I love how some posters assume this is the death blow to Dean's campaign

That is utter nonsence. First, Dean is more than an anti-war candidate. Second, capturing Saddam doesn't justify the war. The War was still based on falsehoods peddled by Bush and his administration. As much as Bush now wants to try and convince the American people that the war was based on liberating the Iraqi people we have plenty of footage of Bush lying about WMD and about Saddam's connection to 9/11 without mentioning liberation. Third, This will not bring about any quick exit of American troops from Iraq nor do I believe will it lead to stabilization. The deaths will continue because anti-American feeling is fueling it.

There are plenty of questions regarding the administrations conduct leading up to the war and its post-war policy. Howard Dean will continue to speak out for millions of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who opposed launching this war. Anyone who thinks that the capturing of Saddam is going to lead to the wholsale evaporation of Dean's validity as a candiate is whistling past the graveyard; which his opponents and the pundits have done on numerous occasions in the past only to be disappointed by the resoluteness of Dean's message and the depth and enthusiasm of his supporters.

It may hurt him in the short run, and that will depend on how fast the
resistance mounts attacks.

Also his statement was very good.

Now I am not wishing that any of our troops are hurt, or killed, but reality is... this will just make things worst in Iraq since the resistance has its own dynamics now... and we achieved our stated goals, RIGHT? Right...

Neither Clark or Kerry have a shred of credibility on this issue because they have been criticizing the war too. Saddam's capture has changed one thing and one thing only...it's determined the "anti-Dean", and his name is Joe Lieberman.

Because these questions remain: How are we going to extract ourselves from this mess? What are we going to do to restore our international relationships? Who has pledged to cut the military budget and has the credibility to do it? Who understands the inner workings of global diplomacy? And who knows how to fight and to wage diplomacy?

Any candidate that opposed going to Iraq is in the same boat together. If the boat is going to sink over the capture of Saddam, everyone but Lieberman is going down with it.

I hate to give anything at all to Lieberman, but the fact of the matter is that he is the ONLY one who voted for the war, stood by his vote and never criticized going to Iraq. Anyone who claims that Dean is toast over this and their candidate has ever criticized going into Iraq (whether they voted for it or not) is admitting that they are toast too.

The people I met there were not just there for the anti-war message. Some first took notice of Dean because of it, but the committment seems to run far deeper than this.

I don't see this helpng the pro-IWR set either. People may have left them over this issue, but I expect most have found far more solid reasons to support their current candidate, be it Clark, Dean, or DK, than would be shaken by the capture of Saddam.

I see this as a flash in the pan as far as the Dem primaries are concerned. It will give Bush* a bit of a poll bounce. How long that will last depends on what comes next.

It's up to the voters. So it ain't over till it's over. NEVER EVER GIVE UP!

by his supporters is that the Bush Administration WILL make this election about national security and the Iraq occupation.

Believing otherwise is just not realistic. They did it in 2002, and Bush has nothing else to run on.

It is for this reason that many people feel Dean is not the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. If the media is effective in making this election about little other than national defense and the "war" in Iraq, we are likely better off having Clark or Kerry countering Bush's C-in-C false front.

As many Clark and Dean supporters have pointed out, Dean and Clark are actually quite close in their views on domestic issues. That being the case, it only makes sense to add to strength on domestic issues by countering what will become THE issue with a candidate who, by default, trumps Bush at his own game. Bush's false military bravado is countered by someone who has actually been in the military.

I agree that we need to get the troops out of Iraq. Clark is likely the best qualified to plan and execute an exit strategy in Iraq, because of his extensive military background and because he's done it before.

You make valid points, but do not be fooled. The capture of Saddam is a boost for Bush and it will likely sway more people into the pro-War, pro-Bush column.

Bush and the conservative media did a very effective job of making the 2002 elections about NOTHING other than the upcoming war.

If we are to counter a similar plan in 2004, we are better off with Clark or Kerry. I'm certain you feel otherwise, but I also believe that you are underestimating the ability of this administration and the media to ignore other issues in favor of national security and Iraq.

It happened in 2002. Do not assume that it cannot happen again in 2004.

If our candidates speak out truthfully, they can overcome this.

Yes, this election should be about the issues, particularly domestic issues. But, we cannot ignore the fact that the media is very conservative and that Bush and the media successfully BS'd the American people in 2002, making the entire election process about the buildup to war. We lost the Senate and more importantly, we lost momentum.

Am I saying we should bow to the pressure? No. We should make every effort possible to discuss the issues and to focus on them. But, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that more than half of the American public supports Bush and many, many Americans will see Saddam's capture as an end justifying the means.

Why do they support him? Wish I had a clue. I live in a very conservative state and the conventional wisdom here is that they support him because of his perceived leadership on the war on terror.

