No single candidate (response to Dean supporter)

is more important than the success of Democratic ideals in 2004. And that includes Dean. Can you agree with that? Do you want him to win more than you want the principles of the Party to win?

You want this guy to be "it" so badly that you can't or won't see when he disappoints. To those not basking in the glow, he disappoints a lot, and frankly his true believers who keep making excuses for him disappoint a lot, too.

Without getting emotional about it, can you honestly say that the Dean "weepy and liberal" statement did not give you a single moment of pause? He jumps around on Social Security age for several years including last year, you think that's okay. He agrees to send nuclear waste to the most depressed (and Hispanic) part of Texas, you have an excuse for that. He makes misstatements about other candidates but won't apologize or retract, but you have no problem with that. He has some fudgy reason why he stood against Clinton and with Gingrich on medicare, but still he says he's Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He is anti-war unless you're talking about North Korea where he will happily bomb away, but he's still a peace candidate to you.

Listen, he makes the rest of us really nervous. Nervous for lots of good reasons. And when all you do is blow back without addressing our concerns, we think that you, like Dean himself, have no answers and you, like Dean, think somehow you don't even have to give answers. That is a recipe for massive Democratic defeats across this country.

Democratic ideals have to win in 2004. No single candidate is more important than that goal. Not one, including Dean.

Is that people don't have enough sense to take him seriously. Everyone says he is the best qualified candidate, then in the next breath they say it's a shame he can't win. Well Duh...what's wrong with being the best qualified?

The DLC "product."

...look everyone, forget Dean, what about CLARK CLARK CLARK???

It is also a sign of paranoia when some Dean supporters constantly divert to Clark and think that everyone who isn't in Dean's corner is in Clark's.

Sad.

You really believe that? Clark's threat is diminishing every day. The media gave him "The Stage" and he muffed his lines. The opportunity was lost.


Outside of Arkansas, which primary(s) do you think he'll win?

than winning. Period. Full stop.

This is no time for dreamers.

That's the attitude that got the Republicans stuck with Bush instead of one of their many more qualified potential candidates

then we win?

What kind of victory is it if we become worse than the enemy we want to defeat?

"Settling" on a candidate that does not support the beliefs and values of this party is no victory. It's an even worse defeat than losing to the Republicans.

Lieberman isn't much of an improvement, but he's still an improvement. None of the candidates is going to put us worse off than we are now. "Settling" on a candidate may be the only way to get Bush the hell out of the white house, and that sure as hell is a victory.

Peepers

1) Nope. I'm firmly an ABB Democrat (even if that "anybody" is Lieberman).

2) I'm finding it difficult to deal with both the "Dean is too left-wing to be a viable candidate" and the "Dean is practically a Republican" crowds at the same time. You must admit that both assessments have been made. I'd suggest that Dean is a centrist overall...a fiscal conservative and a moderate liberal (but not too liberal). I don't think that distancing himself from the far left by implying that some "liberals" can be "weepy" to the exclusion of common-sense solutions is a detriment.

3) He made statements in 1993 and 1995 in reference to Social Security that differ from his current positions. Hell, Kucinich was Pro-Life just a couple of years ago. Dean has clearly stated that he feels that the situation is different that in was 10 years ago and he doesn't feel that raising the SS age is necessary at this time. I'd HOPE that my chosen candidate was capable of changing his views based on new circumstances, wouldn't you?

4) Dean agreed (along with Maine) to ship their nuclear waste to Texas. It was his belief (one that makes sense to me) that central repositories are more easily monitored for safety and security. Maine and Vermont contracted with Texas to store their nuclear waste. It was the sole responsibility of Texas to locate the site. The Texas legislature appointed a commission to recommend a site and they selected the town of Sierra Blanca. The federal review panel subsequently rejected Sierra Blanca as a viable site for a number of reasons. Maine and Vermont had NO voice in the selection of the site. Further, Dean knew that the site had to be approved by a federal review panel. Why, then, would you expect the Governor of a state thousands of miles away to challenge the findings of a state-appointed commision....especially since the findings would ultimately be reviewed by a federal panel? We can discuss this further, but I feel comfortable that Maine and Vermont are free of any blame for the Texas commission's selection of sites.

5) I think Dean has been very clear on the Medicare statement. If you read the full quote, he says that he believed that Medicare was a bad program because of the way in which it was administered. He never advocated eliminating Medicare, he expressed frustration with Medicare beaurocracy. I fail to see how anybody could express anything OTHER than frustration with this.

