Sorry to break anti-Dean hearts, but this won't change his status as #1...

I love how Lieberman and Kerry are now flip flopping on the war. They were for it. Then had "reservations" and are now back in the pro-camp.

So this must mean that Dean will surely lose now, right?

Well not likely. How does this change anything? Does capturing Saddam Hussein make any of the arguments made before the war began less valid?

For instance, was the war not a great distraction from the REAL war we should be fighting? That is, the war against terrorism. Didn't the President lie about going to war against Iraq, trying to link them to terrorism (and when that failed) to weapons of mass destruction. Both accusations which turned out to be false.

Will the insurgency not continue? If it does, then without Saddam on the loose - who will the administration blame it on? Won't the continuation of such an insurgency only show the lack of plans with regards to Iraq? Won't it ensure a prolonged American involvement?

Won't that cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars more. Won't that cost the US hundreds of more US troops?

Wasn't this war a profound act of recklessness? Any number of things could have (did and might still) gone wrong. Could the situation in the middle east become MORE unstable? Tensions between the Turks and the Kurds. A possible civil war in Iraq. Palestine and Isreal. Pakistan and India. Iran and Syria becoming more aggressive (especially if they get the impression that 'they are next'). Insurgency greater in Saudi Arabia because of their autocracy?

Will the rest of the world be more likely now to support the US because of what we have done in Iraq? We had practically the whole world on our side after September 11, now only a handful of "willing" partners are on board. Did today's capture make that fact any less real?

What does this all mean for the war on terror? Is there anyone who actually believes that today was a positive development on the larger "war against terrorism?" If so, how?

That's the thing we always seem to forget. Things the Dean haters forget now. An alliance seems to be forming between the conservatives (who initated the war in the first place) and those in the Democratic party (who oppose Howard Dean) to trap and corner Dean.

"You see," they all but say, "our beloved President was right to go to war against Iraq. Dean was wrong. Dean would have kept Saddam in power. Dean has no experience in foreign policy and would be a disaster." The last two statements were made by Democrats today. One by Lieberman, the other by Kerry. They are basically selling the Bush line. They say in effect, "we should play by the rules set out by this administration." The same rules the GOP have mastered and always defeat us with. Dean is saying lets play by a different set of rules.

That is why Dean is doing so well. That is why he is gaining support across this country. Across the different boundaries and groups of the Democratic Party.

I still can't believe that Lieberman and Kerry tried to use what happen today as an attack on Howard Dean. I thought Dean and Clark's responses were the classiest.

The campaign has come down to what it has been all along. Not a Dean vs. Clark. Or Clark vs. Kerry kind of race.

But the outsiders vs. Washington.

The Outsiders (Dean and Clark) vs. Washington (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards).

The problem with Washington Democrats has been well documented over the past couple of years. The failure to stop Bush in Congress at any level. The failure to win back Congress in 2002 (and the loss of the Senate that same year). The DLC strategy of losing all the time and blaming it on the liberals. And on and on.

I like both Dean and Clark. I support Dean, but could easily go to Clark. I have always said that we should work together. Our enemy is the same - the Washington Democrats. And then let Super Tuesday be a test between these two.

Today, I have made an important decision. I will support only Howard Dean or Wesley Clark for President. I will not support John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt or John Edwards. No matter. Under no circumstance. Some of you will attack me. But I think they have sunk to a new low. They are everything that is wrong about the Democratic Party.

Friends, this isn't about ideology. I posted a poll a couple of days ago that showed Dean doing better than all candidates, less Clark (who did only 1% better - against Bush). Dean is no more liberal than Kerry or anyone else. This is about control of our party.

There are three groups:

1) Dean. This group wants a more democratic and accountable party. He wants to give the party back to the grass roots. Let them dictate what the party does. Not the Washington elite.

2) The Clintons. Or Clark. They have the support of more conservative elements, but also have strong support among African American community, etc.

3) The Washington Democrats. Everything they touch, turns to shit.

