Why Dean is a Republican concern.

There has been much made of Republicans' desiring Dean to beat on. Many, believing Dean is "vulnerable" on defense, fear a repeat of what the GOP did to Max Cleland, a nastiness which is inexorably headed Dean's way. We can see the ads now: "Coward Dean wants America to surrender to Islamic terrorists. Dean said he does not want American military to be the strongest. Dean supported Saddams sons over our troops. blah blah blah" Perhaps they'll throw in some footage of 911, claim Dean will bring more attacks, and Bush is rosy solution that keeps us safe. With the gay issue juicing up the GOP base, this will be enough to toast Dean.

Of course, Dean is not the only one vulnerable to attacks. Edwards would easily be painted as the evil trial lawyer who will say anything to win, and Kerry will be an ultraliberal Michael Dukasis that chucks medals, Clark the blow-dried Napoleon, etc. etc. Nevertheless, it is thought the Republicans know something about the election we don't. Afterall, many liberals are unconfident and insecure and fear the successes and self-assured boldness of current conservatives.

I believe Dean presents real problems for the GOP. Dean is going to make a bloodbath out of the GOP's only issue, defense, and that **has** to be a concern. Other candidates hope to "neutralize" the issue by either agreeing with Bush or taking a "nuanced" stance. While a nice defensive strategy, it allows Bush to generate trust and a psychological bond with the American people uncontested. If the GOP takes a lot of damage on their only issue, defense, they have nowhere to run; it is not like they are going to start talking about health care or the environment or the economy. Secondly, they lose crucial points on TRUST. This is a critical problem the GOP needs to address; Lieberman may let Bush escape unharmed, but there is going to be an all-out bloodbath with the Dean campaign. The Deanies will run negative ads using "Mission Accomplished," Republican indifference to troop deaths, etc. and present Dean-Clark (or whatever the ticket is) as the professional, reasonable ticket that can keep America safe and win the peace.

Secondly, in New Hampshire, while Kerry is owning everyone among registered Democrats, Dean is cleaning up among independents. BIG TIME. In other words, his supposed appeal to moderate voters turns out to be a reality. This is bad news for the Republicans. They cannot juice up their base with radical fundie-ads and get moderate voters back from Dean at the same time. Meanwhile Dean will get his base AND the independents during the general election. Their only hope is the Max Cleland stuff, and if it doesn't stick, I don't see the GOP having many options in 2004. They will only be able to pray Iraq and the economy turn around.

While I initially thought the flippant attitude towards Dean was based on misunderstanding, I now see it as calculated. A Dean-Clark ticket presents genuine problems for the GOP in 2004, and polling among Democrats shows concern about Dean's electability on defense. Preying on Democratic fears, they hope they can defuse Dean, coast by Kerry's "nuanced" stance on the war, and juice up their base in the general election without losing independents.

so, do you see any possiblity of Dean running as independent if he doesn't win the nomination?

The goal is regime change 2004. Dean and the overwhelming majority of his supporters understand this.

In Georgia anyone can vote in the primary. It's an Open Primary. That's how the Repugs helped defeat Cynthia McKinney.

I don't know about other states, but I feel certain Georgia isn't the only open primary state.

Eloriel

Delaware is not.

I can walk up to the table, declare myself a repuke or a dem (i already declared dem but you can change it whenever you want) and vote...so an independent is either someone who never voted, or a registered voter considering a party change

she said you can go to the polls - change your party affiliation - vote - walk out and change back.

in 2000 they voted in the Republican primary for McCain and provided his margin of victory. In 2004, Bush will be unchallenged so it is almost a certainty that many of them will vote in the Democratic primary.

In 25 states, Molly, independents can vote in the primary.

and the primaries though.

If you're a registered voter, you just walk in and tell the registrar which party's primary you want to vote in.

It's that simple. So, since Bush probably won't have any meaningful Republican competition, all the Repugs can vote for the person they think is the weakest Democrat.