6) I've never considered hima "peace" candidate. He stated that he didn't support the war in Iraq because of the way in which it was done. He never claimed to be "anti-war". In this way, he and I share beliefs. I'll support military action when necessary to protect American interests or allies. I don't support the administration's lying to us about the reasons for the war. I believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq's threat to us WAS contained. I don't feel that Iraq posed a threat to us, nor do I believe in the "Iraq/terrorist" link. Dean's not anti-war, he's anti-stupid, unjustified war.

You may not agree with my responses, but I DID provide answers. You're absolutely right, if not Dean, then another Dem...but no more Bush. I just think that Dean's the best chance of making that a reality.

1. Glad to hear that you are with the eventual candidate even if the candidate is not Dean. This is a worry of others, so that is good news.
2. My concern is not that he is too left or too right, but that he says things that are not thoughtful, sometimes too left, sometimes too right, too often too wrong. This "weepy and liberal" remark was one version of the problem. Out of place rhetoric -- does it reflect how he really thinks? The claim that he was the only candidate talking about race to white audiences is another version. Self-congratulation and false attack at the same time. Combined later with a refusal to back off even when told by national reporters that Lieberman and Edwards talk about civil rights to white audiences. You have a point and an answer here, I admit, but it is not really an answer to my question. Does it give you any pause at all when he says these things?
3. On Social Security, Dean said he would consider raising the age last year, in addition to saying it 1993 and 1995.
4. I am willing to be corrected but I believe that the site was known when the deal between Vermont and Texas was signed. He did not choose it, but he knew it. This is the worst kind of environmental racism, and if he is guilty of it, he is not protected because Maine also did it.
5. You had to be in the war over the Contract with America to appreciate what a treachery it was for anyone to side with Gingrich, whatever his explanations now (I have not seen anyone including Dean point to any contemporaneous explanations like the one you suggest). And let's be fair: Having an opinion that Medicare was poorly administered is not an excuse for siding with Gingrich who was trying to gut Medicare.
6. And do you feel threatened by North Korea? Dean apparently does, although North Korea has not invaded anyone in fifty years. Here what bothers me is the hypocrisy, not the position on Iraq.

And I do not think the Iraq votes of the other candidates were well thought out. I also am most concerned about some of the ties Clark has to firms which are doing the Capps II and involved with the Patriot Act.

Seems to me we could let our candidates' views evolve a little this year. We are attacking them more than the GOP is. It is sad.

the problem with the SS statements were his repeated denials that he ever had those opinions in the mid 90's.

I know it has been a while since I took a math class but I always thought repeated should be more than one.

Don't get caught up on his rhetoric for conservative voters.

Substance:
treat substance abuse as a medical issue, rather than a "criminal problem," and to fight racism in sentencing.

Rhetoric:
"we can't get all weepy and liberal about this,"

This is called grassroots...we are part of the process and it feels GOOD.

I very very much resent these types of posts. It does not portray Dean as a viable candidate, which is a ridiculous thing to do. It makes us,as his supporters, look like we are some silly little creatures with no brain.

That is awful to do this. Where the heck did you get the idea we are so idealistic and unreasonable.

This is insulting.

:evilgrin: hey it isnt really that bad.

You need practical.

Because if you don't get elected...everything...including all that idealism, is out the window.

Focus on the bottom line here.

Get elected.

You accuse us of being idealistic. Who said we were???

This is just tiring. How in the heck do you know who I will vote for in the end and who I won't vote for. What in the world makes you think that we won't support the party.

Right now, I am so sick of it that I refuse to tell you or anyone who else I will vote for. Start treating us with respect, not like we are cutesy little kids oohing and ahhing.

Look I dont have a problem with being pragamatic but I do consider myself an idealist and I am ABB so does that make a bad person. Idealism isnt a bad thing really neither is being pragmatic, but I wonder if people who dont like idealists consider RFK wrong for being ok with it.

We need idealists to push us all in the right direction. To push us all towards that unatainable idealistic goal. Is it a mirage? Does it matter if it is? Reach for the stars and land on the moon.

Without it we die inside. If this is a Democratic forum, we should NOT have to be "tough" to come here. We can ask the questions, talk about the stances, but there is never an excuse for one Democrat to put other Democrats down.

That is what is happening here. The tools of the right wing are being employed here on this forum by many. It scares me.

More frequently here we are hearing: "don't be so thin-skinned", "get a grip", "get over yourselves", "wake up" and I could go on.

I don't think we should use those words against each other now.

I am a democrat and ABB so please cut me some slack.

