Dean's "Angry Man" Candidacy is Doomed without SADDAM bogey

Sadam’s capture will surely increase the popularity of Bush’s illegal war. Dean's "angry man" act and phony bluster will just look stupid in the General Election with SADDAM before a firesquad. This is America guys. Most average joes like this.

Everyone Cem who figured shallowness of Dean's record has been worried about this. We need a good CANDIDATE to win, not just a good campaign.

Guys, we cannot continue to run a candidate with WEAK CHARACTER and NO military and foreign policy CREDENTIALS against Bush.

DEAN has always been an ego-driven politics-as-usual guy. In the past he said that IF THE ECONOMY IS GOOD A DEM CAN’T WIN. Now with Saddam captured I am sure he doesn’t believe he can win. But he will still take the people’s money to keep his flim-flam act going.

I was for Dean a year ago, thinking that as a Doctor he would be new and different and able to get health-care reform done. NO MORE. His record shows him to be a pure opportunist.

HE CAN BE EASILY HAMMERED BY KARL ROVE.

Fellow progressives, we can’t let an guy like Howard Dean lead us to disaster. I, for one, can’t take it emotionally. I feel like we are under a curse and the Dean madness is a part of this evil spell.

to break the curse, run in circles while chanting "no place like FOX, no place like FOX"

Why can't we have a serious discussion. None of us actually still believes that Dean is a "great progressive leader?" He is a good guy, but can he win with all the inconsistencies coming out regarding his record.

I am seriously looking at John Kerry. He really seems a more solid all-round candidate.

You aren't that easily fooled, are you?

...But its not Howard Dean... it's George Bush and the PNAC neocons.

Yup, you're a Dean supporter, all right... :eyes:

if we can't beat them at the polls we can RIDDICULE their message on DU, at least ;->



peace

avatar picture thingy freaks the hell outa me. EEEEEk.

If the attacks stop then GWB can claim it meant something. If they contibue it doesn't matter.

right you are

The scary part is that about half of DU'ers seem to be ready to vote for Bush after this

We all know than Bush's style of terrorizing the Arab world will not work.

But every little Bush success in his phony "War on Terror,"
make him stand taller against a phony angry-man DEAN.

Dean has exactly the level of gravitas, stature and credentials to look stupid talking about national security -- which is what is on the minds of many whether we like it or not.

If Dean had a real record of passion and sacrifice for progressive causes, it would be right for us to struggle to the end. BUT DEAN IS NO LIBERAL OR PROGRESSIVE OR RADICAL OR FIGHTER.

Many of my friends have donated to Dean. But,the whole campaign is based on a fraud, and it pisses me off. We shouldn't have to take another awefull 4 years of Bush. But we will Dean is our candidate.

Last time Nader destroyed our chances. This time the Deannies will be to blame. AND THE WHOLE WORLD SUFFERS.

Yours is a bullshit post.

"Dean madness?"

"Angry Man Act?"

Are you on the right board?

The sludgemeister who's running anti-Dean Ossama Bin Ladin adds with secretive, dirty $$$ from "undisclosed" contributors.

All that mangled rhetoric and not one word devoted to who you think should get the nomination. I guess ad-hominem attacks are easier than making a case for another candidate.

many here will point out your inconsistensies -- but the one that counts for me -- and i've not decided on a candidate -- is that dean has come directly to the people.
he has motivated, energized, and even listened to folk who are just average citizens.
as far as karl rove goes -- i think dean can handle himself in a dog fight. he's aware that it's a dog fight -- and he's been fighting like it's one all the time.
well that's all i'm going to say -- other than another dean bashing thread or a ''i hate your candiadte thread'' is really boring. and i feel like that's what this is really gonna be.

Iraq is not the only issue to be angry at.

The economy is the #1 issue to be pissed about.
And there are plenty more (funds cut to important programs, the environment, the Patriot Act, etc).

Just because Saddam is caught that doesn't mean that anti-Bush people are going to be any less angry.

