It's got to be Dean/Clark if we want to win

The Democratic ticket in 2004 has to do two things to win. First and foremost it needs to be able to set and control the topics of the debate. No one does that better than Dean. Secondly, we absolutely HAVE to make a full frontal attack on Bush where he is weak...Domestic Issues. We need someone who is NOT afraid to fight. We NEED to eliminate guns as an issue so we can compete in states that normally wouldn't be in play.

Bush is going to try to make the entire race about the war on terror and defense. We can't allow that because if he succeeds there isn't any Democrat who will win, period. We need Dean to hit Bush on domestic issues and control the debate and we need Clark to neutralize any "weak on defense/terror" claims.

The only way we are going to do this is to NOT make the mistake of trying to nominate someone who can neutralize the "weak on defense/terror" but who has no real legitimacy on domestic issues (which are a higher priority to voters than defense). Kerry only has a voting record to point to, he hasn't balanced a budget or reduced a deficit. Clark is stronger on defense and needs to be the VP pick.

I really hope Democrats are smart enough to see that if we can't make a strong and legitimate case on domestic issues, we're totally screwed.

Dean/Clark or we're dead, people.

that's the answer

because we allow the whole debate to be about what Bush is best on. Find one poll that shows where voters care more about defense/war on terror than they care about domestic issues.

Clinton didn't beat Bush Sr. by trying to beat him at his own game. He beat him by exposing Bush Srs. weaknesses and offering a clear alternative while choosing a veteran as a running mate.

and the General is the only one with the credentials to say that and still be patriotic,,

The ones who don't think he sucks don't vote Democratic anyhow. Swing voters always, always care most about domestic issues and things that affect them directly. If the debate is about defense they will be more likely to vote for Bush just because he caught Saddam. Also, if someone with a strong domestic record isn't the nominee there's a good chance a lot of the more liberal Democrats will get pissed and vote for Nader.

about a post like this?
Go read something. "what Bush is best at"..is an oxymoron.

because we allow the whole debate to be about what Bush is best on. Find one poll that shows where voters care more about defense/war on terror than they care about domestic issues.

bingo. attack where the enemy is weakest. domestic issues. it's too easy for Bush to throw up a smokescreen on foreign policy and national security. those areas are much more susceptible to spin doctoring as to what constitutes "mission accomplished" and "success". but you can't spin doctor millions of unemployed people, rising poverty and homelessness.

Dean doesn't stand a chance against Bush Now..
Wake up to reality,,

We've got to win.

Dean is POLITICAL POISON.

..."we need X/Y" without many people saying why.

and potential to appeal to the middle.

I just happen to think it's ridiculously obvious.

because Dean is a goober..
he's great on the issues, he's dead correct on the issues..
he's extremely likeable to his fan base.. obviously..

but we have to win or we're finished..

The repugs will tear him alive and I would rather see Dean as president in 2008 or 2012 then get nothing at all,,

I'm surprised so many here want to let Bush have an election about defense and the war on terror. That's a one way road to defeat.

Because Dr.Dean is out of step with a large part of the electorate on those issues.
Bush has over $200 million to spend on campaign ads- the sElection is going to be about whatever topic Karl Rove decides is best for them.

Take Back Vermont was about Civil Unions and Act 60 and despite the efforts of national religious right wing figures to demolish Dean, he won.

The guy at the top needs to be able to deflect the foreign policy and national security challenge. No one votes for the VP.

The VP is not the one vying for the title of Commander-in-Chief. You're seriously incorrect if you think putting Clark on the ticket will make people vote for Dean who otherwise wouldn't. The only votes that the VP will bring are those from his home state. People will be matching the Dem nominee (NOT his VP) against Bush and seeing if he stacks up on national security.

I think just having Dean (who has been made famous) could even turn off independents.


Clark-Graham 2004

Dean is turning ON independents.

Independents give 39% of their support to Dean, with Kerry, Lieberman, and Clark in a three-way tie for 2nd at 9%.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=763

Dean is the favorite of both Democrats (27%) and Independents (21%)who intend to vote in Iowa’s primary. Gephardt trails him with 23% of Democratic support and 18% of Independents.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=762

again and again on DU. That information concerns independent preference of one Democrat over another. Not a Dem vs a GOP'er. The campaign of Clark is nascent in comparison to Dean's and I do not see Clark slipping in the polls. Dean is losing ground to him, albeit a small amount. Let the campaigns finish and we will see how the 'independents' feel as that is why they are called independents, they do not on partisan prejudices select their candidates.