<<I believe Dean presents real problems for the GOP. Dean is going to make a bloodbath out of the GOP's only issue, defense, and that **has** to be a concern.>>

I don't believe that Dean's criticisms will resonate with the majority of voters because he doesn't have any hands-on experience in the national defense or national security realm. His criticisms are the same as yours or mine. People are no more likely to vote for you or me because of our criticisms than they will for Dean. That's just the way I see it.

I don't believe the experience factor is more valuable than trust and honesty for the majority of voters. Since my intuition tells me there is a sizable chunk that *does* value authority and experience, I do agree that we should put a candidate with those qualities in the VP slot in the case of a Dean ticket.

candidate, it seems to me, Clark should be the top guy, not the bottom guy. The repubs have already announced that their strategy is national security. A lot of us have tried to tell you naysayers that all along. While the economy will play a part in the election, to believe that national security won't play an equal part is just foolish.

The main thing we have to concentrate on is nominating a candidate who will:

1. Motivate voters to vote. Just because voters are dissatisfied with bush doesn't mean that they will automatically, ipso factso vote for the Democratic nominee. It just doesn't work that way. If they don't like the Democratic nominee either, they stay home.

2. By nominating a candidate who will motivate voters to vote against bush, we can expect our congressional candidates to ride on our nominee's coattails.

Unless we have a nominee who can do the above, we will not only lose the presidency but also remain in the minority in congress.

Putting all Village People imagery aside, a Dean-Clark ticket would put us on the strongest footing, both in terms of the major domestic issues and the hottest foreign affairs issues.

While Clark's experience in military and foreign affairs is a major plus, not having held an elective office would be a major drawback as a contender for the top of the ticket. Sure, Ike did it, but he just won WWII and everyone knew his name. Clark's name is hardly a household word. On the other hand, Dean has considerably more executive experience at the state level than Chimpy did going into the White House.

And just imagine the debates with a Dean-Clark ticket: Dean's confrontational style matching his success with Vermont's state budget against Chimpy's mess with the federal budget.

And consider the major shrinkage that Dick Cheney's so-called "gravitas" would undergo when facing off against Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander!

Edited to add a sentence.

Dean has shown a remarkable ability at motivating people. If motivation is your criteria for a candidate, Dean's the one.

66% of democratic voters even know who Dean is? You deanie boppers crack me up with your on the spot statistics. You read so much into everything.

cute. I'm not the one quoting statistics.

What you don't realize about Dean is that for every person he motivates to vote for him he also motivates another 2 to vote against him. His stand on the war, and Civil Unions will kill him in the general election. Members of the Religious Right (or wrong) will donate their life savings to make sure Dean loses in the General Election. Do you really think all this religious Baptists in the South and all these Televangelists will not rake in 100's of millions of Dollars, and run ad after ad smashing Dean to smitherins on everything he did from the time he was 2 years old and run that every day till November. Trust me, they will. That is not the motivation we need to win.

His attacks on the people that supported the war in Iraq will be translated as weakness on defense and as personal attacks on the 75% of the US population that supported the war.

Dean no doubt will highly motivate 25-33% of the population, no doubt about it. But it doesn't matter how much you enjoy casting a ballot for Dean, you only have one vote, the vote does not count intenstity of the vote, just as one vote. You are better getting 55% of the population that votes reluctantly for a Democratic Candidate than you are 45% that votes happily for the Democratic candidate.

J4Clark

Wow! What a DREAM candidate!

Where can I sign up?

I am not going to choose my candidate based on the FEAR of what the religious right will do. They've done enough.

Any candidate opposing Bush will get the treatment you are describing. That's not news. Dean can handle it. Can you?

Government for quite a few years. Dean has interacted with the Canadian goverment on matters between the two Countries.

bushwa was on vacation when 9/11 happened knowing full well an attack could happen.

Dean will be a hands on President...micromanaging like Gore would have had he been allowed to take his rightful place as the 43rd President of the United States of America!

Dean is a Doctor who is well traveled outside the United States and is an intelligent being who is a quick take.