This is just so totally ridiculous. I am tired of Clark, Kerry, and Kucinich supporters lecturing us as though we were children.

Some of the nicest and kindest people on this board are Dean folks, though I do admit that a couple try to make points against Clark and Kerry.

Stop lecturing us, stop making us sound silly and ignorant.

John Kleeb's remarks, and the initial post.

They were talking about idealism.

I was talking about winning.

I think it is mostly SOME Clark and Kerry supporters who put Dean supporters down. Kucinich posters for the most part are a little gentler and easier to get along with, but there are a few...

Dean people are great and they love their candidate. They are, however, not mindless simpletons who would follow Dean off a cliff. They like Dean because of his ideas and his intellect. They like him because he's not afraid to change his mind if he reasons that there might be a better way to do things. I am not in the least concerned that he has changed his view on certain things, nor do I think that should even be a problem. What would be a problem to me would be to stubbornly hang on to outmoded ideas that wouldn't or couldn't be implemented because of a change in circunstances. He's a doctor and like he says, if the theory doesn't fit the facts, change the theory to fit the facts, not the other way around.

Dean has the ability to do lead, the ability to speak, and the ability to excite a crowd. I think he's one of the most honest candidates running for president and I trust him implicitly.

If you don't like Dean, don't vote for him. If you like Kerry or Clark, vote for one of them. I would vote for either one of them if they get the nomination. I don't bash the other candidates OR their supporters UNLESS you get in my face and treat me disrespectfully.

I know this rant probably won't make any difference to you Dean-haters out there because I know you'll continue doing what you're doing, however, it's not going to change my opinion about Dean.

Agreed.
:hi:

With all due respect, I would call this a gross understatement.

I don't think Dean supporters are idealistic. The real idealists in my view are with Kucinich. I don't think Dean appeals to the idealists or realists. It is always nice to think one is an idealist not subject to the dirty ways of the real politic, but that role is already taken -- without any apologies or compromise -- by Kucinich.
(FWIW, I am not a Kucinich voter)

I'm a realist.
Dean appeals to me.

I think you're accurate here. I think Kucinich appeals to the idealist...that's me. I'm an unapologetic, defiant idealist. And I will be until my last breath. And I think, based on my interaction with Kucinich supporters and supporters of other candidates, that the idealists are with Kucinich.

I also think w4rma is correct. We need idealists. We don't all have to be idealists, but the idealists move the agenda; "reach for the stars, land on the moon." If some of us weren't reaching for the stars, none of us would get as far as the moon.

You don't have to be an idealist to value idealism; you don't have to be a Kucinich supporter to recognize what he brings to the election, and to value what he has to say.

Unapologetic, defiant idealist checking in.

=> optimistic realism

..."Listen, he makes the rest of us really nervous. Nervous for lots of good reasons. And when all you do is blow back without addressing our concerns, we think that you, like Dean himself, have no answers and you, like Dean, think somehow you don't even have to give answers. That is a recipe for massive Democratic defeats across this country....."

All the questions have been answered over and over, and he has even admitted to changing his mind since 1995. Hell, if I told you some of the folks I had voted for years ago, and some of my stances, it would make you furious.

All you have to do is to go to his website, do a search, and you can find most any topic you need. It is just silly to keep asking and asking and asking, and treating it as if we don't respond. We quit responding the night Will Pitt went on a tear against Dean, and no matter what we said he had a retort as though we refused to answer.

Now that is rude and it is not productive. I see no reason on earth you should fear Dean. If you want to be perfectly realistic, we all know that Clark or Kerry will get the bid, no matter how many of us support and donate to Dean. They are the establishment, and they will be put in. And quite frankly, Clark's connections really truly worry me.

So, there you go. You won.

The responses here are a good example of the mix, though, of Dean supporters: some reasoned (even if some of us think that is flawed, but DU is for that dialogue) and some just hurling back like there is something wrong with asking the question. And, frankly, Dean himself is a little like that (which is one of the things that worries us).
My question was: does anything he says ever make you wince? Did you really not wince when you read that "weepy and liberal" language?

And I did not write Will Pitt's posts. And I think what I am asking is less a defense of Dean than a question about how self-critical his supporters are willing to be. (And maybe that is also a good question for supporters of all candidates, but my question right now is about Dean since he made a comment that I find indefensible but that Dean people seem unashamed to defend.)

I don't see where you've actually given the defenses stated much thought. You seem to have a closed mind, to me.

I wince at the website of a Kerry supporter who has another website called Waffle-powered Howard. He is big poster here, always after Dean.