Thats why he had to leave the race.

and the person who gets the most votes in the nomination will have my vote in the general. :)

Right answer! Now let's take a look behind the curtain to see what you've won. <Oooooh! Ahhhh!> It's a Democrat seated rather comfortably in the White House! :)

May the best man (or woman) win.

Its obvious that Clark and Dean have the most loyal followers. I'm willing to vote for that ticket, regardless of who is VP since the VP will naturally go on to win the Presidency in 2012.

Nobody can. You Deanites living in your masturbation fantasy, where you get to have your Dean and not suffer for his many faults, are simply fooling yourselves. Nobody pays attention to the second half of the ticket, unless it becomes obvious that the VP candidate is stronger than the presidential one, as happened with Dukakis/Bentsen, and as would happen with a Dean/Clark ticket after the first debate when Bush started touting his 'accomplishments,' and Dean replied with his usual empty rhetoric and now pointless anger. Any candidate with a gaping hole so obvious, and so badly in need of being filled as Dean has, is a bomb waiting for the match of the general election.

Dean might be a cripple, but there is no crutch that will make him stand up and walk. If he goes to the general, he's going to get pounded on, and not Clark, not anyone, can shield him from that pounding.

not for this Clark supporter. I think that rant which had no supporting FACTS in it casts a crass shadow on Clark.

I see lots of holes in Dean's candidacy but I think you might show us the holes rather than squawk about them.

You Deanites living in your masturbation fantasy, where you get to have your Dean and not suffer for his many faults, are simply fooling yourselves....

who said that? Dean? Clark? No.........you did.

It's simple math. And the math just isn't on Dean's side.

Dean is and has been the strongest candidate. Personally, I don't think he needs Clark as a VP to get swing voters. I only think he needs Clark because too many Democrats are under the false impression that America cares more about defense and foreign policy than they do about jobs, the budget, education, health care and social justice. The fact is, they don't.

Get the emphasis back on homeland security and war on terror through international cooperation and effort.

He actually might be better than Clark as VP.

Dean never balanced a budget in a manner consistant with Democratic party principals. While it has been brought up that Dean made cuts to social spending in 2002 based on the effects of the Bush tax cuts, he has a history going back to 1993 for demanding cuts to social spending, while advocating income tax cuts that favored the rich and passing a sales tax increase in 1997 that is regressive, effecting the the poor and middle class adversely (the same year he gave an income tax cut, which by nature, favors the wealthy).

All this is consistant with Republicans/Conservative tax policy and not the democratic platform of progressive taxation (those who earn more, pay more).

Lets look at some Dean decision, some even overturned by the Vemront Supreme Court:



"The Governor complains...that while federal spending restraint is
clearly needed, it is unfair to place Social Security, Medicare, and
defense spending off the table when it comes time for budget cuts."

"I also think that we ought to put Social Security back on the table
and defense. If you take defense and Social Security off the table,
what you've essentially said, 'We're not going to cut any of the
controversial things at the federal level, despite our rhetoric
about being courageous in a new day in the American Congress, we're
just going to let the governors do all the cutting.' We'll do the
cutting, but they got to do some cutting here, too."

"My problem is this. There have been a lot of statements up on
Capitol Hill that say 'We're not going to touch Social
Security.' 'We're going not to touch Medicare,' one statement
was. 'We're not going to touch veterans' benefits.' 'We're not going
to touch defense. We may add to defense.' Well, then you're going to
stick all the cuts on the programs, as you well know, that go to the
states..."

"We know what's going to happen and we're willing to live with
that,' Dean said, referring to lower welfare funding. 'We just would
like to see some similar kind of backbone by the new leadership in
Congress when it comes to Medicare, when it comes to Social Security
and when it comes to defense.' Without Social Security and defense
on the table, Dean says, cuts in what's left of the budget would
harm states..."

"Dean himself has been hawkish on the federal deficit, but his
budget balancing suggestions include two programs virtually off
limits for Republicans: defense spending and Social Security."

on "This Week with David Brinkley," 1/29/95; Dean on CNN's
Crossfire, 2/28/95; Montpelier Times-Argus, 1/30/95; Montpelier
Times-Argus, 6/1/95]


Headline: "Hidden Tax Hikes" (editorial)

An editorial by the Rutland Herald pointed out that "It would be a
mistake to believe that Gov. Howard Dean's proposed budget contains
no tax increases. There are tax increases in several areas... But
the increases are not immediately visible...