I just don't see why this is so significant. Beyond a month, this event will go where all events go in the public mind -- away. They will try to spin it and drag it out with a big trial, etc. But if conditions don't change in Iraq, it isn't going to make any difference.

If any of the candiates were basing their campaigns on the idea that Saddam would never be caught, they were fooling themselves to begin with.

Surely the candidates and their campaigns have planned responses for this eventuality. :shrug:

As someone said on another thread, the death of Ho Chi Minh did not end the Vietnam War.

As he says, Dean is not just about opposing Bush; he is proactive. As for "opportunism" ~ which I might call political drive ~ the guy was picked up by the scruff of the neck and thrown into politics.

I haven't heard a single decent argument today as how this is going to hurt Dean. Dean is and was against an illegal, immoral, outrageous war. The war is no less illegal, immoral or outrageous because of Saddam's capture. In fact, as attacks continue, Dan can and probably will use this as fuel for his campaign that this is above and beyond Saddam - it's about the freedom and sovereignty of Iraq and the illegal acts of the Bush regime.

at a time when he was riding very high with the Gore endorsement, southern endorsements etc.

I think this is a bump for Bush and a blip for Dean.

Ultimately it helps Bush a little.

It looks like a strategic capture politically.

It knocks the HUGE Dean advances off the talk shows today EXCEPT that the question of how it effects Dean WILL be discussed all week long.

After next week, this is old news.

Osama will get captured in October 2004, though. so the same damn surpirse issue gets the headlines.

I have a horrid feeling that the Ossama October Surprise is coming...and if it does, THAT, my friends, will be the end of the game for at least four years.

Dean is and was against an illegal, immoral, outrageous war.

True, but in many minds the legality and morality of a war rests on whether we won it or lost it.

Dean hasn't, to my knowledge, said what he would have done or would do in relation to Iraq. In spite of all the nonsense about terrorist sympathies and WMDs, the fact remains that Saddam is guilty of atrocities and crimes against humanity. Dean has not said what this nation's role ought to be when the world is aware of these things.

I think that the U.S. should work with the U.N. to make sure that people like Saddam are not permitted in a position to commit those crimes or, failing that, that they are stopped. That would definitely mean that the U.S. would need to be involved at some level in areas of the world where we don't have any particular "national security interests."

I wonder if the Democratic party, its candidates, or the nation as a whole would be willing to support U.S. participation for purely humanitarian and moral reasons, even while we don't stand to get any direct benefit from that participation. Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to think that they would.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice.

their RW-propaganda attacks with phrases like "Fellow progressive, " US Dems, " "We liberals," etc. As if that'll get 'em off the hook.

Maybe I'm stupid or blind, but I STILL can't see how this will affect Dean or really ANY of the big 8.

It is undeserving of comment.

The majority of americans care more for the economy the saddam.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/
http://www.clark04.com/
http://www.kucinich.us
http://www.sharpton2004.org/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What any of this has to do with the capture of Saddam is beyond me. I guess the capture of Saddam is considered another excuse to go after Dean with more of the same unsubstantiated claims that have been repeated ad nauseum on these boards the past few weeks. Other than that, if Saddam's capture hurts Dean, it hurts every Dem candidate similarly.

Like my beloved father used to say about people like you:

Hope Springs Eternal.

You keep hoping Skippy, we'll still welcome you to the victory party. :-)

Julie

Just because he is caught doesn't mean the facts have changed. This was a bullshit war for bullshit reasons. Do you even rememeber WMD and immediate threat?

Come on!

stance wrong.
Saddy was caught that still doesn't make the war o.k. The war was still wrong.

If anyone was benefitting from a "bogey man" is was Bush. If attacks on our troops continue at the same pace after this, its big trouble for the administration.

you're coming from, rove/bush will hammer any dem period. if it's clark, gephardt, kerry, kunich, or DEAN. you can believe that the lies will be coming fast and deep. remember clark has already been called nuts because of things in bosnia.