I wince at Clark's connections to the military, not because it is just military, but the connections to businesses with secretive projects.

I think we have done nothing here but defend and explain what Dean means. Then we start over again.

He is very far from a perfect candidate. That is why I like him. He is changing, and he is not afraid or ashamed to admit it.

Why don't you go to his site, read the issues and press releases. Think about it. I don't feel obligated to keep defending. I don't go after other candidates unless I have a specific thing. Yours are too many and too general. You just plain don't like Dean. Period.

Your question should not just be about Dean, it should be for all candidates. If Dean made a comment you don't like, then don't vote for him. That simple.

That's what primaries are for! If he's not your choice, vote for someone else, someone who inspires you. After the Convention, rethink things and decide what to do at that point. I'm not worried about your vote in the general election-if the other choice is Bush then there is no choice.

love being a real Democrat? These are exciting times and one of our guys is quite likely going to be the next president of the United States! I don't care if its Clark, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, etc. They all have the potential to be winners.

I still think Clark's the best, but thats JMO.

it's going to get hot and heavy out there soon! We ain't seen nothin yet.

"No single candidate is more important than the success of Democratic ideals in 2004".

But your fear that Dean supporters will not support the dem candidate is unfounded. Here at DU polls have demonstrated that the vast majority of of Dean supporters will support whoever get the nomination. Thread after thread addressing this matter flesh out these polls. That concern should be put firmly to rest. I hope you can do that.

I've never thought Dean will win the dem nomination. I support him for a few reasons: He opposed and spoke out against the Iraqi War, I know him better than any other candidate, (He was my governor for 11 years) and lastly, his campaign has jump started the entire party.

I don't like his weepy and liberal statement. It's vintage Dean. The guy has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth. He did it in Vermont fairly frequently, almost always managing to extricate it without harm, but this is the national stage and not the intimate setting of Vermont politics. As for the rest of your statements about
SS, other candidates and North Korea, Dean is by no means the only candidate who has made contradictory statements over the years, or made deliberate misstatements about other candidates. Both Gephardt and Kerry have engaged in this sort of thing. BTW, Dean has repeatedly said that we should engage in unilateral talks with N. Korea. He does not advocate a bellicose policy in that region of the world.

Finally, I want to point out that your post is both emotional and slanted. You use phrases like "happily bomb away", you characterize Dean supporters in an extremely negative manner and seemingly have not one positive thing to say about Dean and his campaign. Personally, whenever I point out a concern I have about a candidate, I always state something positive about that candidate. And it's easy for me to do, because I genuinely have good things to say about all of them. The lens you look at Dean through, is so clouded by your own antipathy that you're unable to look at him or his supporters dispassionately.

When you are trained to turn off your emotions to be able to tell people they are going to die you can't do it unless you can just do what needs to be done without getting all "weepy". Weeping doesn't fix things. Taking action does. Dean is not a "weeper", he's a man of action. Doctors have this kind of demeanor, and Dean is no exception. I happen to think it makes him better able to get things done because he deals with facts so well.

Besides, I'm a Democratic-leaning swing voter and am *not* obligated to vote for the Democratic Party. I'll probably fall in line this year since Bush sucks so bad, but the "space-monkey" stuff from William Pitt & co. is a real turnoff. I'm a human being, dammit!

Dean's positions on social security, the nuclear waste smear, medicare, and war are clear. Objections have been met satisfactorily on this thread and others.

"Listen, he makes the rest of us really nervous. Nervous for lots of good reasons. And when all you do is blow back without addressing our concerns, we think that you, like Dean himself, have no answers and you, like Dean, think somehow you don't even have to give answers. That is a recipe for massive Democratic defeats across this country."

That actually makes me think of Clark, since I have never received answers to questions I've asked about him and have run into (supposed?) supporters who would make Pavlov proud.


DemDogs, you've already recived several thoughtful responses from other Dean supporters in this thread, so I won't repeat what they have said. But I wonder why you seem so anti-Dean in this post rather than pro-Dem. I've seen supporters of every candidate say that they will not vote for X if s/he gets the nom, and yet you single out Dean supporters. That unfortunately shows your bias here.

Who is your candidate? Why not post positive things about your candidate? Or even TRULY pro-Dem threads that point to the positives of all of our candidates? They all have their strong points, you know- even Dean.

No, I don't think he's perfect. No, I have not been duped or fooled into supporting him- I know his positions very well. No, I am not involved in some cult of personality. No, I am not only a Dean supporter, I am a Democrat. (which is one reason Clark bothers me, btw). There- have I covered all of the things usually thrown at Dean supporters?