"Level funding of state aid to education would also shift more of
the tax burden to the property-tax burden to the property-tax payer.
In order to maintain the present share of support for education, the
state would have to increase its state aid by $7 million. Otherwise,
local school districts will either have to raise property taxes or
cut spending."


... after having cut education funding by 1.5% the previous year.

Headline: "Budget Cuts 'Could Hurt Children'"

Dean's 1992 budget "include a $6 million cut in state aid to
education and a small reduction in monthly benefits under Aid to
Families with Needy Children." This cut
was enacted.

Headline: "Dean Defends Cuts in State Aid to Education"

As a mid-year addition cut, Dean proposed a $2.1 million reduction
in state aid to education, which was not ultimately enacted: "Gov.
Howard Dean on Thursday defended his decision to cut state aid to
education..."


The Burlington Free Press editorialized, "Instead of reforming and
restructuring, the Dean administration is cutting... Some cuts - as
in state aid to education - pass the pain along to towns and school
districts."



Howard Dean: Cuts to Aid for the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD)
In 1995 Dean proposed a state budget cut of $920,000 for Aid to the
Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD) Program

About 13,000 Vermonters received aid from the program, 10,000 of
whom are disabled.

The state legislature rejected the cut. After the close of the
legislative session, when revenues came in weaker than expected,
Dean decided to cut a number of budget items - including the Aged,
Blind and Disabled (AABD) program - without Legislature's approval.

Dean had tried to cut the program several times before; all were
rejected by the Legislature. This time, Dean decided to push the
cuts without the legislature's approval.

Headline: "A Thousand Cuts"

"At first blush, a cut of $12.21 might seem like an inconsequential
nick in the budgets of those Vermonters who typically receive a
monthly SSI check of $517... But resistance to these small cuts
continues at the state and federal level because of the belief that
our needy citizens are being nicked, not just by one cut, but by so
many cuts that their lives will be driven to a desperate extreme."



Headline: "A Thousand Cuts"

"At first blush, a cut of $12.21 might seem like an inconsequential
nick in the budgets of those Vermonters who typically receive a
monthly SSI check of $517... But resistance to these small cuts
continues at the state and federal level because of the belief that
our needy citizens are being nicked, not just by one cut, but by so
many cuts that their lives will be driven to a desperate extreme."


Headline: "Dean Cuts Are Stirring Ill Feelings"

"State Senator Jeb Spaulding made note of the fact that Dean had
tried repeatedly to cut AABD and each time the legislature
refused. 'This is one (reduction) that the legislature has said 'no'
to for the last three or four years in a row.'"

After a legislative panel rejected the cuts by a vote of 5-2, Dean
said, "I'm not getting any help at all from the rules committee
dealing with this budget crisis, so we will go it alone." Rutland Herald, 10/25/95]


Headline: "Legal Aid Suit Seeks to Block Dean Cuts to AABD"

Vermont Legal Aid attorney Thomas F. Garrett filed a class action
suite on behalf of 5 AABD recipients against Governor Dean.

"Garrett said the Legislature rejected the governor's plan to cut
AABD benefits (in the spring)... He noted that that Dean
administration issued a bulletin on July 7, 1995, promulgating the
AABD cut 'in order to address a projected shortfall in general fund
revenues for fiscal 1996.'"


Headline: "Court Restrains Dean on AABD Cuts"

"Gov. Howard B. Dean lost a round in the battle for power Tuesday as
a Superior Court judge blocked his plan to cut benefits to 13,000
blind, aged and disabled Vermonters...

"The Dean administration planned to trim $920,000 from the 1996
state budget by reducing benefit levels in the state's Aid to the
Aged, Blind and Disabled program beginning Jan. 1... the cut was
intended to help reduce a state deficit that is expected to top $40
million by July."

Superior Court Judge John P. Meaker said in his decision, "Any
decrease in benefits for individuals living in the 'grip of poverty'
potentially deprives them of the ability to obtain essentials such
as food, clothing or housing."



Burlington Free Press says that "it shouldn't have taken a court to
tell Dean" not to cut AABD.

"Meanwhile, it shouldn't have taken a court to tell Dean it was bad
policy and bad law for him to deny a small cost-of-living raise to
Vermont's blind and disabled - when legislators had previously,
emphatically and repeatedly said they should get it. And it
shouldn't take a lawyer to tell him now that it will be bad politics
to appeal."