There's no way I would compare him to me or you.

a govenor who ran a rural state with a population of 600,000. N'kay? I'm one of them.

hasn't held ANY elective office, much less even declared himself a CANDIDATE? Or a Dem for that matter, though I have seen people on this board who claim to know that he is, so I'll believe them until told otherwise.

Clark has much to recommend him. Try supporting him without going negative on the others.

I would have liked to have said it as well, myself!!

:toast:
:kick:

making weak, childish arguments.

:eyes:

getting personal is being negative..so be it. But it sounds like a personal problem to me. Also sounds like the truth is a bitter pill for you to chew.

Dean = govenor of tiny lily-white, rural state. Sorry if the truth hurts you. Clark's experience of NATO commander is far more impressive in my opinion.

Yes, and that's all that it is. You have the right to feel that Clark is the most electable person. And when or if he declares his candidacy and people are able to actually discover his stands on issues, some or many may agree with you. Who knows- I may be one of them. Or I may be one who feels he would make a great VP this time and a fabulous Pres in 8 years.

Being the NATO Commander is impressive, and I think Clark seems to be a stand up guy. But that doesn't tell me anything about his ability to govern. He may be able to- I don't know, and neither do you, since he has never held an elected position in a democratic government. At this point, our opinions concerning his ability to govern are merely that- opinions. Personally, I am hoping that he will be good at governing- again, whether in 2005 or in 2013 after serving as VP for 8 years.

am not impressed! Okay?

every single thing he's ever "accomplished" on a silver platter?

The original poster is 100% right.

Intelligent, straight talking governors of small states make surprisingly good Presidential candidates.

The last Democratic candidate to be have a Presidential election work out in his favor who didn't fit this description was JFK, and he just barely won (like Gore).

I know what you're saying, but, remember, being from a small state is not necessarily a problem in itself e.g. Clinton, Carter. I like both Dean and Clark, and I'd love to support a ticket with either one on top.

... Bush* did. Puhlease - if the voters gave a rat's ass about "experience", Bush woulnd't have gotten 25% much less what he did.

And Dean offers all of those on the issue of national security.

Plus, some voters are going to feel as I do: sitting on some Senate committee isn't having national defense "experience" either.

NO presidential candidate except an incumbent can be said to have had actual national defense experience -- nor does simply having served in the military really make that much of a difference except as a general, maybe.

Eloriel

I don't believe that Dean's criticisms will resonate with the majority of voters because he doesn't have any hands-on experience in the
national defense or national security realm.

Neither did Bush when he siezed control. I would say Chimpy still doesn't know what he's doing with National Defense or security.

so much fear and unrest around the globe. Those issues did not exist with the voters in 2000. Thus, apples and oranges. The fact is, bush has created a big mess that will take a very experienced and competent person to clean up.

The fact is, bush has created a big mess that will take a very experienced and competent person to clean up.

So what is Clark going to do to fix the economy,and where did he get the know how for it?

After the primaries when we have 2 candidates, Dean will have access to the american people through the press. We have the facts on our side, and B*sh won't be able to hide from them and will have to answer.

You kidding me?????????? :eyes:

Absolutely none. Clark-Dean; Kerrey-Dean; Dean-Clark; Dean-Kerrey;
Any of those would be a good balanced ticket.

Having been a Governor, he really doesn't have any experience in international and military affairs. Yes, I know lots of Presidents have gone into office without that experience, but terrorism/defense could still be the #1 issues in the 2004 election, as it was in 2002.

He certainly has more experience than what we have sitting in our house in Washington.

that through their heads and not keep saying repugs are it on National Defense. condi rice is going down as the worst National Defense Secretary in History.

bush went to crawford on vacation when he knew we might be attacked.

little lame lying murderer.

the emperor has no friggin' clothes.

Dean has ideas and how to implement them. And Dean is for our Security..not against it like the bushwa.

Dean also thought this attack on Iraq was wrong...which is freakin' was!

