what got him noticed. He was anti-war when it wasn't cool. He was also willing to make himself a target of Cheney's patriotism police. The two combined invigorated the raw-knuckled peace activists here at DU.

Had he been an environmental nazi, anti-choice, anti-gay (pro-bigot) and the like, I doubt he would have received as much sustained admiration and support of this internet community.

It seems unnecessary to press this "advantage" over any other contender for the Dem nomination. There will be another day to say 'I told ya so'. Until then, there are more pressing issues to hammer if Dean is to define his image multi-dimensionally.

EDIT: kant spel

to take us to war. I have heard him say that. I will have to look up the exact words, but something to the effect that they should not have given Bush that power......that power belonged to the Congress.

I would love to see a transcript of exactly what they voted on. I am not sure they even know themselves.

They did give away their power.

Have you actually asked folks why they support Dean (and no--I don't suggest starting a thread on *that*--lord knows it will just descent into a colossal cluster f*(& of name-calling, soiling of underwear, and rending of hair)

I don't think that's why folks support Dean *as* they do. It might be why people gravitated towards him in the beginning. My reason was the civil unions thing--I was just surprised he survived the re-election after it, and thought that he might have something interesting going on.

Then I got involved and...see my response to your other thread regarding a question for Dean supporters-- re: Catch-22--that will sum up my "disagreement" with you.

Best,

eric

Reaching a bit, aren't we, Will?

;-)

BTW, the reason this Dean supporter has ever said anything bad about Kerry's Iraq vote has nothing to do with anything Dean has said about Kerry...


It's because Kerry was my number one candidate pick until his Iraq vote (and in particular that stupid pre-vote speech). If I say anything about Kerry's Iraq vote it's because I was willing to go all out for Kerry just like I've done for Dean...if he just hadn't voted for that stupid ass resolution after telling us that he trusted Bush to do the right thing.

That's my favorite (RAW ripped off way) of saying those sort of statements.

;-)

vote! Anybody who was against this attack on Iraq I think would have trouble endorsing anyone who they had made calls and written e-mails to ..pleading with them not to give bush the power.

And I don't know of any time that Dean has mentioned kerry's vote.

But I don't think Dean is expecting anyone to "haul" any "water" for him.

Many of us wrote, no, PLEADED with the likes of Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, etc. not to give Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. I believe I used those very words, too. The faxes, phone calls and letters have made no difference whatsoever. Nevertheless, I will support Kerry if he is nominated, though I'd much rather be supporting Dean.

I will never forget how their aides were so condescending to me, how wrong they said I was.

I remember almost their exact words to this day, because I called more than once.

They had their minds made up. My calls and those of others did not make an iota of difference.

my own Senator (Edwards) frustrated us to no end. It's hard to get over putting out that much passion and energy and feeling like your not being listened to. It's even more disheartening to see the nightmare of human misery that has resulted.

I used to get heavy on Edward's case here, but I decided it was more productive to focus on the positive attributes of other candidates who I prefer and not add to the perception of "bashing" that is so common here.

One thing I will say about the Iraq vote. I don't really buy that they "didn't know". After all, WE knew the case for war was BS!

It is easy to call out Kerry on voting for Iraq, but Dean was never actually in the situation himself, so it is hard for me to justify the attacks on Kerry by the Dean people.

I'm on the fence between Kerry and Dean, but I don't believe I've ever heard Dean mention Kerry directly with the Iraq vote. I could be wrong.

Dean was making his stance as the former Govenor of Vermont!

That's ridulous to give Kerry a pass because Dean wasn't a Senator!

I wonder how Pat Leahy and Jim Jeffords voted?

And I sure as heck can say why I don't like Kerry! There were other Senators and Congressman who didn't jump on the frekin' bush band warwagon!

nt

It is easy to call out Kerry on voting for Iraq, but Dean was never actually in the situation himself, so it is hard for me to justify the attacks on Kerry by the Dean people.


My "attacks" on Kerry would be there even if there were no Dean. Dean doesn't have anything to DO with my "attacks" on Kerry. Don't conflate two issues that are actually completely separate. I feel very lucky there's someone I can support who was opposed to the war. But if there weren't, I'd still have the very same level of contempt for Kerry's betrayal.

And if any of the others comes within the same striking distance Kerry now holds, they'll get the same kind of "attack" from me, except where Kerry's concerned, he of all people should have known better precisely because of the war experience and anti-war experience he likes to flaunt.

