OK, I admit I'm scared and I'll grovel if I'm wrong...

but I've gone through Adlai Stevenson, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern and Mike Dukakis and gotten burned each time. I was not a huge Bill Clinton fan, but he was acceptable. I don't think I'm going to meet the woman of my dreams, fall in love and live happily ever after. Niether do I believe I'm going to find the candidate of my dreams, become passionately devoted to his/her candidacy and cheer through two inaugurations.

I am afraid that Howard Dean will be another name the list of honorable men I like and largely agree with and who go down bravely to defeat. Do I know that for sure? Nope, clearly I don't. Can I make bulletproof arguments to that effect? Nope, I sure can't. But I still feel that way in my gut. I'll go with somebody I can like that I think can win in the general election over someone I agree with more wholeheartedly whose ability to win I find less reassuring.

I believe Clark is the best choice I've got right now and I can like the man, so I'm supporting him. I am not anti anyone but Bush and I will support whoever we run against him. If it's Dean and he wins I will be abject in my groveling, I promise. If it's Clark and he wins I will not say a damn word to anyone about whether someone else _could_ have won.

Maybe it's just a sign of getting old and cynical.....

*duck*

It's understandable to feel the way you do. This is the most important election, probably EVER, in this country.

Personally, I'm comfortable with any one of the nominees and feel that if any of them could beat Bush, then they all could beat Bush. Conversely, if any of them could lose to Bush, then all of them could lose to Bush.

Those with the full tax repeal, the non experience in foreign policy and national security, and little appeal in the South and to the military, have less of a chance of winning.

I won't matter who we nominate.


If people are sick of him, we could nominate a ham sandwich.

I want that abomination gone, in toto, not nibbled by special interest after interest. Write another bill after the repeal. Excuse me, repeals. There are many Bush horrors to undo.

We can't undo George's dreadful, nation-destroying precedents, but we can undo HIM. We can undo his vile looter laws.

the Dem candidate will not get the swing voters nor the disgusted republicans to vote for the Dem ... these voters must be addressed and understood

last evening my Senator said this same exact words:
"This is the most important election, probably EVER, in this country."

and responds to attacks, they should be fine.

I agree that all of the likely nominees will do that. I am a little disturbed by "only my guy can win" statements.

I think some candidates may give us an easier battle, but I firmly believe that our nominee will be able to beat Bush*. I won't accept any of them being 'unelectable'..WE make them electable.

I am in complete agreement.

The Dem's in DC have already lost the presidency, the House, the Senate and the Judiciary- exactly what are you afraid of?

How about the 2004 election? You seem to make the ridiculous assertion that because be currently don't have control of anything, winning doesn't matter. You couldn't be more wrong. Until we win, the shit will just keep getting worse.

There's a whole movement n here that bashes Dean because he MIGHT lose... Sugar, I'm here to tell you he can't ANY worse than the bozo's who've brought us to this horrific place.

Quit being cowards- Fight like Howard!

all those times, but I agree with you on the substance of your message.

Again, I believe the Dems are defintely most excited about Dean.

I also believe Dean would not beat Bush.

Looking forward to Clark's ads just decimating Dubya's 'military experience' !

:yourock:

We all should be. No one has a lock on beating Bush and it's going to take a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to do it.

That's "scared" to lose the General election!

And that's why I'm backing the person I think has the best chance to win it.

As long as Vichie Dem's act like cowards we'll 'lose' even the ones we win.

Howard Dean won't put up with #### like that.

on your part. Our best chance of beating Bush is Clark. Welcome aboard!

If he's chooses to accept it.

I mean, what kind of discussion should we have about it? I disagree with you, and thanks for sharing your thought process with us.

I like Clark, and loved him on CNN. He also did a good job in the Balkans, however, if he was seriously considering running for the Democratic nomination, he should have joined the party a bit earlier. Also, as great of a resume` that Clark has, I think we need to confront everyday American's fears that have been pushed by the current administration, and not fall into playing the same game.
Yes, Americans need to be vigilant and we may need to fight more wars, but what America really needs is to restore diplomacy with allies and the war on terror does not mean we have to diss our allies, NATO, or the UN, as this current administration.