When will YOU realize that? This election isn't just about political junkies like us. We won't be the only ones voting. Every campaign will and must play to the apolitical types who only pay attention every four years.

Sorry if you get that from my post.

Dean has started a grass roots campaign to bring People in from all over our COUNTRY not just DU2!

I'm sure Dean has that Covered .."playing to the apolitical types who only pay attention every four years"!


I have confidence in Dean as the candidate who can beat bush in the general election!

Dean is raising awareness in dormant areas. He really has me excited.

~~~~~Go Howard Dean, you're my man~~~~~~

~~~~~If you can't do it, NOBODY can!!~~~

us activist types.

Why are you so afraid of Dean kicking Bush's ass from here to kingdom come?

Because no one is positioned better to do so, and certainly not Clark.

I'm not talking about just NH? Last NH poll I saw, undecideds increased from 19% to 30%. So, if you have information that would suggest otherwise, I'd appreciate seeing it.

A new poll of New Hampshire voters came out today--American Research Group (ARG). Overall, John Kerry continues to be the front runner in NH by leading overall by a 28-18 percent margin over Howard Dean. Kerry leads among Democrats by a healthy 31-16 percent over registered dems.

However, Howard Dean leads among Independents by a solid 26-15 percent margin. This is significant.
...
Looking ahead to a contest with Bush in November of '04--this appeal to independents which Dean apparently has (he has led among independents in this poll and others for some time) could be decisive. In NH, Bush narrowly defeated Gore becuz Independents in the state went for him over Gore. This may be different if Dean is the nominee.
...
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dems/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=13476&forum=DCForumID70

Clinton described Dean's accomplishments with health care in his home state and his proposal to promote a national health care plan with a modest price tag as "New Democrat" positions. He was referring to the moniker the Democratic Leadership Council puts on Democrats who can blend moderate ideas that appeal to swing voters with traditional Democratic themes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/national2104EDT0848.DTL
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05152003/nation_w/57021.asp

:eyes:

Much Much more!!

I think the Cuban missle crisis was the showing of a weakness of JFK, not a strength. The only reason that the Soviet Union thought that they could get away with the missles being put into Cuba was because they saw Kennedy as young, soft, and weak on Foreign policy. He also didn't do very well with vietnam and the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy was an excellent domestic policy president, but horrible with foreign policy.

Dean would be a good domestic policy President. But we really don't need that right now. What we need is a good foreign policy President when faced with foreign threats.

In all honesty, how does Dean have enough foreign policy experience to make a good President and prevent an attack on the US? He doesn't have much experience, if at all, in this area.

Dean also has many enemies in the Senate and House. I don't see him being able to work with them and get stuff through. He would spend his whole time being frustrated with a failing economy, an uncooperative Congress, and constant threats on the US from foreign governments and terrorist organizations.

J4Clark

who backed down in the missle crisis.

This looks like some good background info

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/time/timetbl3.htm

(snip)
1958 Early in the year Batista receives $1,000,000 in military aid from the U.S. All of Batista's arms, planes tanks, ships, and military supplies come from the U.S., and his army is trained by a joint mission of the three branches of the U.S. armed forces.

February 24. On the 63rd anniversary of the beginning of Martí's War of Independence, Radio Rebelde begins transmission from "the free territory of Cuba."

March 1. Raúl Castro and Juan Almeida leave the Sierra Maestra with a column of sixty-seven men to open a second front in the mountains north of Santiago-the Sierra Cristal.

In March, forty-five civic institutions sign an open letter supporting the July-26-Movement, including the national organizations of lawyers, architects, public accountants, dentists, electrical engineers, social workers, professors, and veterinarians.

(snip)

If you read thru some of this you will see the cookie cutter apparatus the US machine tries to use on third world countries to subdue them, why it failed in Cuba, and why the shills around the beltway act in their bipartisan way towards it.

Btw I think the shills should be scared, Cuba has many good modeling points

Republicans for Dean
http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

Eloriel

All naysaying and no substance.

