Democrats Dumb To Dump On Dean - Bill Press

By Bill Press

Tribune Media Services

BREAKING NEWS!

There is still a race for president of the United States underway. Contrary to what you see and hear in the media, the campaign for president has not been suspended until after completion of the California recall on Oct. 7.

But if, due to some satellite breakdown, you accidentally happen upon any coverage of the presidential campaign these days, be forewarned. What you see will not be pretty. It's a replay of the Donner Party: Democrats, about to enter the promised land, eating each other. And the one they're feasting on most is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

The Democratic Leadership Council took the first bite. DLC Founder Al From, who recruited Bill Clinton to bring the Democratic Party back from ruin, warned that Dean belonged to the party's "McGovern-Mondale wing" and would repeat their sad history by winning only two states.

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, DLC President, dismissed Dean's criticism of President Bush with the taunt: "Do we want to vent or to govern?" Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, last year's DLC President, called Dean "a ticket to nowhere." And, like rats following Pied Piper, most political pundits agree, insisting that Dean is simply too liberal to beat George W. Bush.

They are all dead wrong. They underestimate the anger that most Democrats, and a growing number of Americans, feel toward this administration. Besides, Dean is not the wild-eyed liberal they paint him to be. And he definitely has what it takes to beat George W. Bush.

more...................

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1109

He hit all the major points that needed hitting.

I'm talking to people who aren't Democrats. They are Republicans who don't like what Bush is doing to the economy. They are Libertarians who worry about the erosion of our rights. And they are interested in Dean and his message. There's a lot of anger, fear, and worry out there-and Dean is giving people hope with his message of sanity and common sense. We can still take back America-and the way to do it is to walk right over the DLC.

If Lieberman or another DLC GOP-lite wins the nomination over the will of the people, then God pity our country, because it will be 4 )or more) years of Bush tyranny.

for Dean and against Bush. Jobs are top of their list and opposition to Bush dynasty including Bush the Elder and his continued support for NAFTA, an illegal costly war, and the possibility of deployment and death for their loved ones.

Unprecedented support for Dean. Bush is gone.

Dean '04...

.

He was monitor of the last debate. He knows a good horse when he see's one. :)

actually, it was at Joe Trippi's bidding. I will agree with this statement -

"Look at his record in Vermont. Dean governed as a genuine middle-of-the-roader."

Strategic and Tactical Consulting Rick Ridder - Ridder/Braden, Inc.
President and co-founder of Ridder/Braden, Inc., a Denver, Colorado-based consulting firm that he and Joannie Braden founded in 1985. Experience on presidential campaigns of Gary Hart (1984 and 1988), Al Gore (1988), Bill Clinton (1992) and Bill Bradley (2000). Named by the American Association of Political Consultants as "international consultant of the year" in 1998. Immediate past-president of the International Association of Political Consultants. fuller profile...

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/deanorg.html

Trippi did not become Campaign manager until March of 2003.

Why protect the guy who threw the first twenty punches? How GOPlike.

And there is still that other mystery: How is it that the DLC would say Dean is too liberal when they know he was a model DLC governor for 11 years? Why would one of Dean's closest friends in the DLC, Evan Bayh, try to knock Dean? Maybe Dean is bringing along real liberal Democrats to believe that centrism IS pragmatic? Hmmmm???

Seems to have worked out pretty well. A large and growing number of people seem to think Dean had a point.

and DON'T represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that centrist Dean does? Hmmm....damn disingenuous to someone who knows all their records in government. Will definitely work on those who aren't really familiar with government prior to GWB and Iraq. Congrats on that.

All 9 had every opportunity to grab the spotlight and the microphone on GWB and Iraq. Some did better than others with that opportunity.

was that the other Dems were from the Republican wing of the Democratic party. Don't play dumb...Dean dumped on other Democrats and was cheered for it. Just like Jerry Brown in 92.

Dean had a point. And, it was not that they were from the "Republican Wing," it was that they were from the "Passive Wing." Seems to have rung true with many Americans...

PA, IWR, Homeland Security, $350b tax cuts.........

All tacitly/vocally supported by the Senate Dems and a notable ex-leader in the House.

If that's not fair game, nothing is.

Dean '04

And everything in his record of 11 years of governance points to that.

Hell, Dean was ready to talk about restricting some rights THREE DAYS after 9-11. You guys know that Dean always sided with conservatives for stricter law enforcement. You just don't truly care, as long as Dean needs you to cover for him.