Back to Dean. You see that is what the magic is all about. That is why people can't figure him out. It isn't about liberalism. It isn't even about the war. It's about frustration. Not against Bush. Against the leadership of the Democratic Party. The grass roots of the party was against the war. That much is certain. Yet the majority of Democrats in Congress supported the war. They opposed the tax cuts. Yet there were enough Democrats to support the bill that ensured its passage. Those that opposed it, did so quietly. There never was any opposition. "The Dean Phenomenon" has very little to do with the war itself. It has to do with giving the Democratic Party back to its grass roots.

That is why what happened today will have very little effect. I know that will anger some people here. They'll be convinced that Dean sold his soul to the devil or that he is the anti-Christ or something. But it's true.

Listening (to the base) would be a good start for these candidates.

Understand why they are so angry and then sell yourselves to them.

Just my thoughts.

1) Dean. This group wants a more democratic and accountable party. He wants to give the party back to the grass roots. Let them dictate what the party does. Not the Washington elite.

Take the party, I want my country back.

only gives the spinners more fodder and I'm not surprised by the reactions of lieman and ker. Good..now we know where they stand ..no backing out of it anymore.
This is all good.

marginalized it's not even funny.

I'm not sure what makes Dean any different. Clark was against the war, too.

Dean is as "electable" as any other candidate.

But that said, do you agree or disagree with the argument that I made? Or will you just take the opportunity to rip up Dean some more?

After all, i'm saying that this is about giving the Democratic base a larger say in what happens. If the other candidates had tapped into this they'd be doing well, too.

Dean comes off as some northeast anti-war candidate who didn't fight in Nam. Clark can actually cite examples of what he's done in battle.

You guys don't like to debate anything. It's all childish play yard taunts and attacks.

Did you read my post? Did you not get what it was about?

It's about why Dean is so popular. It really has nothing to do with the war. It has to do with the base trusting him. He represents the base.

Everytime someone talks about electability, they are saying essentially that there is something wrong with the Democratic base.

The reason the Washington Democrats haven't caught on is for the reason I wrote above.

They ignore the base. They think they are so "independent" but the truth is they do it for their own reasons.

The post actually praised Clark. I don't see how you can turn this post into a Clark vs. Dean post.

who love Dean and the general populace, who will not vote for him.

That's a stupid argument. That was the first stupid argument made about Dean. That his supporters are these white college students who are online.

Yet he has support from one-third of the DNC. He has support from three of the top five (including one and two) labor unions.

He has support from the chair of the African American caucus in Congress.

He has the support from the last Democratic Presidential candidate.

He tops every poll.

He has nearly 50% support in the first caucus and primary.

But why let facts get in the way of stupid juvenile attacks.

are not following the General's campaign promise of not attacking other candidates. Here at DU they are doing the mudslinging of petty insults ad nauseaum. I sometimes question their motives since Clark does not agree with these sort of tactics. HMMMM

It has always been about breaking our party out of the grip of the big money, and then our country. Dean is going all the way, not one doubt in my mind.

You make no sense.

I think it's wrong of you to group Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt in the same category with Lieberman when you're talking about the war.

You may disagree with how Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt voted re: the Iraq resolution, but none of them have ever, EVER supported this war. Edwards and Gephardt were less vocal and pointed in their criticisim, but Kerry repeatedly warned the President against rushing to war, urged him to let the weapons inspections continue, called on him to work within the international community to apply pressure on Saddam. Instead, Bush lied to the American people, touted phony intelligence, thumbed his nose at the international community, and charged headlong into a war that was unnecessary and for which we were not adequately prepared.

Lieberman, on the other hand, has consistently spoken out in FAVOR of this war and believes it was the right thing to do.

I get what you're saying about Washington Democrats, though. I just think that not all Washington Democrats are alike.

It's about the Washington Democrats always giving the finger to the base. And the base being fed up with it.

When they say that "Dean is unelectable (even though polls show him doing better than every single Washington Dem)" They are essentially saying that there is something wrong with these people. That their ideas are crazy or something.

Yes, it's crazy that everyone should have affordable health care.

Yes, it's crazy to think that we shouldn't attack any country for what ever reasons.

Yes, it's crazy to think that rich people shouldn't get tax breaks when middle class and poor families are losing their jobs and homes.

