Just caught a few moments of Dean on CNN. Didn't like what I heard.

I don't know if it's because I've been politically withdrawn for the last six weeks or if he was just off his game this morning. I'm typically quite a supporter of Dean but was so disheartened by what I heard I had to turn it off. Two things in particular bothered me.

1. When the anchor showed a clip of Lieberman spouting his ridiculous rhetoric about failing to support the President in a time of war at our own peril, Dean responded something along the lines: "I'm not as concerned about the credibility of the president as I am about the lives of our own soldiers." I wish he hadn't phrased it that way. What an opportunity to blast it wide open and say something more like: "The credibility of our president is precisely why we are losing lives and is the heart of the matter." I would love for him to have supported Lieberman's right to express his beliefs, expressed appreciation for Lieberman's record as a public servant, but then strongly come out saying how misguided this particular idea is in a representative democracy.

2. Several times he said, "We must win the War on Terror and democrats know how to do that." This is a meme we really need to rip out of the fabric of the American psyche. I would much rather the Democrats pooh-pooh the Republican exploitation of fear and boldly state that the War on Terror is a delusion. Stop using that ridiculous phrase! You can't "win" a "war" on "terror." Get over it and instead start educating Americans that "We must work together to eliminate the root causes inspiring terrorism." But I suppose that would be too much for the average ignorant American to absorb. :sarcasm: I am so sick of being talked down to.

Sorry Dean, I love you, but from what little I saw, the Democrats blew an opportunity this morning.

Every day Dean is gaining my respect. In 2003 -2004, I told my wife how much I was going to support Kerry. She supported Dean, and I ridiculed her for that. Now, I feel as if I made the wrong choice.

You have to struggle against the powers-that-be, and that involves telling the truth. America is an empire in decline, because on one side you have a radical right determined to demonstrate how ass backwards they can be, and on the other you have the luke warm play it safe centrists.



Dean, you the man! :toast:

It really does no good to talk about the president's credibility; we all know what he represents; but we are all interested in the getting the troops out of that bloody war.

Go Howard Dean, I've always supported you and I always will. You have a spine and you stand up for what you believe. :thumbsup: :dem:

He didn't back away from wanting to get out of Iraq, and at the same time he assured Americans that Democrats have a much better plan for fighting terrrorism than Bush. He even got specific with his re-deployment ideas.

In short, Dean wants our troops out of Iraq where they DON'T belong and where they're sitting ducks for the insurgency, and he wants to re-deploy them into a stronger position for us to win the war on terrorism and where we can keep them from getting killed. He also got in some good jabs on Bush in the process.

It crystallizes exactly what is wrong with the conduct of the war. The chimp will not listen to others, because he will have to admit mistakes. It is not about the troops, it is about his reputation. I will only listen to Dems, if they agree with me. Get more people to see it that way (it helps that it is true) and we can bring the insanity to an end sooner, rather than later.

Thank you....

but what you quoted him saying, I would've taken it the same way. I am getting sick and tired of this all myself, most specifically, the phrasing the Democrats are taking... supporting the twisted "names" the republicans give things.. i.e. winning the war on terror. We either grab the bull by the horns and take back reality or we wait until tens of millions of Americans are suffering MORE, that they get off their asses and do something about it.

Eh... I think I also woke up a bit crabby.

I woke up with an uninvited 5 year old snoring in my ear.

It just makes my skin crawl when Democrats go blithely along with these meaningless right wing phrases.

on the safty of the troops. Blasting Jr would only have given the media amunition and take the focus away.

"I'm not as concerned about the credibility of the president as I am about the lives of our own soldiers." I wish he hadn't phrased it that way. What an opportunity to blast it wide open and say something more like: "The credibility of our president is precisely why we are losing lives and is the heart of the matter." I would love for him to have supported Lieberman's right to express his beliefs, expressed appreciation for Lieberman's record as a public servant, but then strongly come out saying how misguided this particular idea is in a representative democracy.

stayed focus. Shame on Miles.

I don't think linking the president's credibility with the safety of the troops is controversial. I think it's reality. I understand playing politics as much as the next guy....but at what point does it render what you are saying practically meaningless?

and the sort of thing I wish he'd said in San Antonio the other day. instead of what he DID say

And I think it's idiotic to announce "the war in terror cannot be won" or "the war in Iraq cannot be won." If we have no plan except public disgrace, why on earth would anybody vote for us besides masochism?

it's another to say the war on terror is a sham and doesn't exist.

than the San Antonio gaffe.

Many of us in the New York City area, for example, WANT a war on terror as a response to 9/11...the question is whether it's going to be a purely military war badly planned and ineptly run, or whether it's going to be a war like the "war on poverty," that includes some well planned and executed military response as well as other tactics, including the coordination of law enforcement agencies around the world, etc. I doubt very much that either side of that debate wants to hear that the war doesn't exist.

I lived in the NYC area at the time of 9/11 and still maintain many ties there. I know just as many New Yorkers (New Jersey & Connecticut as well) who roll their eyes at the thought of a "War on Terror" as those who want a well-coordinated military eradication of Al Quaeda.