...who voted for the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act.

Why? Because he sniffed the political winds and wimped out.

A typical DC pol who shows NO courage when he votes. (Which is only 50% of the time....)

Hey BLM...I think you've missed a couple of Dean threads...

He's led the way for gays, for investigations exposing the GOP and Dem powerstructures, CIA and FBI malfeasance, and rescued trapped soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam, always VOLUNTEERING to go back and save more. He sided with felons who served their time to get their right to vote back. All unpopular issues. All dangerous to a man's life and political career.

YOU wanted Kerry NOT to negotiate with the White House?
YOU wanted Bush to cut out ALL UN involvement, with NO presentation of evidence to the UN?
YOU wanted NOONE to negotiate with Bush to keep him from having a REAL blank check that would have allowed him to invade Iran and Syria, too?

You wanted Kerry to be derelict of duty? It was his DUTY to negotiate with the Bush White house to get a better resolution. Only those completely ignorant of how the Senate works during these times can begrudge Kerry's responsibility to his duty.

Poor John...he got lied to by the shrub...

Just proves that he's not smart enough for the job of President...believing *?

Ya know what? The "rescuing soldiers in Veit Nam" thing is getting a bit tired...WTF does that have to do with how he votes?

That is more than a "bit tired".

Howard "Gary, what do I do?" Dean is the right choice for you. The guy who ONLY fights for his own candidacy but never for his country OR for Democratic values when he governs, choosing instead to avoid fights and seek to align with the GOP right off the bat.

...I'll do it again. John Kerry is a political coward.

Iraq War Resolution.

Patriot Act.

Misses over 50% of votes.

Political Coward. (not to be confused with his outstanding military record...)

WHEN did Dean speak in front of the antiwar rallies?

WHEN did Dean join those legal efforts to end the war?

WHEN did Dean's record as governor of Vermont prove to you that he would NOT have voted for the Patriot Act? Mr. "law and order" governor was talking about the curtailing of civil liberties THREE DAYS after 9-11.

and he's been speaking up for them ever since.

A decade and a half earlier, perhaps?
Political cowardice...MY ASS.

Seriously, Dean has a good record on gay rights that goes earlier than the civil unions decision.

sfe calls Kerry a political coward. How many politicians stuck their necks out for gays before any trend?

I don't see how this relates to Kerry.

or his advocacy papers?

Kerry was accused of being a political coward who somehow pales before Dean's courage. I'd like to see some proof of that. That's all. If Dean showed alot of political courage in Vermont, then there must be quite a paper trail.

Kerry has congressional public testimony advocating for gay positions.

For the love of God I have posted this at least a half dozen times.

several times. But here it is one more time. In an interview with Out In the Mountains about Civil Unions that paper, not Dean says Dean did all of the following.

He signed the Vermont law giving LBGT people basic civil rights in 1992 after having campaigned hard to get it passed.
He appointed the first openly gay Vermont House member.

He gave state benefits to LBGT couples.

He permited gay and lesbian couples to adopt jointly.

This has been posted several times. Given that your standard is evidently that means links don't have to be supplied I won't be doing to. I will say that if you go to msn search and type in Dean and Civil Unions that interview is an early link. The record is in the second or third paragarph of that interview.

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

<>

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose?

Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different.

I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

Whoops! Dean's hypocrisy stinks through his yellowed teeth. Not only is he hypocritical, he completely distorts Kerry's statement.

LEBANON, N.H. (AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam"s regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

''I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied he lied to me personally,'' he said.

Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.

"I don"t have the answer," he said. "I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/061903A.shtml

Kerry said he may have been misled. Dean said flat out that he was misled. You can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.

Imagine that.

No wait...he actually tries to let the shrub off the hook! "...IF he lied...."

Kerry sniffed the winds, and voted. Nuff said.

..but he does dance well.

Dean does. Kerry was skeptical and spoke with many members of the defense and intelligence community about the administration's claims.

"But Kerry's aides insist he didn't passively accept the administration's claims. They say Kerry arranged a private breakfast with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a private briefing with Department of Defense experts, that he grilled Secretary of State Colin Powell at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, and that he consulted with, among others, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and a trio of Clinton administration foreign policy officials: former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and former national security adviser Sandy Berger."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

Since it calls into question the integrity of Bush.

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

"Heavily pro-Israel Dean would have voted that way, too."