After all, the Washington Dems, who spend too much time at Georgetown cocktail parties, don't want to be seen as supporting "big government," or "soft of national defence," or as "class warriors." My god, what would Sally Quinn think? Alan Greenspan or Bob Woodward might not come to my dinner party. I'll become a Washington social pariah.

Dean says, "who cares about all that. I care about the people."

That's why he does well.

The cocktail party circuit must approve, or tsk, tsk...

No nominations for you!!!

:argh:

It the ultimate power circle-jerk on the Potomac!!!

:puke:

...all I was saying was that, on the subject of the war (which is how you began your post), it's wrong to lump all the Washington Democrats into the same category.

Furthermore, if you look at Kerry's voting record in the Senate (put your disagreement about the Iraq resolution aside for just a moment), he almost unfailingly comes down on the side of the poor and the middle class. On heathcare, on education, on the evironment. He is down the line with the base.

John Kerry agrees that everyone should have affordable health care. John Kerry agrees that we shouldn't attack other countries unless its in our vital national interests. John Kerry agrees that rich people should share a greater tax burden than poor people. And his voting record reflects it.

I know Dean's your man and I'm not saying anything to put him down at all. I'm just saying that for you to claim that Dean is the only person in this race who stands for anything good is not only unfair but untrue.

Anybody but Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt.

I think Jeter has the vision of what the Dean campaign is about. Clark, though I sort of like him, I do not yet know him well enough to back as a VP for Dean.

I don't want to elect someone based on military credentials and the thinking that we need to beat Bush based on having someone with stronger military credentials.

We're going to beat Bush with a grass roots campaign based on real issues. We don't want to try and out do Bush with superior nationalism. Stick to jobs, health care, and education, etc. It got Bush I out of office, and he was coming off of a war high, remember?

If Dean is the nominee, he will have my unequivocal, enthusiastic support...even though I am not enthralled with his positions on a lot of things. I have worked every day for three years to do one thing: defeat Bush. If Dean is the man at the sharp end of the fight, so be it. I will vote for him.

This crap you're spewing makes me feel 100% hopeless about this election. Forest or trees, slink. Choose one, and choose wisely.

Have you seen people who have said they are NBD. BTW despite my idealism and shit, I am ABB just so people know.

My sentiments exactly.

unconditionally. A choice between Bush and these guys isn't much of a choice. If this nationalist war card is what is being played and offered as the candidate choice, then I will look to someone like Nader who has the guts to speak the truth.

This pack of spineless senators has the nerve to waver in their support of the war after they voted for it, then when it looks like they might have a break, they pull back looking like they supported it all along. Just a pack of Washington insider hypocrates.

It would be far better to have Bush for another term than suffer with one of these jokers. At least in 2008 we might get a real candidate, and Bush will have taken the blame for his failings squarely.

BTW, this may be the way that a 3rd party candidate finally makes it, when it becomes obvious that there is no difference between the other two parties.

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

That we will be in lovely Gutatamo Bay. Either way guys I called head of the escape committee a long time ago. However thats just for the teen corp. I better get to be with my friends at the camp :). BTW youre right Vel, every single one of them would be better than Bush, hell I realize this, and I am about as far left as a DUer gets.

I'm having a hard time figuring that out. "Sending a message to the establishment" is swell and everything, but the establishment is almost by definition strong and stable.

those are his other big issues.

I'm having a hard time seeing what the fuss policy-wise is.

to health care------imagine what that could mean in our nation. Every child in America could be covered underneath Dean's health care plan. Plus, Dean is a governor which gives him executive experience.

What, besides the war in Iraq, accounts for the great popular movement behind Dean and his campaign?

Which according to our First Principles, is the source from which all government authority and power flows. Dean understands this, and is a political genius for knowning how to excite it, tap into it, and harness it.

He's popular because he's popular? I wanna know why he's attracted all these people in the first place.

If you recall the last debate, Govenor Dean tried to change to the subject to the economy much to Koeppel's chagrin. He wanted to talk about the health care, job losses, college tuition....
Ring a bell???