Ridiculous? Of course. Reality? Yes. In an ideal world, this election would be about the things that really are important: education, health care, unemployment, social security, and others. We are certainly not facing an ideal political culture in the U.S.

In the current culture in America, Bush, his $200 million, and the media will do whatever they can to make sure those are NOT the issues of this campaign.

That's why I believe we need someone who can address traditional Democratic issues, but can also make Bush's "perceived leadership" on security and military issues pale in comparison.

So why are we trying so hard for them instead of our roots as a party?
And I am very disappointed at the use of terms like naive when speaking to the Dean supporters. I think we are rather smart.

Many, many Republicans are unhappy with Bush. Sure they will be happy for a few days, having caught the guy who had nothing to do with 9/11 but.....

Wait till the boy king comes back to congress, hat in hand, want another many billions. Oil is going up this morning (!!), the dollar limply raised its hand and is wavering.....

Think beyond the next few news cycles. Nothing has changed. Our troops will still come under brutal attack frequently. Team Bush will no longer be able to blame the "bitter-enders". Sure there will be a boost to stocks, temporarily. Then a quick round of profit taking and that'll be over.

Do you think this will make us more secure? Do you think companies all over the country will suddenly start hiring? Do you think cash-strapped states raising property taxes in large increments will upset Republicans less now?

Julie

finger to the wind much?

She did one thing and one thing only. Respond to Jim Talant. Then she bragged about standing by Bush 70% of the time including on the IWR. Never did she stronly define herself as an alternative.
It's a losing strategy to let them define the terms.
We can thank Gephardt's advice on that one too.

Dean leads in Virginia!
Reports show Dean doing well among Navajo population!
Dean makes fabulous speech about irrigation!
Latest developments show Dean to be actual inventor of penicillin!

Someday the Dean people will realize the differences between primary "group hugging" and electabilty.

Nah, probably not 'till it's waaaaayyy too late.

If we have a repeat of 2002 and national security and Iraq are the primary issues in the media and the campaign, do Dean supporters still believe he's the best candidate?

Most of the Democratic candidates are strong on domestic issues - that's their forte'. We need to field a candidate that can do that, plus smack Bush around on national security, etc.

And, we need to quit ignoring the near majority of the American public that are not as fervently anti-war as Dean himself professes to be.

Just because we believe that this war was a joke doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

Obviously, there is some reason polls consistently show Bush with 50%+ support. Can't be his domestic agenda!

Being pro-war is no guarantee that we can defeat Bush, and will more likely seal our defeat. Max Cleland was a decorated vietnam veteran who lost three limbs fighting for our country, and he got slandered and lost. The best candidate is the one that will fight George Bush and his lies that are only destroying this country.

And what did the Democrats do? Did they challenge the Chimp? No, that would have been unseemly, unpatriotic, unAmerican....angry... they bolstered up the Chimp and his criminal agenda--why would anyone be surprised when they were trounced when their entire platform was rallying around the idiot boy? Me too, me too, me too!

It is so easy for Dean (and his supporters) to say, in hindsight, that everyone was rallying around Bush. He didn't have to actually vote and then explain to his constituency why he voted against something that was supported by 90% of the American public at the time.

Not to mention that Dean supporters never bother to explain why Dean said we should take Saddam out, albeit on his terms with a multi-national force, after some 60-day deadline.

Gee, I think that's similar to what Kerry, Gephardt, and the others had in mind and thought they were approving.

I also find it interesting that Dean's supporters are the most fervent when it comes to bashing all of the other Democrats on Earth. The other Democrats always support Bush. "Their entire platform", as you just said, supports Bush. If he becomes President, he'll have them scurrying like cockroaches.

Democrats certainly disagree with Bush's policies and speak out against him much more often than is ever acknowledged by the Dean folks. In fact, with a couple of exceptions (Miller and Nelson, to note two), most Democrats oppose him much more often than they support him.

Oh, and please tell me: who today came out and said, "Bush deserves a day of celebration"?

That would be Dean. Praising the administration, is he?

Sounds like your fervently anti-Bush, anti-war candidate just praised Bush for the end result of that war he so fervently opposes.

Is that what he meant to do?

Not to mention that Dean supporters never bother to explain why Dean said we should take Saddam out, albeit on his terms with a multi-national force, after some 60-day deadline.
"Gee, I think that's similar to what Kerry, Gephardt, and the others had in mind and thought they were approving."