I trust my intuition, and my intuition causes me to shy from Clark, however if he wins the nomination, he'll have my vote. With Dean my intuition tells me he's the real deal, and I'll pull for him for that reason. May the best man win.

is at risk.

considering that..
nominating anyone but clark for pres - is foolish. imo

I personally think if any of the pack can withstand Rove, it's Dean. All of the stuff he's dishing at Dean, would be just as bad or worse if Clark was the frontrunner.

IMHO if the Democratic party doesn't pair Clark & Dean up on the ticket, they are making a big mistake. The two of these together could withstand anything Rove had to throw at one alone.

Let's hope it filters upward into the ether...

WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You guys put up two REAL candidates, and all we had was... all we had was... *sniff* WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO FAIR! :nopity:

On more than a few things...

The Democrats are Scared- A Letter to the DNC


(How the behavior of the Democratic party could prevent Howard Dean from winning the general election, thus reinstating a regime that should make us all afraid…very afraid.)

"The Democrats are scared." So says a political analyst on George Stephanopolis' Sunday morning show after heralding Howard Dean's accomplishments of the past week. Well, you know what, you should be scared. It's going to be extremely difficult for you to win this election since no one, with the exception of Dr. Dean himself, seems to have a backbone.

What’s really scary and irresponsible is that you’re accusing him of political views that aren’t even accurate…that could seriously harm Dean’s chances of getting elected. In my opinion, if you’re going to go after a candidate, you should at least do your homework.

Yes, Karl Rove is scary. He's famous for dirty, no, disgusting political tricks, which have done great damage to the American electoral process. Everybody knows this. But instead of going after Herr Rove for his highly unethical and probably illegal election high jinks, you're tearing down your own candidate.

--snip--

But now that we have an exciting candidate…a candidate who has shattered Democratic fund-raising records…who draws thousands of ardent supporters to his public appearances…whose grass roots contingency voted almost unanimously to forego outdated campaign finance rules and managed to give him another 5.3 million dollars in the process…and what do you say? Waaah, what if we don't win? Waaah, what if Rove is mean to our candidate? Waaah, what about George McGovern and Michael Dukakis? Waaah, how can we discredit Howard Dean before he wins the nomination?

More: http://www.opednews.com/burgwin_12031_scared.htm

I can accept Clark. I'm backing Dean. Not so much because of his "winnability" but because he has been steering the party back towards the ideals of Stevenson, McCarthy, McGovern, and Dukakis. I believe that Dean has that overused phrase, "Fire in the Belly" that can defeat Bush. I too voted for McCarthy, McGovern and Dukakis. They weren't perfect, but they represented what is best in the Democratic Party. I held my nose and voted for Carter, Clinton and Gore. Perhaps, not the worst of the Democratic Party, but a long way from the best. Unlike you, I will not vote for Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry or Edwards. When they voted for the slaughter in Iraq, they crossed the line.

I think that Dean is going to get the nomination. The odds are against him beating the brainless one, but I also believe that he has the best chance to do so. I don't think that many people he could beat the "safe" candidates either, but he seems to be doing so.

We'll see.

the ideals of Stevenson, McCarthy, McGovern, and Dukakis."

Did any one of those people win an election? I feel there's too much at stake to count on "fire in the belly" to win back the White House. The swing voters don't vote for fire in the belly, they'll vote for policy, and for someone who sounds 'reasonable' to them.

Just my opinion, of course.

"swing voters" are no longer necessary to win an election

It's a new world out there my friend, and we're changing things.

Have you checked who the resident currently smelling up the White House is? Do you think the "swing" voters put him there because of his policies?

Bush's "policies" are held in abhorrence by almost all voters yet he is still the moron to beat.

The "swing" voters, the famous "middle" will vote for whoever or whatever happens to catch their attention when they aren't watching NASCAR or wrestling.

Stevenson lost to a popular general during a "conflict" that seemed endless.

McGovern lost to a notorious criminal who used every means necessary to ensure his defeat. The American people couldn't face the reality of defeat in Vietnam and Nixon deluded them with the "Peace with Honor" b.s.