...in defense. Hell, even now. His excuse was that he would appoint "good, competent people". And he appointed cronies from Poppy and Nixons regimes, who now we see, and America knows, are neither competent nor good.

This line of attack (no experience) would be diffused as the BS that it is. And if it's the #1 issue, all the better, because Bush is WEAK on defense and preparedness. It is far more important to the Bush regime to protect their contributors interest (corporations and Saudis), than protecting US citizens at home and abroad.

happen on their watch. I wish People would quit buying into their argrument that they are the living end at our Defense..the truth is they Suck big time. I know it and they know. they're just loud mouth killers who are fighting for their political life.

Do you think they want to give up all that power they stole?

they will say and do anything. Fuck them.

most Americans still trust bush on foreign policy and still believe that the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do. So, how is Dean suppose to counter that?

mixed with passion and delivered with intelligence. Works for me.

From: http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"From what you've seen or heard in the news, do you believe that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was harboring al Qaeda terrorists and helping them to develop chemical weapons, or not?"

72% - Yes
17% - No
11% - Don't Know


***************

Are the other candidates, like Clark, going to run their campaigns by trying not to rock the boats of our nation's utterly uninformed 72%?

If that is the Dems' strategy, say hello to four more years of hell.

to pick the guy I was the most afraid of because I could do the best against him.

The political balance in this country is near 50:50; desparate times call for saying desparate things.

Repugnicans work from the "lizard brain", fear and intimidation call for making a huge show of how "strong" you are in order to scare the enemy off, just like a bunch of chimpanzees.

Yes, the repugs will try to "McCain" Dean, but he KNOWS this; he's seen their tricks, so I would guess that he has his own arsenal for the assaults.

Love Dean/Clark ticket, but Grahamn has been excellen lately in speaking out with authority and knowledge.

My personal opinion is that a governor has a better chance than a senator or a general.

The person must be seen as likable.

I think JFK was seen as more likable than Nixon. Reagan was perceived as more likeable than Carter (I did NOT vote for Reagan.) And Bush was seen as more likable than Gore (I did everything I could to defeat Bush.)

The person needs to be able to use humor effectively in the presidential debates. That's more important than having all the facts.

ask Anthrax Coulter.

I've heard the same- that they prefer Dean but I haven't seen the poll.

As for likely Dem NH voters:

("in New Hampshire, while Kerry is owning everyone among registered Democrats")

this new poll by the Boston Herald, while titled "Poll: Kerry has N.H. edge: Dems see senator as `electable'", says:

In the Herald poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters, Dean takes 28 percent of the vote and Kerry 25 percent while a second tier of candidates lagged behind, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut at 11 percent and U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) at 9 percent.

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/poll07272003.htm

much like the NY Post. They will always opt to cause problems for Dems. Even if the poll does sound positive for Kerry, they'll really use to undermine him and any other Dem.

I notice that they plan to report tomorrow how everything changes with Hillary in the race. Just like Quinnipiac. Rightwing tactic to overshadow the Dem field.

No doubt they will try to paint him as untrustworthy to protect the US from terrorists. I think repukes believe he will come across as a McGovern pacifist. Kerry seems much stronger on defense.

much stronger on defense...oh right...the IraQuagmire.

And the partiot act...Are we safer?

Perception is reality when it comes to voting.

REALITY!

right? Cuz they'll push that angle NO MATTER WHAT.
No we'll offer a strong, realistic alternative to the crap we've been served.

>While I initially thought the flippant attitude towards Dean was >based on misunderstanding, I now see it as calculated.

This is exactly what I've been thinking for some time. If they really think he's so insignificant, why do they keep bringing him up?

"Poll: Kerry has N.H. edge: Dems see senator as `electable'" (Mediawhore title for a poll with Dean in the LEAD)
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/poll07272003.htm

>>Forty-four percent of voters say Kerry is more electable than Dean - only 17 percent say Dean has a better shot against Bush, the poll found.