I'm impressed that the level of debate in this thread has gone up--- not one single "Drink the Kool-Aid" comment (yet). :eyes:

What in the hell do you even mean by this? If you are referring to the Democratic party, their ideals are effectively the same as the Republican party, i.e., "Get power and keep power." The Dems play to one group in order to achieve this goal, the Reps play to the "opposite" group. Good people (Dean, Kucinich, Graham, to name just 3 of the Presidential contenders) ally with a party out of necessity, because the parties have monopolized the political process. When it comes down to the wire, Dems pay a lot of the same dirty tricks as Reps. Dems make the same deals with big corporations as Reps, and screw their constituents over just as often.

So what Democratic ideals are you talking about?

Do not vote party line. Vote the individual, vote your mind, vote your conscience.

End the party system.

...for one reason. DC is bought and paid for by big money special interest groups. This time we have an opportunity to change the process and return some measure of control to the people.

I'm not voting for specific issues, I'm voting for systemic change in the process itself. If Dean does not emerge as the party's candidate in 04 then the choice between Bush and anyone who is not Dean is essentially meaningless. Either way, the corrupt process at the root of Washington politics remains unchanged.

If Dean doesn't win the primary I can go back to my former state of political apathy because that will be a strong indicator that efforts to change the process and return some measure of power to the people have failed. And if it's going to be politics as usual I don't really give a damn which party is in office, because they are both bought and paid for by their respective clients. (edited for typo)

Kerry and Edwards do not take PAC money. Edwards doesn't even take Washington lobbyist money. Dean has taken money from plenty of interests in Vermont with whom he had to deal as Governor and with whom he was friendly, which accounts for some of his vulnerabilities on environmental issues. Of the existing candidate field, Dean has perhaps the most historical connections between the people who helped him with money and the people he helped as Govermor.

I completely agree that money is a problem. But Dean is not Mr. Clean on this. If this is the issue that concerns you, you should be first for Edwards and second for Kerry.

(But it's not really the issue, is it? It's an excuse. You have fallen for the line that it is about you, when it is not. Just like Nader saying that it made no difference whether Bush or Gore was elected, they were the same candidate. Well, now Nader knows, they weren't the same candidate. It does make a difference, and if you really think the other candidates are no different than Bush, you are living on another planet. Ask your candidate what he thinks you should do. If he says you should crawl back in a political hole, then he needs to tell the whole Democratic party that's how he feels.)

Dean doen't represnt any of the ideals of the Democratic Party. If I wanted to vote Republican I'd join that party. I want to run a Democrat.

you get a candidate (Dean) that pulls in hundreds of thousands
of new energised supporters, reignites the base,
and the reaction from the old party hacks?

for god's sake, stop him!

No wonder republicans win.
The best thing Bush has going for him is the DLC.

this guy is majic.........he is out fundraising Clinton for Christ's sake......give Dean a break people he is only human

he's POPULAR!

I definitely sense some of this attitude around here, the notion that Dean must be bad simply because he's doing so well. Envy? I don't know, but it's a strange phenomenom.

Clark?
Edwards?
Braun?
And who in the world would call Kucinich an old party hack?

And, by the way, Dean was a member of the DLC.

Dean is the one setting the Democratic ideals to win in 2004....I think Dean represents a reasonable choice.

Thanks for putting it into words, DemDogs! Whoever you're for, I, too, will support. The reason? You're going to support and vote for a Democrat, hopefully the best Democrat. That's how we'll beat Bushler and send the Little Turd back to Crawford.

Regarding the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker Dean: He's not just Bush-Lite. He's Newt-Lite. And other than his stuff in Vermont, he really doesn't know that much about anything. I'm surprised more of his supporters don't know that.

that's all I'm gonna say. Just sad. it says FAR more about you than it does about me as a Dean supporter. I am sick to death of this kind of post. It says and prooves NOTHING.

BTW I will vote for any Democrat nominated without blinking an eye as will basically all the Dean supporter I know. Though you I question. Should Dean get nominated how the hell are you gonna vote for him?????????

There are many other candidates who would make better Presidents is my contention. Dean can talk about how angry he is until Wal-Mart shuts down all four of its Vermont stores for all I care. The guy is all talk. The stuff he's written down, he won't let anybody see for 10 years because he ordered his gubernatorial papers sealed. He had asked them to be sealed for 20 years.

BTW: Dean says he is. And I've been saying that I'd vote for him if he's the nominee for months.