Also -- I pretty much hold back on a lot of other things I could be saying about Kerry. What's the point: the war vote comes before and dwarfs everything else for me where he's concerned.

Eloriel

That makes sense, my post wasn't exactly clear. I understand that people would still have qualms about Kerry regardless of Dean or not. Kerry is not "my first choice candidate" , so I don't hold any loyalty to him- but the way I feel is that I'm giving him a second chance. I sincerely believe that they (Senators, Congressmen) were lied to by Bush & Co. multiple times about Iraq. Despite the Iraq vote, I like what he (Kerry) has to say on a lot of other issues. I also like Dean, but he has his faults as does Kerry.

Once again you reminded me that I've got to brush up on my GD skills. A bit rusty! ;)

more infighting and mudslinging between Dean and Kerry and allow the media to blow it into "the democratic candidates are imploding" again. The mass media pundits would rather talk about personal jabs, Enquirer style, rather than cover the important issues our candidates are trying to address daily. I think Kerry and Dean may have called a truce for the time being, and I think it benefits them both. Kerry has already stated that he was for longer inspections. All he really has to say is that the administration said they had intelligence info that he was not privy to, so he was duped too, just like most of America. He sort of gets himself off the hook with that kind of explanation, since so many Americans were lied to as well, the public will relate (politics as usual). Let me just say this about Kerry, he's no Robert Byrd.

Like many others, including Lieberman, Dean has criticized Kerry for waffling on the war:

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Monday accused rivals John Edwards and John Kerry of being intentionally deceptive about their positions supporting the Bush administration's war with Iraq.

"It seems to me he has changed his position," Dean said of Edwards. "Senator Kerry to this day continues to be ambivalent about his position."

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20828383.html

From around the same time,

"To this day I don't know what John Kerry's position is," Dean said Thursday in a speech to Iowa activists. "If you agree with the war, then say so. If you don't agree with the war, then say so, but don't try to wobble around in between."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82441,00.html

From January (dead links in post),

"Now they're trying to say, "We tried to constrain the president," Dean told reporters in the leadoff primary state. "Nonsense. They all voted to give the president a blank check.''

http://www.mydd.com/archives/000402.html#000402

with these criticisms.

I'd say it sounds like a Criticism!

It was an idiotic decision (based on some deluded idea that dems had to support the president's PNAC agenda to looks "strong" for a potential presidential bid). It was idiotic then and its clearly idiotic now.

Dean came out against the invasion when it wasn't "cool" to do so, the pundits wrote him off. Wasn't "mainstream" enough.

I think a lot of people are tired of Bush's idea of "mainstream" and I think a lot of people are thrilled that a candidate took the risk of opposing a stupid thing when it was popular to cheerlead a stupid thing.

Attempting to conquer and occupy a muslim country is something that can be easily seen from a review of history books is something that simply doesn't work. The west is one big infidel. Their entire culture is based on repelling infidels.

That last paragraph of yours really strikes me!

"Attempting to conquer and occupy a muslim country is something that can be easily seen from a review of history books is something that simply doesn't work. The west is one big infidel. Their entire culture is based on repelling infidels."

Alexander the Great
Ghengis Khan
Richard the Lion Heart
Napoleon Bonaparte
The British in the last century (lost 20,000 British soldiers in the uprising that tossed them out).

I would love to see a piece on the historical attempts by infidels to invade and occupy Middle Eastern countries. Will P. could really use his flair on that one, and maybe in the process understand more clearly how completely idiotic and short-sighted Kerry's position on the invasion was/is.

attack on Iraq and thinking .."I hope we don't do it"!

And now we can add our Country to that list!

I know it's not over yet but I just know that it was Not right and it will turn out Wrong!

use diplomacy once he had a blank check from Congress, as did the others who voted for the resolution. That is not why I am not a Kerry supporter, although I do respect Dean for taking a stance against it when it was unpopular. I also think the anti-Iraq-war is why people call Dean a liberal, when in reality he isn't.

Dean has spine or cojones or whatever the word for guts is these days. He does not need to attack other candidates personally.

Why should Kerry be singled out by name for voting for the war when Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt also did.