Howard Dean: Medicaid Cuts to Balance the Budget
In August 1993, Dean worked to cut Medicaid funding by $1.2 million,
to help balance the budget. The $1.2 million in cuts meant:


Eliminating dental coverage for 12,600 adults

Ending Medicaid benefits for 1,700 Vermonters aged 18 to 21

Ending vision, medical equipment and other benefits for 2,500
elderly and disabled Vermonters

Ending the practice of holding seniors' nursing home beds for 10
days while they are in the hospital




Headline: "Hundreds Turn Out to Protest State Cuts In Medicaid
Program"

"A grassroots coalition of elderly and disabled Vermonters is
turning up the volume in its battle with Gov. Howard Dean over his
plan to cut $1.2 million in Medicaid benefits... nearly 300 people
packed a gymnasium at the State Office Complex to oppose the cuts."

"Michael Sirotkin, a lobbyist who has represented the interests of
the Coalition of Vermont Elders for 12 years... 'I have never
seen, in the history of the Vermont Legislature for as long as I
have been there, a more horrific cut than the one that is being
proposed today."



Howard Dean on those protesting his cuts: "There are interest groups
that are far larger than 200 people. These people were put on a bus
by the advocates."




Under pressure of a lawsuit filed by Vermont Legal Aid, Dean
scrapped $963,000 worth of the cuts that week.

"The governor said, 'the clincher' came when his legal advisers told
him that the Legal Aid lawsuits that challenged the constitutional
grounds for making the cuts could drag on until April. Dean said he
was confident that the state was on sound legal ground." Argus, 11/5/93]


"In his budget address in January 1993, Dean had proposed
eliminating Medicaid coverage for those aged 18 to 21...Estimated
savings would be $149,000." Dean was stopped by the legislature.



... and in the next year, 1994, Dean proposed a freeze in Medicaid

even as other programs saw increases.

"The budget, a 3 percent increase, does not include any major cuts
in programs. But the state's most expensive programs - welfare,
Medicaid, state aid to education and special education - won't
increase."


In mid-1995, Dean again proposed mid-year budget cuts without the
Legislature's approval. Included in that was $4 million in Medicaid
cuts.

In another mid-year budget cut in 1995, Dean proposed eliminating $4
million from Medicaid.



As part of his proposed FY 1997 budget, Dean outlined $26.8 million
in Medicaid cuts, including making it harder for 4,000 elderly
Vermonters to get Medicaid coverage.

Headline: "Medicaid on cutting board"

"The proposal affecting the 4,000 senior citizens is one of the most
controversial. State administrators have suggested reducing income
eligibility from $741 monthly to $681 for a single person to qualify
for Medicaid. Officials said Vermont's income level is $108 higher
than Connecticut, the New England state with the income requirement
most similar to Vermont's. 'The cut is huge and affects almost
exclusively elderly women living alone,' said Michael Sirotkin, a
lobbyist who represents older Vermonters."

"One of the big losers would be the Starr Farm Nursing Center in
Burlington's New North end. The 100-bed nursing home won approval
for 50 new beds from the state in 1991, but now the state has
proposed not sending an additional $1.1 million a year in Medicaid
dollars it had promised the facility."



Denas record in the area of balancing budgets do not resemble ANYTHING close to the philsophy of the Decmocratic Party, an in fact, are strikingly similar to the policies that Bush has been advocating since his election in 2000. Income tax cuts to reduce the revenue available to the government, and cuts in social spending to balance the budget.

Which Dean if not do in the first place.

THe budget balancing done in Deans fir4st years was accomplished by a plan designed and passed under the previous governor, Richard Snelling, who ghave up on Repubilcan Style government service cuts to balance the budget, thre in the towel and instituted a progressive style three tiered state income tax in order to not only balance the budget, but actually increased money available for social programs. In the 4 years that the Snelling Plan was active, the rate of the medically unisured dropped consistantly in Vermont. Dean fought and opposed Democrats who wanted this tax to remain permanent, and in the year following the phase out of the progressive income tax, the rate of uniusured jumped from the lowest level accomplisehd in the state 8.6 percent in 1994, the last year of the Snelling Tax, to 13 percent
in 1995.


Deans vision of balancing budget is simply old fashioned republicanism, rather than visionary progressive ideas, which is the platform of the Centrist Democratic document, the Hyde Park Declaration:

The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century



We believe in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.

We believe that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.

We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth...

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

We believe that education must be America's great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.