Dukakis made a mess of his own campaign.

I'll be happy to support Clark if he wins the nomination but saying that the "swing voters" will support him over Bush because of his "policies" is just plain naive.

Just my opinion of course.

Nixon was beatable in 72 if everything broke right....

The 88 election puzzles me... A better candidate might have won...

I guess my point is sometimes it's objective conditions and sometimes it's the candidate....

Reelection campaigns are referendums on the incumbent... If folks like the job the incumbent is doing they will will rehire him... If they don't they will fire him....

The candidate in these cases can make a small difference...

...I really do. And Dean scares me a bit, too, because this election is so damn important.

But really, even though the 2004 election is incredibly important, in my opinion it's not the MOST important thing. Stopping the neocons is a much more important goal, at least in the long term.

What happens if the Dems win by triangulating again? The far-right view becomes more and more mainstream. It becomes that much harder to start to reverse things. The neocons get more and more entrenched. In 2008, the Republicans will run someone WORSE than Bush - and that candidate will have a serious chance of winning.

If you want change, you need to offer a true alternative, and you need to convince the people that what you're offering is the right way to go.

In my mind, Dean is the only candidate who can do this, because he is the only one trying to transcend the old-school political climate and give politics and the government back to the people. And the grassroots movement he is building will have implications far beyond next year's elections.

I like Clark and I think he's a good guy. But I think that Dean's campaign is a chance we can't afford to miss. How our society evolves is more important than any sort of political consideration, because it's the former that drives the latter.

Clark and Dean have the outrage going for them. Better than the rest, they seem to understand how our country has been hijacked and sent down the wrong road. And they are pissed.

They have different styles. Dean's in-your-face-fire-in-the-belly and Clark is more reserved and polished. Both make mistakes, but of different kinds. Dean talks too fast without thinking, Clark often thinks too much before talking, but both still offer a clarity of vision and leadership style that rallies the troops and gets attention. And probably can get things done in Washington.

Dean comes out swinging, and the propaganda machine will have a tough time getting ahead of him in a general election. Clark won't take any crap, and since there's nothing of substance to attack him on, he can easily take the "have you no shame" high road. I've seen Clark reply to trick questions, and the General does not take fools lightly, or let them off the hook. Do not piss off the General.

Given a choice, I agree that Clark probably has a better shot at tearing Shrub apart. But, it's not Stevenson and Eisenhower this time. That election had two good men and we elected the hero of WWII. This time we will have one good man-- and he should be able to walk away with it if he doesn't screw it up.

One last thought-- Ike ran partly on his particular expertise to deal with Korea. He didn't need that to win, but it sure didn't hurt.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I would be lying or just plain delusional if I tried to pretend he doesn't have negatives that are legitimate to be concerned about. Besides, I've never really been in the camp that says that supporting a candidate based on electability is somehow immoral. The first thing a president needs to do is get elected, after all. It really doesn't matter what you think of a candidate's policies if he or she can't get elected to enact them. Getting Bush out of office *is* "voting my conscience" as far as I'm concerned, and it seems like you feel the same way.

have a lot of clout with the general public. It will be hard for Rove to make either one of them a pinata for the press to to have a daily swat.

Dean has the "anger energy" right now, which is appealing to the Democratic base, however, as nominee, he will have to moderate his tone for the south and midwest.

Dean can win but he'll have a much tougher time aginst the Rove machine.

Kristoff has annoyed hell out of me recently for espousing a centrism that blinds itself to the corruption and stupidity of the Ruling Right--criticizing Dems for being "angry," among other things. But today's editorial speaks the same fear you enunciate and that I feel as well.

And yeah, I think being older may have something to do with it too. But I know a number of disaffected Republicans who would vote for Clark, even though he's to the left of Dean on a lot of things, but not for Dean, precisely on the "gut feelings" level.

News for political newbies and naive lefties: Gut feelings have a hell of a lot more to do with who gets elected than policies. Policies are not unimportant, but they ARE secondary. A distant secondary, IMO.

that you have to chose. Its too easy to sit on a fence while others make hard choices. Nobody is perfect. Accept that and take the good along with the bad.

Same with women.