I'm sure that Dean wanted to focus on policy a little more; he's the leader. But what makes me think that he'd do any better than any other Democrat if and when he made it to office?

The Dean train is definately being driven by an angry group of individuals, and Saddam being captured hasn't swayed those people at all. Dean's success has nothing to do with his policies or vision for this country, because so far he hasn't articulated any that reasonable people would count as worthy of consideration.

The question is whether or not pure anger towards Bush and Co. can carry Dean or any candidate to the White House. That remains to be seen.

Why then is every candidate asking people to support them based on the unelectability of Howard Dean?

What is the number one argument made by Clark supporters why he should win the nomination? "Because he can win." They are tapping into the same 'anger' that exists among all Democrats.

They want to beat Bush so badly that they don't care who they nominate or what his/her positions are.

Why do so many Deanies sound like republicans?

Dean is not about giving the party to its grassroots. Dean is about being a politician and winning elections. He doesnt have the support to do it any other way, so he took his chances as an outsider and used grass roots methods. Good for him, its given alot of people hope for populism in these increased corporate times. Now if only we could seperate that enthusiasm from the faux progressive politician who is simply exploiting it because he wants to be in the white house. I dont fault him for that, thats his job, but I fault every person who doesnt recognize it for what it is. Dean is a middle of the road democrat who would be just as comfortable running a campaign as an experienced washington man.

As far as the washington elite bs. There will of course always be a discrepency between those who are established in the system and those outside. And it is always good to get new blood in and shake things up, and those in the system will tend to become more conservative. Thats just how things go, its not aweful or evil, and washington "elites" serve a very very important function in this party. Villinizing them does us absolutely no good. This is a major fallacy and its one that the republicans used for years.

The republicans ran many elections to get rid of washington insiders using the same flawed logic and attitudes that you are using. The fact is that when you put a politician in washington, hes just going to become a washington elite. Make dean president, guess what, hes gonna act just like the other washington elites.

So instead of just perenially whining about it and bashing democrats and making yourself a tool of any politician who wants to play the 'washington insider' card, why dont you just accept that this is how the system works and deal with the fact that politics is never going to conform to your ideals. Or, find a true radical progressive and fight to overturn the system. Thats fine too. But backing howard dean and talking radical progressive politics is just silly. Howard Dean is an establishment liberal just like all the rest of the frontrunners.

You calls 'em like I sees 'em. If the "Washington Insider" card as it's being played by Dean isn't pure unadulterated politics, I don't know what is.

But I agree, I don't think Saddam's capture will have much effect on the Dem race at all at this point.

Just like he always has. Calling on him to get the international cooperation, turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, stop turning this into an occupation, and get the target off our troops. I've heard alot of wild interpretations about his comments today, but I haven't heard him once say he was for the kind of unilateral war Bush executed. He's always said he voted to hold Saddam accountable and get inspectors back in, his mistake was trusting Bush to live up to his promises to go through the UN and go to war as a last resort.

Can you show me a link to his comments. I don't think Kerry is stupid. I doubt he changed his view on the war just because Saddam was captured.

I hope what he said was that this was never solely about catching Saddam and that they had dropped the ball on catching him from day one. I hope someone said it.

...If your beef is the IWR vote, I am perfectly willing to accept ABKLEG, or more appropriately, "ABIWR".

However, I look at Edwards as more of an "outsider" than any other candidate.

He has spend exactly 6 years in politics, which is far less than any other candidate. He has never taken a dime from a Political Action Committee.

I am not a big fan of the other three "insiders", but I have always seen Edwards as someone different, who does actually listen to the base and really wants to clean up Washington and fight for the real base, the working people of America.

We could have addressed the Sadaam issue another way (through the UN.)

Our relations with other countries have gone down the toilet.

Our military is stretched dangerously thin.

We've blown lots of money (much of which has gone into the pockets of Cheney, Bush contributors, ...) - the deficit is sky high as a result of this (and other bad Bush moves.)

We've lost lots of American lives.

And we are less safe from terrorism, not more safe, because...

We took our eye off the real threat, and it has grown while we were wasting time in Iraq.

We've increased anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

...

There are lots of reasons Dean was right and Bush was wrong.

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