You can argue that he's unfairly immune because he didn't have a chance to vote, but to say how he would or would not have voted is just silly.

:crazy:

Saying he wouldn't have voted for any of those things is silly and you would have to contort yourself into a pretzel to find anything in his 11 year record that would prove he would vote against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the IWR. Name one heavily proIsrael/Sharon supporter who voted AGAINST the IWR. Hell, even Henry Waxman voted for it.

Anyway, two facts stand glaringly in the way of your demand that I "prove" he wouldn't have voted for them:

1) He didn't vote for them, and

2) He says that, had he been in the position to vote for them, he wouldn't have.

...seems to me the burden of proof is your responsibility, not mine.

I see the votes on the IWR and Patriot Act less as "Where do I stand?" issues than "How do I save my political ass?" issues. The Dems who voted in favor were saving their political asses. Dean doesn't seem to me to be of that ilk (constantly touting civil unions in front of non-GLBT crowds is not exactly playing it safe).

Imagine that Vermont had another house seat and Dean was in Congress at the time of the IWR. Although I can't know for sure (anymore than you can), I can make an educated guess. In all likelihood Dean would not have voted for it. Why? Vermonters were overwhelmingly against going to war with Iraq. Our entire delegation to Washinton voted against it. Vermonters applauded.
Maybe you're right about Dean being politically motivated on some issues. He's a politician. So is John Kerry.
23 dems in the Senate voted nay on the IWR. I like JK, I'll enthusiastically support him, but after reading his words, and listening to his supporters' arguments, I can come to no other conclusion but that he knew he was running for President and couldn't afford the vote against the resolution. He voted against Gulf War I, (a specious war, but less ostensibly specious than this one) and voted for the IRW.

I listened to my Senators and Congressman just after the votes and they clearly and repeatedly stated that the evidence was shoddy and manipulative. They were strongly and firmly against the War. The convoluted arguments that Kerry's supporters make regarding his position do him no service.

And here let me add a heartfelt THANK YOU to Senators Leahy and Jeffords and Congressman Sanders.

negotiating to keep Bush from invading Iran and Syria? Do you disagree with ANY lawmaker negotiating to keep the UN as part of the process?

WHO should have been the lawmaker who put their vote up for negotiation? Sometimes, when that is your area of expertise...you have to show up and be responsible.

Would you like Bush to have had a REAL blank check?

I keep hearing this from you and Nick, but I simply don't agree. Bush has EXACTLY the same ability to invade Iran, or Syria, or Spain for that matter, with the combination of:

1) the War Resolution, and

2) the reluctance of certain members of Congress to actually enforce the supposed, toothless restrictions placed on Bush by the War Resolution, AND

3) the propensity for SOME Congressmen to "cry foul" without making any substantive efforts to hold Bush accountable.

Go ahead, show me where I've erred in this assessment...

heavily support Israel and voted against the resolution (Ohio US Reps). Also Boxer voted against and her record on Isreal is good as is Leahy's.

hardliners? I never noticed that before in their records or their statements. They may be proIsrael in a balanced way, but, I doubt they are proSharon hardliners who support Sharon's wall like Dean.

they voted for the contraversial resolution on Israel that people here complained longly and loundly about. I doubt they support the wall but the many of the whites in Tubbs Jones district are Jewish. She has Beechwood, Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, and several other heavily Jewish communities in her district.

and highly educated in those districts. More likely to be pro peace process than proSharon. Dean is very proSharon and pro wall, which I just don't see as the majority position in that area.

I know that burns you up inside.

Sorry that's so hard to comprehend. Don't worry, political and military analysts will soon weigh in to explain how all of Dean's statements over the last year NEED some clarification for those who didn't pick up on ALL that he has said. Not just some of what he has said...ALL.

Seriously, do you want another election where the press is flooding us about the color of the progressive candidate's underwear?

We need to be insistent that the debate and coverage are focused on substantive issues. Dean is giving the other candidates what is long overdue, and I wouldn't put it past the establishment to dish out a ton of BS as a smokescreen.

Al From supports Joe Lieberman and Bruce Reed supports Edwards. One of the others, can't remember the name, supports Kerry.

The DLC as a whole is not the problem. It's the DLC leadership that is the problem.

because Dean has so much grassroots support and the DLC doesn't like to lose control. Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman are wishy-washy Bush-lite politicians and don't want to rock the boat by bashing Bush---DEAN is not afraid to speak up about the Bush cartel.