I'm just glad I'm not in danger of having to vote for someone I believe this about "Newt-Lite. And other than his stuff in Vermont, he really doesn't know that much about anything" as if it were true anyway.

Sorry if what I post makes you mad. You are free to put me on "Ignore." Your loss. If you're interested, here's another POV:

Civil Rights and Liberties in Dean's Vermont

HOWARD DEAN IS WORSE THAN ASHCROFT and the PATRIOT ACT

by scott huminski • Friday September 26, 2003 at 04:43 AM

Dean recently has strongly criticized the Patriot Act and Ashcroft. Dean's record reveals that his policy in Vermont was to appoint judges that would ignore "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill of Rights). He publicly stated this policy in a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau interview. His record shows that he appointed anti-civil-rights judges. Dean increased prison funding 150% during his tenure in Vermont. Dean called for “a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties” post 9-11. Dean will say anything to gather votes, regardless of his record and what his true feelings are concerning an issue.

Dean’s closest friend and favorite appointee, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, is currently fighting vigorously in the federal courts to allow Vermont to close courthouses to the press and citizens for any reason without hearing, court findings, trial or Due Process in direct contravention of First Amendment requirements concerning closure of courtrooms. According to Sorrell, simply criticizing the government or reporting on court corruption can justify banishment for life from Vermont courthouses. Dean and Sorrell’s courthouse secrecy policy can be invoked with unfettered discretion by a single government employee based upon the way one looks, the way one thinks, one’s political views or any other arbitrary standard without opportunity for the banished persons to challenge the sanction consistent with Due Process. This is civil rights in Vermont after Dean finished his appointments.

CONTINUED...

http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/4257.php

and while I might have my questions about this source... at least your attempting to back what you're saying up.

They are sealed for TEN years. All governors seal their records when they leave office.

This is a ditto-head red herring... taste good?

I have lived in five states and none do in those states.

He is not a lawyer, we have too many.

You compare what he has done as a leader to the has been's in this party of Hillary, Mondale, Gore and others.

We need to get out and listen to people not just the choir. Talk to greens and consv.

Let us look for people in their 40's, male or female and not lawyers.

The guy is as attractive as Martin Sheen playing President Joshua Bartlett. So true.

But here's the one that bugs me: During the war in Vietnam, he made certain he was safe and sound. That says a lot about his character. It says a lot to the average American, as well.

How can you expect the vast majority of Americans to support him, especially when men and women — the sons and daughters, moms and dads — in our nation's armed forces are in harm's way?

Furthermore, how can you expect the vast majority of Americans to expect him to know what to do to protect America from further terrorist attacks when he has ZERO experience in the military or in foreign policy?

We've seen the results of having an amateur occupy the Oval Office. It's not pretty. Thanks to the BFEE, 9-11 is just the tip of the iceberg of what the future holds.

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, demrebel. Just cause you and I may not agree on the best candidate is no reason not to enjoy the good discourse on the best political board in the virtualverse.

He wasn't perfect but he isn't exactly jeered out of every country he visits either.

I have been anybody but Bush for ages. There have been several polls, threads, etc which have shown that the overwhelming majority of Dean supports here would support the nominee if it were anyone but Lieberman and a clear majority would support him. Again, this isn't just one poll or thread it has been several. It is inexcusable for you to write that you have no idea if Dean supporters would support the nominee.

Every point you have raised has been answered repeatedly by Dean supporters. Including, it must be said, in this thread. Virually all of these are utterly dishonest spin bordering on lies. That has been, often patiently, explained. Have we been perfect? No. Could we be more polite? Definately. Have we ever implied our opponets here wouldn't support the nominee? No. Have you? Yes, you just did. Am I tired of that? You bet.

Out of idle curiousity. Just how many times are we supposed to be lectured to like we are little children, and give respectful, thoughtful answers? Again, there isn't a single point you raise, save the laughing and weepy quote, which I haven't directly, forthrightly addressed at least once. In most cases close to a dozen times at least. Again, just how many times am I expected to do this?

We need to start looking for young talent like we did back in the days with JFK and RFK. Dump these has beens like mondale, hillary, gore. Dean is a good start. Find someone who will be in his or her early fortys in 08 if dean does not win this time.

Look how stupid the repubs were in picking their hillary or mondale in Bob Dole.

The country thought a lot of a young looking Bill Clinton.

we need to come together for the general election (that means no flight to third parties if the candidate isn't liberal enough for some of you). Otherwise, we're going to get clocked.