Paul Begala's Comments on Gore Endorsement

I was listening to Imus waiting for them to go live to the Gore Endorsement - Paul Begala came on to talk with Imus and they listened to the endorsement together, and offered reactions.

Paul's reactions --

1. Paul said he is not big on endorsements (God endorsed Jesus and look how that turned out). Paul said though that this was a big endorsement.

2. Paul was surprised that Gore talked about Dean's stance against the war. Elections are about the future not the past - Gore should have talked more about how Dean would get us out of Iraq and why he was the one who could do that.

3. Paul made note of the fact that Dean recognized Corinna Gore in his opening remarks and said that this mention made him think that Corinna (and I know I am spelling it wrong, sorry) probably had alot to do with Gore coming to Dean. (think: earth tone suits).

I am sure Paul will have more to say on Crossfire....

is that all the Democrats do is complain about Iraq and none of them propose solutions for Iraq...

candidates. They have all expressed views on where to lead our country and have all commented on what they would do w/ Iraq. And, oh, don't forget the plans for health care, education, and jobs.

This is so bogus.

But, I have heard that line so many times now, that I know they must be getting that as one of their "talking points"

It's all bullcrap, and shame on you for bringing that up.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

I think it was a mistake for Gore to come out this early for Dean. He pissed off Kerry and others.

Many Democrats have offered solutions to the war in Iraq. As usual the Republicans make the mess, and then bitch because the Democrats call them on it. The Democrats have had many solutions but it's hard for them with the "liberal media" to get them out.

However if anyone is sincerely interested in knowing what solutions have been proposed, maybe you should check out the candidates websites.

there is no liberal media anymore...
the media was stolen just like the
last election. Stolen by the repugs
and their big business supporters.

in quotation marks. To show that he doesn't think the media is actually liberal.

Seems I hit the 'post message' twice too many times.

Posted reduntantly.

And welcome to DU!

Just the opposite, he wished that Gore had talked about Dean's plan -- because Begala said, people are focused on the future.

Not everyone will look at candidate's websites - Begala was just saying Dean's plan should have been mentioned.

As long as I've been posting on DU I've been saying that she's responsible for some of Gore's stupidest campaign strategies. (And I've made that comment at least twice in the last two days.)

For him to rely on the opinions of a 30-whatever year old who's never won a political campaign in her life is crazy.

Karenna's husband is an heir to the Citigroup fortune. She's tight with Wall St, which is where I think Dean will probably get a lot of love.

I love you for it.

Karenna loves her Daddy, I know - but she is killing his political career.

Thanks for the supposition/inference, AP. I'll excerpt a bit from William Greider's recent piece in The Nation, "Why I'm for Dean".

The governor has shown flashes of the same bluntness in his prime-time campaigning. Last summer, he told a revealing story on himself--a conversation with Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and Wall Street's main money guy for Democrats. Rubin had warned that unless Dean stopped attacking NAFTA and the multinationals for the migration of US jobs, he couldn't raise contributions for him from the financial sector. As Dean told it, "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him." What I like so much about the story is that powerful, influential Bob Rubin pokes Dean in the chest, and he pokes him back. Then Dean discloses the exchange to the Washington Post.

In the higher realms of politics, this is not done. But he is not one of them. And this is no longer the era for "triangulation" between the business-financial money patrons and the party's main constituencies. That new spirit, more than any single issue, is what has drawn together Dean's vibrant and growing base, buoying his candidacy with millions in small contributions. Dean is opening the possibility of transforming politics--shaking up the tired, timid old order, inviting plain-wrapper citizens back into an active role--and that's why so many people, myself included, are for him. Full disclosure: I am among the throngs who have been invited to contribute "forward-looking ideas" to his campaign (I was flattered to be asked and pleased to oblige, with no naïve expectations).

If you're looking for the "darling" of Wall St., look no further than Wesley Clark. After all, Gen. Clark has brought this same Bob Rubin in as one of his prime economic advisors. This is the same Bob Rubin who, as President of Citigroup, tried to get the Treasury Department to give a bailout during the Enron collapse. This is the same Bob Rubin who was a huge proponent of the IMF policies of market fundamentalism that wrecked developing economies but served the interests of the financial sector while Sec. of the Treasury under Bill Clinton.

Just wanted to set the facts straight. And for the record, I'm not a "Deanie" -- I'm actually supporting Kucinich right now. But I readily admit that Dean is my #2 for many of the reasons that Greider outlined in his piece.