Why would Evan Bayh bash Dean? I would say that doesn't make him much of a close friend and that isn't very smart on his part---and the same for Joe Lieberman.

The DLC thinks they rule and they don't. Their opinions don't matter to the people because the people rule and the people will decide who the next president is---NOT the DLC. They will say and do anything to diss Dean because he is rising in the polls and unfortunately he is the object of derision by those who are jealous of his popularity by the grassroots.

Dean is a pragmatist, and YES, I would call being centrist very pragmatic. That has always been his governing style.

ever. McGovern was the last person to try it, and it failed.

Anger and fear are the domain of the fascists. When FDR was president, Republicans, like Bush's grandfather, tried to use anger and fear -- the techniques of Hitler -- to scare people into voting for them so they could impose their own version of fascism, American-style. FDR fought it off with hope and comfort.

If anger rules the day in 2004, it will just make Republcans angrie and more motivated, and people in the middle, when angry and afraid, will always look for comfort in the Republicans.

If hope rules the day, everybody who is a liberal in the core of their being will be super motivate to vote (as they were with Clinton, LBJ, JFK (in a squeaker), FDR over and over during wartime, and even Carter) and people in the middle will wake up to and vote for the kind of world they really want, one in which they can have health, wealth and happiness.

It is about Bush's failed economic policies, and more importantly, Bush's failed security policies which Edwards supports.

motivate voters. Please name one presidential campaign in which a Democrat has won the election by scaring people?

(As for the dig on Edwards, I'm not sure that his statements on Iraq support that claim.)

Dean offers an optimistic pro-job, pro-security vision for America.

Edwards? Well, forget about his vote turning the "regular people" in the armed forces he loves so much into targets with no international support. His daddy was a millworker, so everything is fine.

No thanks, I'll pass on that!

and candidates need to acknowledge it. That's why the tack that some Democrats take--"I support the president"-- is a losing proposition. From the point of view of the party activists and the other people who've been screwed over by the Busheviks, the Dem who says, "I support the president" is worse than useless.

But while tapping into anger to get the voters' attention, candidates also have to offer a positive vision.

Bush offered a vision that appealed to the no-tax, all-Bible crowd, even if he sometimes did it in code, such as agreeing to speak at Bob Jones university. As a result, the hardcore Republicans worked their asses off for him.

Meanwhile, Gore was overly cautious, as if he believed all the DLC propaganda about how the country was inevitably going conservative, as if he was acknowledging that Bush was partly right. He did not fight back against the slanders of the Republicans.

There is no better indication of this than the fact that two days before the election, record numbers of voters were undecided. I know several people who were for Nader up to the last minute and switched their votes to Gore, not because Gore had excited them, but because Bush had scared them.

How could voters still be undecided between an incompetent country club brat/religious fanatic and an intelligent, experienced ex-vice president?

I know all the statistics about getting more votes than any other Democrat and winning a 500,000 popular vote majority. But if Gore had acknowledged the frustrations of traditional Dem constituencies and offered an attractive, coherent vision for the future of America instead of just saying "me too" and speaking in repetitious generalities about "policies for working families," he would have won another state or two, Ralph Nader would have won 0.05% of the vote, and we never would have heard of Cruella Harris.

The 2004 Dem nominee has to motivate the rank and file Democrats to work their asses off for him, and he has to offer a vision that appeals to the real needs of this country. Otherwise, only the hardcore Dems will vote (reluctantly), the independents will remain uninspired and stay at home, and the Republicans, as usual, will turn out by the millions to vote according to instructions from the RNC and/or their local fundamentalist church.

Democrats to be exploiting. I guess it's fine as an attention getter, I know I'm mad as hell. But, for the average voter (and there are way more of them), I just think fear and anger drives you to conservativism (think Germany between the wars). I'll get way more energized by a candidate who talks like FDR and JFK and gets the average voter to hope for a better tomorrow (rather than afraid of a scarrier tomorrow). I am angry, but, as far as motivating me, witnessing an angry politician isn't going to do it.

And Gore's problem was that he was a bad campaigner, and not that he wasn't an angry enough campaigner (I don't remember Clinton or JFK campaigning on fear and anger).

"do we want to vent or to govern" what can you expect from someone who supported this unethical war?

to act as First Lady/escort.

elitist socialite who has married money all her life.

They call that gold digging...

Waitaminit...here's another one...