We believe that all Americans must have access to health insurance in a system that balances governmental and individual responsibility...


http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926

Deans decision's as governor, and his methods of "balancing budgets" is an affront to the very principals that the Democratic Party has stood for and still stands for. A New Dean New Deal, given his ghastly past record, can only lead to an even more ghastly future.
Anyone can balance a budget by cutting programs to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, minorities and all the disadvantaged. As Dean prposed, planned and fought to do every year of his tenure as Governor.

His lack of vision regarding Iraq, or rather, his opportunistic playing with public opinion, watching support for the War wax and wane is even more a warning that a man such as Dean, opportunistic, glib and lacking in the ability to take a strong stand WITH the people and not against them, in favor of welathy individuals and corporations cannot be tolerated.

We already have a president who's ideas for balancing budgets revolves around tax cuts and following this with cuts to social programs. No one pointed out Deans ideology better than the Vermont Democratic Senator, Peter Shumlin:

Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press


Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

Given Deans rather cosy relations with the health care, the pharmaceutical and the energy industries, and the fact that Dean can be seen to have, on a number of occasion, appeared to have been given campaign contributions suspiciously in temporal proximity to his having vetoed legislation those industries wanted killed, asked for deregulation of the energy utilities, and having supported the sale of public utilities to corporate interests connected with those who have funded his presidential campaign, one must ask, what is the real difference between the president we currently have, and the presidency that Dean will bring. Damned little, going by his past record.

:hurts:

I want you to know that SOMEBODY appareciated it, and applauds you for telling the truth about Vermont's #1 Snake Oil Dealer.

Keep it up. :thumbsup:

"You've been experienced and your gaining more experience on how to try war criminals" ..."it is an honor to have you" -tweety. did anyone else see this?

First you start a thread how your guy is helped by the change, then when rebuyffes, want to use my candidate as a crutch. I want to win and I want an extraordinary president. Whatever Clark's choice of VP is fine with me.
WE DID NOT DRAFT A CANDIDATE TO REASSURE YOU :argh:

Clark has not been very effective on the stump. I would like to see Dean take a look at Durbin, Graham or Nunn.

i'm rich.  i'm white.  i went to yale.  i used my wealth / family connections to help me avoid going to vietnam. while poor and working class people my age were dying in vietnam i was busy partying.  i spent a significant part of my career trying out different professions until i settled on politics.  i could afford to do that because i was born rich. i was a governor before running for president.  i had no foreign policy experience before running for office.  i'm iconoclastic and dogmatic.  it's my way or the highway.  i am quick to tear down anyone who disagrees with me.  i am ruthless when it comes to campaigning.  i like my records sealed. 
I like invoking executive privilege. The hell with campaign finance reform. Flying the confederate flag on government buildings in South Carolina - states rights. Right to work legislation? States rights. Affirmative action should be based on economic status, not color. I want the support of the guys with the C-Flag on their trucks. I am as uncomfortable with civil rights unions as the next guy. I am not a liberal. The heck with medicare. Let's raise the retirement age to 70. I employ Rush Limbaugh. Young people had no reason to vote democrat since 1968. NRA is good. I don't care if 70% are against it , I'll do it anyway>


so who am i? bush or dean?

:yourock:

show that. The Newsweek poll gives Clark 12% to Dean's 24% among Democrats. But who still does better against bush? Clark. I know that by that poll it's only by one point. But, my point is, Clark drew the most crossover votes.

Even in NH where Dean has a HUGH lead, He would lose to bush by 30 pts and does worse than the unnamed Democrat vs. Bush.

If we nominate Dean and lose we deserve to lose because we cannot even do simple math.

It seems that is all some folks want to talk about. I prefer Clark because he would make a better President than the others.

Clark has NEVER been elected to any office and has never even ran in any race. Polls are not reliable. Sure, there is a chance that Clark can appeal to swing voters, but there is absolutely NO evidence that he can. He has never been tried and tested in an election.

Dean, on the other hand, IS tried and tested and there is solid proof that shows he has always appealed to not only Independent swing voters, but moderate Republicans as well. In Vermont elections he always got at least 20% of the Republican vote in addition to the majority of the Independent vote.

The real issues that the voting public cares about most are the things that affect their lives directly. Domestic issues ALWAYS matter more. We can win on a clear Domestic agenda. We CAN'T win trying to compete with Bush on the ONLY thing he can actually compete on. Whose votes will be based on war-mongering and the like? Conservatives. When have Democrats ever successfully out hawked a hawk?