I just saw Gephardt's interview on CNN

and the interviewer asked him what the 4 way statistical dead heat said about the status of the Democratic Party. Part of Gephardt's response was that "Democrats are subject to conventional wisdom."

THAT is not leadership, and that is why I would never vote for Gephardt in this primary. Our political leaders CREATE conventional wisdom, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the fact that before the Iraq War it seemed unthinkable that would could invade another country and occupy it unprovoked. Bush, obviously, changed that thinking. The Bush administration were determined, and they pushed through their agenda, sadly, bringing the American people with them.

The only way we're going to put things back in the right place is with even stronger leadership and determination. Gephardt, with his response to this question, is clearly no leader. Instead, he, too, is allowing himself to be lead BY George W. Bush. He's refusing the initiative, and conceding the driver's seat to the neo-cons.

This attitude will not win anything for us. The only way we're going to take back the White House is by showing the American people our strength and earning back their trust, and that won't happen if we let the "conventional wisdom," as Gephardt calls it, dictate our campaign and policies.

movement which can rise above the media influence...a force that is not bought by "the inside"...people can see that who are involved.

What I liked about Dean is he can bring "new voters to the process"...enough to beat shrub. And the press who bulit him up are now afraid of his "mo".

it is a more enlightened, more intelligent leader, IMHO.

And I think the candidate with those qualities will offer the clearest opposition to Bush. Such a candidate would, IMHO, would never say something like "Democrats are subject to conventional wisdom." Disagreeing with Bush, and understanding that such disagreement is necessary to BEAT Bush, are prerequisites for enlightenment and intelligence.

...I admit that the words "strong leader" make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (though I do NOT mean that the poster who used them intended to promote the sort of "leader" I associate with the phrase). I only mean that I am not sure what the phrase means in a Democracy.

I am unable to support Gephardt, but I also worry that a poor showing for him in Iowa is not good for organized labor. And further diminishing the already dimished clout of organized labor is not good for working people, union members or not.

Gephardt really thought he ever had a chance.

However, I do thank him for his good work on behalf of blue-collar union members for some 27 years!

He's just not our presidential candidate.