Kerry is in the closet and only married Heinz for cover, and besides he needed the money after his secret invesment in BCCi went bust.

How's that?

No...no...how about this...

Let's go and investigate Kerry's *first* marriage to wealthy Philadelphia socialite and heiress Julia Thorne...that ought to get interesting...looks like the Senator has a proclivity for marrying money, huh?

Can Catholics divorce?

Nice that you can have fun on your job.

You hate Kerry...good. You must not be gay, or a stranded soldier, or an ex- felon who lost his right to vote, or an environmentalist.

I just don't support him. (And I'm not obsessed with him...)

I'm just showing you that mirror you always bring up. You're obsession with smearing and demeaning Howard Dean knows no limits. It's pretty sad. You even stoop to implying marital infidelity, when you know damn well (because it has been pointed out to you numerous times) that this "escort" shit you chronically dredge up happend years ago when he was a Governor, and the families were friends. You continually throw it out here like it's some awful thing.

You want to talk about marital infidelity or marital problems? We can take a real hard look at YOUR candidate. You wanna do that? Because I'll be glad to...

BTW...how come John "the rescuer" Kerry isn't over in Iraq rescuing stranded soldiers there? They sure could use his help...after all he is responsible for sending them there...

Just that those who distrust Evan Bayh and the DLC seem to think there is NO connection between Dean and the DLC and Bayh, when they happen to be quite close personally - and I think Bayh's scolding is a red herring meant to bring more lefties to Dean's way of thinking which happens to be quite similiar to Bayh's way of thinking.

BTW....YOU are the one who starts threads attacking other candidates. I merely reply with the fact that Dean is a longtime centrist, with close ties to the DLC. If you think that is a smear and demeaning, then why does Dean NOW emphasize that he is a centrist?

Kerry must secretly be aligned with republicans!

And close friends. When did Dean resign from the DLC? When did Bayh decide his friend was too liberal?

McCain doesn't pretend to take shots at Kerry, does he?

Who is now the DLC posterboy for some reason.

The DLC is forced to the left. We all know that Kerry's liberal ratings are similar to Wellstone's and Kennedy's. Dean's 11 year history is similar to Bayh's.

Kerry has more baggage than the average trans Atlantic flight.

Dean '04

Have you ever thought of the fact he may be secular, many of my relatives of Catholic and divorced. Kerry wasnt poor so the arguement he married in to wealth is nonsense.

The wife of Andrew Jackson, 7th POTUS, died before he was inaugerated as President in 1829.

Wearing the white dress she had purchased for her husband's inaugural ceremonies in March 1829, Rachel Donelson Jackson was buried in the garden at The Hermitage, her home near Nashville, Tennessee, on Christmas Eve in 1828. Lines from her epitaph--"A being so gentle and so virtuous slander might wound, but could not dishonor"--reflected his bitterness at campaign slurs that seemed to precipitate her death.

A short biography of Rachel can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/rj7.html Rachel's favorite niece, Emily serverd as hostess until her death in 1836.

Though only 21 when she entered the White House, (Emily) skillfully cared for her uncle, her husband, four children (three born at the mansion), many visiting relatives, and official guests. Praised by contemporaries for her wonderful tact, she had the courage to differ with the President on issues of principle. Frail throughout her lifetime, Emily died of tuberculosis in 1836.

During the last months of the administration, Sarah Yorke Jackson, wife of Andrew Jackson, Jr., presided at the mansion in her stead.

James Buchanan, 15th POTUS, never married. Hostess was his niece Harriet Lane (1830-1903) http://www.potus.com/jbuchanan.html


The function of hostess is ceremonial and for formal etiquette purposes. These etiquette rules are from the "good old" days when women were subservient to men, but today women are allowed to be professional tradespeople, like Dean's wife, who may not enjoy playing hostess at state functions. And that is her RIGHT as a citizen to not have to play hostess at these functions. Some women enjoy that crap and that's OK too.

So, get with the modern times. It's OK now for women, including wives of governors and Presidents of the USA, not to have to play hostess at state functions. And for formal etiquette's sake, it's OK for male governors and Presidents of the USA to seek other women, who enjoy playing hostess to perform that formal but empty duty.

Surely you get the difference?

Jackson's wife was dead.

Buchanan wasn't married.

The hostesses were not married to other politicians.

Dean is married, and his wife is alive. His hostess was another man's wife.

I don't know whether I care too much, but I'm just pointing out the obvious differences of circumstances.