So Dean is not the darling of Wall Street but is supported by Gore, who served with Rubin and has relied on Wall Street support in the past, was the head of DLC at one point, and whose politically active daughter is married to an heir of Citigroup.....who can perhaps mend some fences for Dean.

Yes, the lines are getting blurred.

did you just say Gore was once the head of the DLC? I wasn't aware of that. When was it?
Thanks

Dean hasn't been bought & sold by anyone. He isn't even motivated by money.

That gives Wall St. fits.

Dean has good judgement.

Who would you rather vote for: A person who helped create a horrible mess, or the person who would have prevented that?

so since Dean supported that during the IWR, can you please enlighten us how Dean planned to prevent that mess with Biden-Lugar?

Deception....as usual.

Dean was clearly against invading Iraq, and he wasn't afraid of being vocal about it while being called "soft on terrorism" or the next McGovern. That's the issue.

to disarm Iraq of WMDs the day Bush invaded? Is that why they took off almost a month of articles and statements for the dates surrounding the start of war off the links page?

That doesn't mean the US had to invade the goddamn country.

So it really wouldn't matter that he opposed Bush afterwards. Just as Kerry urged Bush not to rush to war and to wait till all other remedies were exhausted stops antiKerry Deanites from their laughable sanctimony on this.

Dean put his cards on the table and faced the consequences. Dean was against the invasion.

I get that. Although it was ironic that moments before Gore was telling us to pull together, and then his first comment after that was about telling us why all the other candidates were wrong and Dean was right.

But how is Dean going to get us out? Everyone criticizes Clark for not having the tiny details sorted out on his domestic policy -- but the guy has the best articulated plan for getting us out as well as on other foreign policy matters.

And he has elaborated on it since.

You can find most of the relevent information here:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

The candidates who stood with the Boy King in the Rose Garden can only hem and haw about THE WAY he has occupied Iraq rather than the attack the very lame and homicidal idea of the idiotic invasion itself.

after a 30 day waiting period, or was it 60 days ???

:shrug:

I'm sure you can find some quotes where he said he would support unilateral action under certain circumstances, but that is not the same as supporting Bush's war.

Here is what Dean said:

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence."

...

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

“He needs to first make the case and he has not done that,” Dean said. “He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.”

...

"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean.

...

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way."

...

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"It’s not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people we’re going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

...

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."

...

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.

March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

that rocks!

This is good ammo to have. (I'm supporting Clark right now, but watching Dean closely, and will support whoever wins the nom.)

and it seems plausible that she turned her dad onto Dean, given her

But I still think that the endorsement is misguided, given how early the primary season still is. I wonder if Gore fully considered the consequences it might have on the primary system, and why Ps and VPs have traditionally refrained from getting involved in the way he has.

"Paul was surprised that Gore talked about Dean's stance against the war. Elections are about the future not the past"

There are still many of us that won't
forget the past election and how it
was stolen from us. Yes elections are
about the future....but this one still
has one foot in the past where we were
stabbed in the back! Remembering it
rallies us and gives us energy.

Gore was saying that Dean had courage and insight to see that that war was wrong and those are the foreign policy ingredients that a president needs. Gore was slamming Kerry's critique that Dean has no foreign policy experience and that disqualifies Dean as president.

Democratic candidate, right after he said we should all stick together.

I say, politics as usual.

in the past couple of days and that they were not behind any candidate. He said former Clintonites are spread among many campaigns.

as Imus kept asking him.

don't get me wrong . . . I like Dean, and I like Gore . . . but I think I was hoping that the primaries would end up in some kind of legitimate race between the two or three strongest candidates . . . I guess maybe I think it's too early for a coronation, and I still have that nagging uneasiness about Dean as the Democratic standard bearer . . . I'll certainly support him if he is indeed the nominee, but I'll always wonder why someone like John Kerry couldn't rally the troops like Dean has . . .

2) He's as boring as a car leasing disclaimer.

3) He listened to idiots who told him to run a conservative, traditional campaign.

and a "corrupt Washington insider" so now young people will believe that meme about the one man who has exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

When Dean talks he HYPNOTIZES everybody!

No one can think for themselves after watching him speak!

as do his supporters.

leaning compromising centrist who spent a decade pulling the Dem party further right.

How much do tickets cost to dog and pony shows, anyway?