Dean has referred to indecisiveness regarding Iraq, and while he does not mention Kerry by name, in this context it is pretty obvious whom he is referring to. THe only time he ever mentioned Kerry by name was at the California Democratic Convention, and he mentioned him and Edwards together, saying they were voting for the war and then going to California and saying they were against it. But he later apologized to Edwards when he found out that Edwards had taken boos in California for saying he supported the war.

Anyone who has seen combat-please raise their hand?
I'll go first:hi:
Here's Will Pitt's Dad:hi:

Next? Let's not be SHY,now Arm chair Generals?:puffpiece:

I was part of a MASH unit in the late 70's. Being in a field unit we went on alert for Iran hostage situation and Cambodian refugee crisis, but no real combat.

And I know a lot of Veterans who were against this Attack on Iraq!

John Kerry stumbled through his explanation of his Iraq war vote. Why does he sound so tortured? Why can't he just admit that he was duped while I, a little armchair general, could easily tell that they were lying through their teeth?

He's a Veteran, which means he's been even better trained than I am about questioning his superiors. He's been trained to trust his Commander in Chief and those responsible for the lives of our soldiers. He's learned his training and his trust led him down a path he didn't belong on.

My personal take, as a Kucinich supporter and someone all too familiar with the military mindset is that those things along with the deaths of hundreds of men just like him are plenty enough torture for any man to carry without the people heaping more on his shoulders.

Bite off a piece of Holy Joe with his assinine assertion the resolution wasn't forceful enough, but lay off the honest Veteran who fell back on his training and his own integrity when he had doubts, because without that training and that mindset there'd be a lot more dead soldiers today.

it was a political decision

he needs to pay a political price

Intelligence. I've thought about that one a lot to tell you the truth.

What would I do if I knew the truth? I'd like to say I'd blow the whistle on BFEE, but you really don't know until it's your ass on the line. Scary shit for an honorable person.

You know, Kerry's war vote has nothing to do with the reason that I support Dean. I support Dean because he's charismatic, is a good speaker, went on the attack against the "Republican-Lite" DLC strategy, and said everything that I wanted to hear.

Mostly, though, he's been able to do all that while building one HELL of an infrastructure for his campaign, like nothing else that has been seen before it in this stage of the campaign season.

I was supporting Gore 100% until he said he was no longer running, and then because of Glen Maxey's (the Texas Dean coordinator) support of Dean, and my friend Elliott's remarks after meeting Dean in person last year, I decided to support him.

If Dean gets a good, moderate VP candidate, and wins the nomination and the election, he could be setting up the infrastructure for US, the Democrats, to win the next three decades of elections -- his ability to build a campaign organization has taught us things we will be able to take with us for a long, long time.

If Dean loses the nomination, we might be in deep, deep trouble, because we stand a very good chance of LOSING everything that he has been able to build up, and all those supporters who had never been involved in politics before. That, in my opinion, would be a tragedy for us all.

As far as I;m concerned, he doesn't have to.

Dean is my #1 pick right now, but if Kerry were to win and Dean were to publically state Kerry is his candidate and he supports him 100%, it wouldn't mean doodly squat to me.

I have seen Dean speak twice and the first time was in May so it was still mostly about the war. He didn't mention any candidate by name, but everyone has heard him refer to the collective whole of the candidates, supporting or not supporting this or that vs. how he would have done it.

As it stands now, I am for Dean, whom I believe (or want to believe) does what he wants and doesn't play into the patriotic slime that oozes from our twitchy scared congresspeople who are running. It makes them do funny things, like cater to Bush's whim on some fundemental core issues that have held us on the right path just fine for centuries. Until Bush decided to do away with them. I can't vote for anybody who did something as un-American as voting for the PATRIOT Act. And if they felt bullied into doing it or couldn't see the forest for the trees because there was an "unexpected" crisis (unexpected purposefully in quotations), if they were so shaken that they couldn't think clearly enough and retain enough knowledge and logic to say NO to nullifying the core rights given to us in our Constitution, well to me that shows more than a few reasons I'd be unable to trust that person enough to vote to put our country in his or her hands.

Even Kucinich is untrustworthy to me because he is misogynistic, then, *poof*, he is all for a woman's right to choose, and this epiphany just happened to correspond with him deciding to run for president. He changed his stance on abortion when, March of this year at the earliest? Too bad too, because that's why I am backing Dean and not him.