Dean, while surging nationally, has had to battle a nagging sense among Democrats that he is too liberal, poorly funded or lacks the stature to take on Bush in the general election.

While Dean could take some solace that New Hampshire voted for Republican John McCain over Bush despite similar electability concerns, Myers said Kerry should exploit the clear opening against his toughest opponent.

``It's certainly something for the Kerry campaign to emphasize and remind people, putting subtle messages out there that, when it comes to November, I'm the candidate that will send Bush back to Crawford, (Texas),'' Myers said.<<

However, I like Dean Graham better.

about the ones you want the least, knowing that this would weird the choice. Whoever they're being the quietest about is who they actually want to run against.

Yeah, that argument works for me.

Eloriel

He's energizing The People -- across all party lines. And worse yet, NO party lines: new voters. Disaffected voters. Never-been-involved-before voters.

Dean's da man.

Eloriel

I think that's what scares Republicans. If Dean can pull in lots of new voters, that would really mess up predictions, because pollsters call likely voters.

It really hasnt anything to do with Deans electability or the issues or anything.

Dean is polling real good and maycome in second in Iowa and take out Kerry in NH, which would blow open the primarys.

So they are focusing on some preliminary attacks on Dean as a "just in case" move, and as trial balloons. They are paying attention to him now because they may have to pay attention to him next year after the convention.

I think they're scared of any dem.

The comments about Dean are intended to cause bad feeling within the dems, especially between Dean supporters and Kerry supporters.

Both Dean and Kerry are very aggressive candidates, but their rivalry doesn't necessarily have to be nasty. The republicans, in my opinion, are doing what they can to make it as nasty as possible, including planting nasty comments, supposedly from the Dean or Kerry campaigns, with people like Drudge.

They have multiple targets here....so I can see this agent provocateur strategy as a way to stir up things and kill two birds w. one stone.

Dean is a concern because Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch have not found a way to discredit him yet. Even the Republicans in Vermont love him. Basically, all they have on him now is that he's a "Fag-lover"...pathetic......

because that is exactly what he is.

The Bush administration has made a pile of crap out of our national security, our foreign policy and our foreign relations.

The Bush administration has refused to address the true criminals behind 9/11 - THE SAUDIS

The Bush administration has occupied a country with no plan and is losing American boys at the rate of 1 per day.

The Bush administration has alienated our allies and the UN to the point where they will not help bring stability and democracy to Iraq.

The Bush administration is losing the war on terror because of their corrupt focus on their own personal investments in the middle east.

Support the International War on Terror. Vote Dean in 2004.

And I agree with your points. But I don't know yet if the rank-and-file right wingers know about this yet. You can bet that Bush does, and you can also bet that his handlers do, but the rank-and-file are still too confident of what they perceive of as their "military might" and "God-sanctioned president."

They are HUGELY overconfident, even when Bush's handlers tell them that the election will be a very close one. They refuse to believe it. Take a look at any right-winger board and you'll see what I mean. They have no means with which to challenge Dean on anything that really matters, so they ridicule him and call him silly names. Beyond that they have nothing, but they don't examine anything because of their overconfidence.

I sure don't mind. While Dean is busy racking up more money than Cheney will this weekend, the hard right-winger rank-and-file won't even notice. Moderate Republicans are becoming interested in Dean. Some are volunteering for him. Independents love the guy. My hope is that it stays that way.

I want some of whatever you're drinking.

Bush gets $2,000 donations per person from the extremely wealthy (note, they'll be using soft money to pay for his convention, also), and Bush gives them them their money back in the form of tax cuts for the wealthy and corners cut on regulations that would otherwise help consumers and folks near their sources of pollution.

Dean, however, gets the majority of his donations from folks who can't afford to give $2K. And he has *alot* of folks contributing: 4,533 in the past 3 days, alone, giving nearly $250K, total. The fact that Dean has this many folks who are giving this much money to him, is a first in American politics and is amazing.