If we're going to "get with modern times", why does Dean need a hostess anyway? Why not just go to those functions alone????

???????????

and I don't have one.

Bayh lends his wife to Dean? please don't talk in code if you have something to say just say it. I was not attacking John Kerry by the way by my comments about Evan Bayh I just think his comments are stupid. "are we going to vent or govern?" well all the candiates are venting right now.

During the time that Dean was chair of the National Governor's Association at least. Judy Steinberg (Dean's wife) is not into politics, so Susan Bayh went with Dean to various functions/dinners/etc.

Newsflash, those of us who are gay have done the beard thing ourselves. We don't sleep with the people involved, we don't necessarily even know the people involved that well. I can't imagine it is that different in this case. In both cases you wish to have an escort for an evening to impress someone.

Maybe I am missing something but I have actually done this sort of thing before and it seems to me the person you would have the chemistry with would be the hostess. Not the husband. I don't know beans about Mrs. Byah do you?

"The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction or any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 prove that Dean was right and the others were wrong."

The issue was not the imminence of the threat. It was about disarming Saddam and holding him accountable to the peace treaties he had signed then repeatedly violated.

"Dean has a few other things going for him. He is a licensed physician, not a professional politician."

Um, how long do you have to be in office to be considered a professional?

"And he's not afraid to tackle President Bush head on. That's good. Democrats will never beat George Bush by running Bush Lite."

Way to parrot Dean's cheap and baseless attacks.

"The last person to go straight from the U.S. Senate to the White House was John F. Kennedy."

You're damn straight. Dean is no John Kennedy. He's not even Bill Clinton.

That's why the inspectors were crawling all over his country.

To bad Bush cut short our work with the UN to wage a premature war.

And too bad Kerry supported him.

Not to worry too much. An enourmous bank of Deans continuous changes of stance are being prepped for media release as soon as the other candidates begin actively campaigning in Septemeber. I know, because I am involved in locating and preparing the info. Thanks, I had totally missed this one.

Not on DU much lately as I am actively involved in preparing a complete list of Deans record as Governor, and other are preparing records of his many shifts and changes of opinion, from the War on Iraq to the Cuban Embargo, for use by another candidate after labor day. Oddly enough, it is not being prepared for Kerrys campaign, but another candidate, but as long as it show Deans actual record as governor, and his shifting stances, I dont much care. The record will simply be revealed without giving a point of view about it. Deans own actions and quotes as govenror will speak for themselves.

than Bill Clinton and I'd prefer Truman to Clinton every day. I liked Bill, but am not enamored of him, like some people are.

makes me angrier than:

The issue was not the imminence of the threat. It was about disarming Saddam and holding him accountable to the peace treaties he had signed then repeatedly violated.


It was absolutely about imminent threat, both implicily and explicitly. The only way bushco could sway the opinion of Americans was by scaring them to death. The admin worked tirelessly towards this aim. Remember Pearle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. on the Sunday morning talk shows? For months and months these guys pushed imminent threat down the collective American throat. Buying into the bullshit revisionism now being spewed by the administration is inexcusable because it's such a transparent crock.

Revisionism From 1997? Kerry's stance is exactly the same as it was in 1997.

1997: "Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

"While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

Before the IWR vote: "Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."

Bill Press really knows how to tell it like it is!

Dean hasn't been getting a fair shake from the DLC and the media. He has a good chance to beat G.W. and when he's called a wide-eyed liberal I don't know who they're talking about. He's not a conservative Democrat like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman either and people who say he is are just dead wrong. His policies have always been pragmatic and progressive and you can't put a label on that.

How apt, Kennedy than Kerry. Two deomcratic senators who went on to be president.
By the way, Im speaking to you now from the year 2004!

I also think that it is wonderful when Senators, Congressmen, and Governors decide to endorse a primary favorite. But I think this crosses a line when these Democrats begin to attack our primary candidates as McGovern Democrats, and resort to the lame political name calling brought into style by creeps like Lee Atwater.

It is time for the DLC to release its plan or intentions regarding the upcoming Presidential campaign. Standing on the sidelines, and throwing stones at our candidates is not acceptable to any true Democrat. The DLC has been indicating that it does not play a role in supporting primary candidates, but it did back Gore and Clinton for President after they were nominated.

The DLC may not make primary endorsements, but they instead choose which possible nominees they turn their backs on as their vengeful means of punishing candidates who dare to differ with the DLC demands.