And I have to disagree. I think there is a side of the debate that wants to hear positive approaches to resolving the root causes of terrorism without resorting to the rhetoric of war.

any consensus can be reached when you tell one group right out of the box that their opinion is a sham and doesn't exist...any more thna I think that the rhetoric is the problem.

But on the other hand. I am all for positive approaches.

feeling shut down. I disagree with Lieberman's statements and think they are flat out wrong. That doesn't mean his opinion is a sham, that he shouldn't have it or that it doesn't exist. His opinion does exist. I happen to think it is a bad idea in a representative democracy and would be more than willing to discuss why with him or anyone else.

I'm not sure how you are supposed to disagree with someone without indicating you think they are incorrect. I would assume anyone disagreeing with me thinks I am wrong. So what?

...and here's why," you have at least opened the door to dialogue; if you say "your view doesn't exist," on the other hand, to my mind, it not only shuts the door, but shuts the door in a way that signals "I don't want to discuss thsi with you because I have taken leave of my senses"....and I really don't mean that as any sort of insult, and please accept my apology if you feel any offense.

I just mean that the questioner is invalidating the other person's perceptions and beliefs in a way that makes it unlikely he will reconsider them, and doing so on such a fundamental level that he is likely to view it only as a break by the questioner from a shared reality that never really existed.

If I see X and term it the "war on blah", and if instead of telling me "the war on blah is badly run" or the war on blah was flawed from the beginning and needs to be reconsidered," you say "the war on blah doesn't exist," MY first response is going to be "but I can SEE it." And it really doesn't matter from that point on if X IS a war or not.

I apologize if that's too long winded, but I wanted to be precise.

I thought we were talking about Dean having the opportunity to say Lieberman's opinion about criticism of the President is incorrect.

In my opinion, "The War on Terror" is a political phrase being used to describe nothing much in particular. You cannot wage war on a tactic. "Combating terrorism" is much the same. "Eradicating terrorists" is another matter. I do not think it is possible to do so militarily without creating MORE terrorists but I can see where that would be up for debate.

War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror. They are slogans that do little to describe what actually needs to be done in any of the three cases.

I think everyone can probably agree that having a world free from terrorist activity is a worthwhile goal.

I just happen to feel that "waging a war on terror" is a Republican meme that is nothing more than a rah-rah-feel-good-while-oppressing-folks-with-fear concept. I'd like to see the Democrats change that. Do I think Dean can do it in one sound bite? Certainly not! But each time a Democrat says something along the lines of... "Democrats know how to win the War on Terror" I cringe.

and redeemed himself somewhat from the gaffe of the day before.

"In my opinion, "The War on Terror" is a political phrase being used to describe nothing much in particular."
I would agree...at the same time, I would argue that it's more a problem of intent. vision and execution than just semantics.

"I think everyone can probably agree that having a world free from terrorist activity is a worthwhile goal."
100%!

I think "war" is sometimes a useful metaphor to evoke the scope of effort needed for a very large complex and difficult undertaking...."Apollo program" is sometimes substituted, but isn't as pithy.

You cannot "win" the "war" on "terror". Eliminating the root causes is the only course of action that will endure.

and the RW responds. (placating--then zap em style).


.When the anchor showed a clip of Lieberman spouting his ridiculous rhetoric about failing to support the President in a time of war at our own peril, Dean responded something along the lines: "I'm not as concerned about the credibility of the president as I am about the lives of our own soldiers." I wish he hadn't phrased it that way. What an opportunity to blast it wide open and say something more like: "The credibility of our president is precisely why we are losing lives and is the heart of the matter." I would love for him to have supported Lieberman's right to express his beliefs, expressed appreciation for Lieberman's record as a public servant, but then strongly come out saying how misguided this particular idea is in a representative democracy.

Showing respect for someone and then pointing out where you disagree with them is how the right wing responds? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that.

society--we have the right to debate (or some such thing)---Then Jr/Cheney blasts the critics--and blasts them good. I see it all the time. It is placating them--then blasting them (the Dems or who ever disagrees).

So, that is why I did not want Dean to follow this path.

I trust Dean to do it respectfully and with integrity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the formula of pointing out what is right and then highlighting an area of disagreement. I don't expect Dean to "blast" Lieberman but I do think it was an excellent opportunity to make a fundamental point about there being nothing particularly dangerous about criticizing a president during "war."

he says is wrong. He also talked of redeploying troops to Afgan and getting the Na. Guard home--where he says they belong.

2. Several times he said, "We must win the War on Terror and democrats know how to do that." This is a meme we really need to rip out of the fabric of the American psyche. I would much rather the Democrats pooh-pooh the Republican exploitation of fear and boldly state that the War on Terror is a delusion. Stop using that ridiculous phrase! You can't "win" a "war" on "terror." Get over it and instead start educating Americans that "We must work together to eliminate the root causes inspiring terrorism." But I suppose that would be too much for the average ignorant American to absorb. I am so sick of being talked down to.