It's not just that Dean has claimed the post of top money getter among the dems, but the NUMBER of contributions he receives -- that's what's scary to the Repubs. Over 8,000 contributors to Dean's weekend effort so far, versus what, maybe a few hundred at Cheney's "luncheon?"

Really, come'on, Bush has raised more money than the entire democratic party campaigns. Now you really think that Bush, having 7 million in his pocket in a week and rating 30-70 against Dean in the polls is worried about Dean's $245K. That isn't even what they spend on balloons at the republican national convention.

Dean's supporters are giving an average of $55 a peice. Bush's supporters are giving an average of $1000 a peice. Dean has also severed any chance of getting money from major corperations with his attacks on Democratic Leaders that could have raised about 300 million for him.

He is going to need to find a way to raise more money than he is now if he wants to beat Bush.

J4Clark

Several, actually:

* Dean supporters have already surpassed what Cheney will raise tomorrow -- over 4000 individual supporters, THE PEOPLE, not fat cats

* Dean is mobilizing THE PEOPLE, and plenty of them. That's who he's beholden to, not the fat cats. Dean's campaign is getting special interests out of politics.

* This early in the primary season, that much money in a little over 48 hours is pretty amazing.

* We'll NEVER raise more money than the Repugs. Never. But how much money you have isn't the prime indicator of who will win. Lotta people raised more money than their opponents and lost -- just ask Phil Gramm, Arianna Huffington's ex-husband, and quite a few others. Grassroots organizing trumps money.

Eloriel

In addition to the good points above, you are misinformed about how campaigns are funded:

"Dean has also severed any chance of getting money from major corperations"

Corporations cannot make donations to candidates.

that this money represents the support of so very many people. It's not 50 or a hundred people forking over $2000 apiece. It's THOUSANDS of people involved all at the same time.

And we're lucky that when it's time to vote, the votes count over the money. Thank God that hasn't changed.

It would be simple to paint Dean as an ultra-left pacifist from the "People's Republic of Vermont". Dean is running from the left wing of the Democratic party (even though he really isn't a liberal). The mainstream newsmedia has already branded him as the "next McGovern" .. "the voice of Democrats who were vehemently against the war, and who hate Bush"... "the darling of the activist left".. "left wing insurgent".. etc etc.

When Rove and the GOP talk about Dean, it's all angled towards giving Dean legitimacy, that they "scared" of him, etc. Rove's soundbites have a two pronged effect: keep the money rolling in for the Bush by scaring the GOP base into thinking an "ultra-lefty" like Dean could win the general election, and to fire up Dean's base so that he would win the nomination. It would be much more difficult for them to deal with the "elder statesman" candidates like Kerry and Graham in a general election, who are running from the moderate wing of the party, who are very experienced, who have stronger national security/foreign policy credentials, etc. Even the center-right Lieberman would be a tougher challenge in a national election.

His itchy trigger finger when it comes to "hunting down" those who would harm us.

Only Dean has the guts (and brains) to trump Bush's supposed trump card by explaining to the American public -- using two weird little concepts called leadership and integrity -- why Bush's little Iraqi revendture made the world a far LESS safe place for Americans.

It simply won't work to take Bush on sideways on this issue. Americans care about right and wrong/good and bad/life and death a lot more than they care about how much multi is in their multilateralism.

The republicans fear Dean because he doesn't accept their
assumptions. He won't follow their agenda and questions
their basic premise/justifications.

He is clearly plowing out a different path and is knocking
the DC establishment off kilter, leaving them dazed and
confused.

He reminds me of Harry S. Truman

Come'on. You didn't even say anything. Every political says they are an outsider. Dean isn't any smarter than anyother candidate, except maybe Bush and Mosley-Braun.

Really, if the 55% of the American People consider National Security the leading issue, why would you be afraid of a candidate that shoots his mouth off before speaking, shot his future funding, and has zero national security experience?

If I was Bush I would want Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinch, Mosley Braun, or Dean. The others would be more of a problem.