Only a bumbling idiot would believe that Bush would do anything but use that resolution for public approval purposes to go to war after the Westpoint speech.
Biden Lugar would have made him more accountable to the public by requiring a little more congressional input. Overall, a bit more public oversight.
If they let him con him it would be ridiculous to trust them to choose advisors. What kind of crap could James Baker get away with handing Kerry if Bush can fool him? We know the guy is a sociopath and they apparantly can't see it.
The thing that is troublesome is they fall for his "charm" or something. Go look at the legislative history of this presidency. He has conned them more than once.
NCLB, for example. There should have been MASSIVE outcry in congress at the destructiveness of that bill. We had the majority in the senate when that one was debated if I recall. It should never have passed.

Bush was going to do this with or without Congressional approval.

The Republicans were not going to pass ANYTHING that increased Bush's responsibility to Congress, so expecting Biden/Lugar to pass is very unrealistic.

You still didn't answer the question. Why did Dean say we should take Saddam out if he honestly believed Saddam wasn't a threat?

Hindsight is 20/20, and Dean is the master at using it, to his credit. He's convinced a lot of people that he never would have had anything to do with any military action where Saddam was concerned, while many of his comments indicate otherwise.

becuase the Democrats were so afraid of Bush's popularity they barely ran a camapaign, not because of the war. Max Cleland voted for the war and lost, Jean Carnahan voted for the war and lost.

We lost in 2002 because we didn't act like a freaking opposition party. We gave the voters the choice between repubs and Dems who voted like repubs.

If you think the only way we can win is by acting even *more* like repubs than we did in 2002, then maybe it is time for a 3rd party to emerge.

Is like Clinton running on Monica. Lets be real.

this ace was played at this time.

You should be rejoicing, stickdog. This so-called capture means that Rove's polling has him convinced that Deanies have this nomination in the bag and that there is no time for Dems to correct course.

Mark it.

1) If the Repukes want Dean, why give his rivals ammo to bring him down months before a single vote has been counted?

2) If the Repukes want to hurt Dean in the general rather than the primaries, why play this card 11 months before the general?

This is just a bump. The violence continues, Americans and Iraqis keep dying, the French, Germans, and Russians want the Iraqi debts paid, so billions keep pouring out of here; George Bush loses.


:dem:

Yup I agree. We'll know him a lot better when the judge releases his records.

I'd love it if folks would actually go to the candidates pages and look up their stances on issues, as opposed to blindly attacking in best schoolyard fashion.

Of course, those that do this make their candidate look like tools (guilt by association, I guess)...funny that.;)

Tomorrow will bring another one.

Because I've been having a hard time figuring that out. From where I stand, Dean's issue has been the Iraqi war. It's going to be a hard sell for him to say the whole thing was wrong when we now have Saddam Hussein in a box.

those are his other big issues.

I've been finding Dean's positions as OK, not great myself, and I vote Democratic.

As I've posted repeatedly recently, I've been very active in the anti-war movement and I've know for months that Dean would have supported invading Iraq if Bush had produced evidence that Hussein posed any real threat to the world. He's been saying this since August 2002.

Dean's not a pacifist, he's not even anti-war (he supported the bombing of Afgahnistan). He, like millions of us around the world, failed to see how Bush provided any justification for invading Iraq.

As to what is Dean known for: he's a fiscal conservative who believes that we need to balance the budget so that we can fund social justice programs. He is a centrist who has demonstrated that he is open to the stances advocated by the left. He speaks his mind, a mind that is opened to being changed if a convincing argument can be made.

Wouldn't want to make those Neo-Cons unhappy now would he...

You SHOULD know very well that removing the tax cuts won't be enough. We will not be able to accomplish much without cutting the Pentagon Budget. And Dean CANNOT do this.

And if Dean is a Centrist then why didn't he run on the positions he had as Governor?

Why didn't he stick to his principles rather than doing 180's on issues right before entering the race?

He is a rank opportunist with a medicore record as Governor.

there is also raising taxes thru repeal of the cuts. I'd forgotten about that !

Look we all know that there are a dozen other things that he considers important as well but this was his signature deal and now it doesn't carry nearly the weight it id before.

Be made this bed...

and it they are repealed there are only so many people who will not see that as an increase. Reality my friend, reality. Don't have to like it but its painful to ignore it.

Those that are against Dean will say anything to discredit him. It is the same tactics that were used against Bill Clinton. Outlandish statements against Dean are de-rigeur for many posters here. Too bad. They discredit themselves and trivialize the issues, cutting short any meaningful debate by doing these things.

but hurts (if you're honest).

that since Dean is opposed to this war, he's on the same side as Saddam. And of course without the support of Saddam, Dean doesn't stand a chance in the elections.

cuz he's done

thus re-isolating Dean in the position that he was in before (as long as he stands his ground). That is exactly what he wants- the opportunity to clearly define himself in opposition to most of the other candidates.

This will MAKE Dean our nominee.

People must watch too many movies; life provides far fewer great pivotal moments.