Dean was doing something we need to start doing more of, he was talking about how Democrats for the most part are unified on fighting the war on terrorism and NOT some other phony war in Iraq. He showed Democrats to be focused on where the war really SHOULD be fought, not where Bush WANTS it to be fought. And that should NOT be in Iraq, but in places where we can WIN the war on terrorism like in Afghanistan and where our troops will not be sitting targets for an insurgency that wants them out of their country like they are in Iraq.

Dean framed the issue in a positive way for Democrats and in a no-win way for Bush. Dean is not only trying to isolate Bush and Cheney from the American people but from their own party!

done a better job of distinguishing between the two. It got blurry for me. Granted, I hadn't had any coffee yet.....

The war on terror was abandoned when we attacked Iraq. Clinton fought a one man war on terror. We need to go back to Clintons approach.

I agree any sort of "war on terror" was not only abandoned, but exacerbated when we attacked Iraq. My quibble is with the idea that a "war on terror" can even exist.

and thought your exact words Dean is off his game today. It just didn't sound like him.

He seemed flat somehow. I don't know how to explain it.

today was just one of Howards. He's still great just human imho.

And what are the issues Hillary is going after? Video games. Flag Burning. While are our young men and women in uniform are dying in a misbegotten war. Shame.

I thought he did a very good job this morning. Especially in response to Lieberman's comments.

Democrats not being far off on agreeing about their overall plan in Iraq. He worded is somehow using the word "exceptional" from what most Democrats think in reference to Lieberman being the exception.

going to reframe them in one or 2 soundbites. The original framing took YEARS, thousands of newsmen and talking heads, billion of TV/Print/Radio dollars.

The reality is:
1. The president was re-elected.
2. Most Americans believe that the the phrase "war on terror" MEANS something (yes i agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski, it's BS)

If it's BS than we shouldn't buy into it. If Americans can be brainwashed into thinking it means something they can be re-educated into realizing it doesn't. God I hate how Orwellian that sounds.

Kerry had the best take on this: terrorism is a criminal activity, like organized crime or drug violence. Let's treat is as such. Acknowledge you can NEVER eradicate it. Get it down to the point is it a nuisance, nothing more. Do we let fear of those other badnesses monopolize our collective consciousness (and political rhetoric, and military budget)?

I LOVE Dean, and I thought his comment on the "credibility" of the Prez vs. the lives of our troops was good...but I guess I'd agree that he was "off his game" a bit.
..His "We must win" statements confused me...I thought "oh no!"..he's talking about "winning" in Iraq again?...but apparently he was talking about "the War on Terror", and even though I'm unsure as to how I feel about the latter, I thought he should have made a much clearer distinction between the two.

http://www.cnn.com/video/

Look under Politics.

The Democrats are known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but Dean did okay, this time.

... showing with the usually pathetic showing of Dems, I think he's ok.

with one thing. I too have been withdrawn for the past few months. It's like "what difference does it make?" So what, his approval ratings don't matter, he is in for three more long years. They own the media, and people don't seem to realize that they are being led around by their metaphorical noses. Seems lost, it does.

Dean? Well, I like him, I wouldn't voted for him. I reluctantly voted for richie-rich, who wouldn't have even been in the race if it wasn't for his super-human wealth. He was done, fried, then he sold his house, put out some negative rhetoric, and ran a terrible campaign and lost, ending up with a lot of money left that might've just won had he spent it. It makes me wish I'd gone ahead and voted for Nader.

The media is not our friend - they are playing very nasty games with every Democrat who speaks out. I like that he places soldiers' lives over the "President's credibility". The President's cedibility is in jeopordy because his words don't match the facts - not because Democrats say so - but saying that or your words (with which I agree 100%) is satisfying but what he did say puts him on high moral ground.

The War on Terror is tough. Kerry tried to have a serious conversation on this last year. What he said (at U of Philadelphia) made sense as did his comments in the NY Times magazine - the idea that we weren't doing any of the things needed to make the US more secure ( checking more than 5% of the cargo containers coming into ports, having emergency plans for evacuatig port cities if needed, working internationally to isolate terrorist, freezing their money and communications) was lost on a country suffering from ADD that responsed only to we're going bomb the terrorist (so we can't find them.)

The phrase "War on Terra" makes my skin crawl. I hate the fact that it has become such a buzz phrase when it is utterly meaningless.

This is what happens when those who want the war to continue are in control. We had a dream, but they won.

The Democrats blew, Dean had death threats. I don't blame him because they did not stand with him.

What's wrong with that? Best way to deal with liars in power and their media garbage.

Therefore I did not recognize "the bait."

That is what is wrong with the lot of politicians. You just tell it like it is, over and and over and over again. There should be no confusion or parsing. Iraq is a miserable failure, it was known by many before, there is nothing left to say except that it is not now, and never will be the democrats fault. This war is about oil, YOU know it, I know it and the American people know it.