It was, in fact, an attack on Dean - not the other way around as you imply.

Facts. They aren't just for breakfast anymore.

as you people always do.

Logical argumentation. It's never been for Deanites.

You stated:

"Guys, we cannot continue to run a candidate with WEAK CHARACTER and NO military and foreign policy CREDENTIALS against Bush."

Have you forgotten about Clinton? He ran against Poppy, and Poppy had much stronger foreign policy credentials than Junior will ever hope to have.

Good luck on your mental health problems...sounds like you'll need it.

This is not about Saddam. It is about AWOL Bush's increasing statue
as Commander-In-Chief. And DEAN'S lack of the credentials needed to
stick it to him. Of all the major candidates, the "Mayor of Vermont" has the weakest qualification on domestic foreign policy.


Why do you think Hillary is playing the "Hawk."
Do you think that's really the way she feels? The environment is so changed from before 9/11 that "draft-dodge" Bill says he would have voted for the IWR and is apparently supporting a "GENERAL" for the White House.

Why are we putting up a PHONY CANDIDATE against the PHONY IN THE WHITEHOUSE. The campaign is going to be two phonies using tons of their supporter's money to throw dirt against one another. Neither is a man of great thought or character.

AGAIN. I AM ASKING FOR THOUGHTFULL ARGUEMENT FROM YOU DEAN SUPPORTERS, NOT JUST BLUSTER AND ARROGANCE.

I get enough of plugged-ear ranting in my kitchen.

START BY TURNING OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.

Also, if you're genuinely interested in "thoughtful argument," you damn well better back up statements like "PHONY CANDIDATE" and that Dean isn't "a man of great thought or character" with some evidence.

You are aware that there are months and months before the general election and that all kinds of things could happen between now and then, are you not?

but good luck with all that, Slick.

edit: I didn't realize that Dean had evil magic powers, thanks for keeping me informed, Ace.

I said it myself a month ago here:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/7034/0480

I really like what he said about Saddams trial.But I will never understand why the Clarkies feel they need to represent him so poorly on DU. Your guy is cool there is no need to alienate everyone else on DU to get him elected. This is a very bad time to be dog piling on a fellow Dem.

After the right wing party orgasim over this is over and people come back to the reality that Iraq is a deathtrap for the US your statements will seem even more out of line than the do already, which is considerable.

...and Saddam's capture changes NOTHING about the questions regarding why we attacked Iraq in the first place. Just because they captured Saddam doesn't mean there's nothing to be angry about anymore.

Trust me, Bush is going to be easily beatable in 11 months, ESPECIALLY by Dean!

ABB!

You made the charge, you provide the proof. What explanation to you have for your statement that Howard Dean is a "phony?"

<tapping foot - rolling eyes>

...from your original post:
Guys, we cannot continue to run a candidate with WEAK CHARACTER and NO military and foreign policy CREDENTIALS against Bush.

Explain "weak character." And what military and foreign policy experience did the last two presidents have when entering office?

If that's your best argument, well... it's the lamest I've seen so far... :eyes:

Say, do you work for the Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values?

Let's not forget, there's still someone out there that B*sh either can't or doesn't want to find.

Saddam's capture only underscores the fact that Osama bin Laden is still out there planning attacks on America. Once the glow of Saddam's capture fades, people will finally come to their senses and realize that they are no safer now.

He has made us less safe. Why on earth do we need to run someone with military training and skills when Bush has absolutely none and he has endangered us a thousand times over. Wake up GOP proponent, we need a diplomat, not soemone trained to think military solutions are the only ones.

you'd be correct. Since he is campaigning on MANY issues, you are full of it. The only weak character that I see is you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who, "being realistic", believed Dean could not possibly win... Looks like there are many rookies here posting the same type of messages...

If your analysis is not correct, then Dean's support will only continue to grow. Your hypothesis will be interesting to see tested in this real world laboratory.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

Thanks,
DU Moderator