Because Dean has more of a likelyhood of getting the nomination, it would make sense to have Republicans send him money and drum him up. Nixon helped get MCGovern the nomination in 1972, it is obvious that they will try to do the same thing this year.

Let us face the facts. If an extremist like Pat BUchanan or Rick Santorum tried to run for the Republican would you try to get them the nomination to weaken the Party, divid the party, and weaken Bush for the General Election.

If you were at a Parade and saw Buchanan for President and he was running for the Republican nomination would you not encourage them to fight hard and support them in their efforts? I SURE would. I would love serious division in the Republican Party and I would like the Republicans to nominate a the weaker candidate. The Republicans are many things, evil, wicked, criminal, immoral, but stupid is not one of them. They are smart to give Dean as much attention as possible. The more attention they give Dean the more likely it is that he will pick up more support and win the nomination.

On the other hand. If McCain decided to run for the nomination against Bush, I would dislike that and not mention the man because I know he would be harder to beat in 2004 than Bush. I would give him little attention and if forced to say anything I would it be as little as possible.

J4Clark

if they think Dean is an extremist ala Pat Buchanan or Rick Santorum (except on the opposite side). Look, Dean is right about Iraq, it's a mess, OBVIOUSLY. On many other issues Dean is really quite moderate. Bush is the extremist. Not Dean.

At least Pat has some core beliefs and a bit of integrity. At least Pat would TRY to help Americans, no matter how often with a completely wrongheaded approach.

Bush can only survive when he's getting a free ride from both the press and his opposition. Haven't the last few weeks convinced you of that?

Bush is stupid and his policies are demonstrably disasterous, domestically and internationally. We need a candidate who can make this perfectly clear while offering us a more hopeful future of security and prosperity, not an "elder statesman" type.

Dean has dealt with attacks just like yours from Day 1. The media has made him out to be something he's not -- some sort of uber-liberal. Then the (pseudo?)ultra-liberal contingent tried to pin the blame on Dean because he wasn't as liberal as the media's lies made him look.

But Dean is still coming atcha, stronger than ever.

Iraq is a fucking nightmare disaster. Just about everything we said about it beforehand has now come to pass.

Bush does surely does NOT want to run with two dead soldiers a day tied around his neck. When Dean tells America his plan for cleaning up Bush's mess in Iraq, they'll get the picture. Americans aren't quite that stupid.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

more at link ...

Dean isn't any smarter than anyother candidate, except maybe Bush and Mosley-Braun.


Uh, okay. Playing taps for you ....


:kick:

"Secondly, in New Hampshire, while Kerry is owning everyone among registered Democrats, Dean is cleaning up among independents. BIG TIME. In other words, his supposed appeal to moderate voters turns out to be a reality."

I'm sorry but "independent" does not equal "moderate." There's all kinds of people that call themselves independents. There are left-wing independents, right-wing independents, libertarian independents, etc. And then there's the people that call themselves "independent" because they don't want to be tied down to one party or another but pretty much always vote the same way. Look at a state like Massachusetts. Half the registered voters there are unaffiliated (http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/newton102102.htm), but in presidential elections, it votes like 60% Democratic. I think it's very likely that the kind of independents that Dean is attracting in NH is your sort of upper middle-class, educated "latte liberal" that votes for people like Bradley or Tsongas (not to mention Nader) and is NOTHING like the working-class, populist, culturally conservative vote you need to win a state like Missouri or Ohio.

I also think that putting Clark or any other Southerner on a ticket with Dean is like putting a Band-Aid over a flesh wound. The VP should reenforce the strengths of the top of the ticket (who people are actually voting for ) or plug a few holes but he can't totally cover for everything that's wrong with the presidential nominee. A Dean/Clark or Dean/Graham ticket would be like Dukakis/Bentson, with people saying we should reverse the ticket and Republicans using the differences between the two candidates to make the head of the ticket look like an inexperienced, out-of-touch Eastern liberal who doesn't even have much in common with his own running mate.