I am not foolish enough to trust any politician, but it's all about who I trust the least, and those are the ones I eliminate. I don't think it's too much to ask that we have someone in the Oval Office who won't lose his ability of critical thinking because there is a crisis. And our Senate Dems running for president have all shown they cannot even be trusted with the basic task of *upholding the Constitution* when there is a crisis. The World Trade Center fell, and that was a tragedy, but...not tragic enough to totally nullify some of our core Amendements, especially at ASHCROFT'S behest. :grr: If they would just start speaking up, and begin redeeming themselves to the American people...

Admit NOW that you made a mistake in voting for TOO MANY things that Bush pushed in your face. And stick to your guns, and criticize this administration all the way up to November of 2004. I believe that is what any true Democrat would do.

I saw a bumpersticker that said "The Road to Hell is Paved With Democrats". My first thought was "The road to hell is paved with Democrats who help push Bush's agenda through". :grr: :grr: :grr:

And they don't seem to be showing enough remorse yet for doing so. If they don't start speaking up soon, LOUDLY, it's going to be too late to win my vote, that's for sure. How come a doctor is able to express himself in a stronger and more steadfast manner than someone who was a decorated soldier and fought in Vietnam?

There's the last of my Deanapalooza for today. Have a good Labor Day everyone. :)

They grow wildly alongside the road to hell. As they have for generations. They get out of hand and eventually take over everything, like the blackberry bush. Or the highly toxic and often lethal DUMBYA BUSH... :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:


;)

Iraq vote is that we don't know what kind of top-secret super-duper classified BS was fed to Kerry and others . It's easy to be armchair senators and say we wouldn't have voted for the war but, let's be real here, nobody really knows what they would do in a situation they haven't been in. We didn't have meetings with military leaders and CIA intelligence experts. It's easy to say that we knew Bush* was lying but it's possible all the Dems knew that but some were convinced war was necessary by info given them by people with specialized knowledge, people who aren't Bush* loyalists, people they thought were reliable. Either something like that happened or you have to believe all the Dems are evil warmongers or all the Dems are stupid. IIRC, most senators, of both parties, voted for the war. What were they told that we weren't told?

There's a lot of criticism of Kerry here, considering that most DUers claim to be ABBB. . . It seems that everyone should be thinking about this one question:
If Kerry gets the nomination, will you vote for him or not? If you're trashing him now, how will you get behind him later?

John Kerry has a good, progressive record in the senate, and his record of service in Viet Nam really gives him an edge against all the "brave commander in chief in a flight suit" PR that the GOP will run. Last time I checked, he also had $16 or 17 million in campaign money and that's before even starting to campaign heavily. I've said in the past that I wouldn't vote for him because of his vote for war on Iraq but he's got some strong positives to consider so I've rethought my position.

I'm not sure I can make myself vote for just any Democrat in 2004 but I think I will vote for John Kerry if he's the nominee. I will continue working to make Dennis Kucinich the nominee, of course, but at some point it will come down to one candidate representing our party. If you're not now a Kerry supporter and John Kerry wins the nomination, will you make peace with his 2002 pro-war vote and vote for him in 2004?

I know the answer, because I have a 30 year headstart on who Dennis Kucinich is and what compels him.

Those of you have come to realize who he is must know, as well.

the intel that was released to Congress after the invasion. Of course he didn't mention specifics, but he did say that after he'd seen it, he was even MORE angry. No there there.

Part of Dean's theme is that you can't beat Bush by being like him.

From March:
snip>
What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?
end snip>

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5135&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

This has been a frequent critique. He has had the sense not to call out individual Dems for more in party fighting than necessary. The times he did that were roundly criticized.

Is it important to you that he use Kerry's name and employ more personal tactics?

I don't think he will on the off off off off off chance that he finds himself in the position of having to support that person in the general election, which he has said he will do.

Why would it be important for Dean to narrow his remarks onto the back of one man? His position seems very clear to me and is available to anyone. Why would a more divisive approach be better for our chances to beat Bush?

edit upon reflection- Re:Or is he leaving it to his supporters to haul that water?

Dean depends on supporters to organize and participate. There is no burden he has shirked. This new- brand new in my time- call to the people is an awakening of responsiblity to wrench our govt away from the hands of the right wing ideologues that have it firmly in their grasp.

Dean works hard and seems to be in 6 places at a time. What you've written sounds as if he's expecting others to do some kind of dirty work and I don't believe that's so. If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

anybody to "carry any water" for him! And that's a good observation .."Dean does like to be in 6 places at once"!

This is All Good, though!