John Kerry Was Our Dewey When We Should Have Gone Truman.

There are a lot of people on here who claim that Howard Dean was and is political dynamite. That all he is is an embarrassment, that outside of doing a good job fundraising, he is totally useless and hurts the party's chances.

Well I happen to be reading Truman by David McCullough and I am currently reading about the 1948 race when Dewey had it "sewn up." Truman did NOT go quietly into the night and accept it, he got on a damn train and started to talk to EVERY AMERICAN WHO WOULD LISTEN!

He attacked, he yelled, he lambasted the Do Nothing Congress while Thomas Dewey barely mentioned anything other then Unity Unity Unity. Everyone in the freaking Republican Party said this was a good idea.

It was a stupid idea and so was our going with someone who would NOT constantly attack Bush the second he said boo or stand up to anyone. Screw that. You want to win, you fight back when ever some bully starts beating on you.

Anyone who thinks that Howard Dean is political dynamite needs to go and read this book and remember the time when Dems STOOD UP AND FOUGHT!!! John Kerry was our Dewey and we damn well better not let that happen again.




:rant:

really have a choice? Seems like the decision was made before the primaries that Kerry was going to be the one.

Boy.. we could find all kinds of stuff to bitch about when it comes to that "caucus in the cornfields"..

It was not always this way.

As far as I know.. his team thought that since he started the race so late, he should just bypass Iowa and spend all his time in New Hampshire..

Welp.. ...it wound up backfiring, because Iowa gave Kerry the momentum he needed..

Iowa would have LOVED General Clark.. but they were ticked off at him that he bypassed their state. They considered it as being "snubbed"

I still think he would have won there easily if he had run there... --- Whatchagonnado? :shrug:

Someone in the cornfield maybe....

New Hampshire...and if you go with a midwestern state, try one that has more electoral votes or better yet go west!

It has picked the winner in the general every year for like 50? years? Of course thier elections systems are FUBAR.

largest DEMOCRATIC state, to boot.. Certainly, New York should be first!

Oh, wait. Did I say New York? I meant California.

Clark better come around for 08!

I think his ideas, his personality, and his straight-forward intelligent way of speaking would make him a clear winner in our state!

much as they trashed Wes Clark. Kerry was down ini the polls for a long time. he gambled by mortgaging his house, made it seem like gambling, and the media made him exciting for a brief time. Then, well, it's too pianful to recount Kerry's campaign. he would have done better without advisors doing a Truman train campaign.

The problem was that Democrats were not talking to red staters and working families and the guys who work on the docks.

And I really don't want to discuss this anymore. Good Night!

general?

I would bet that every campaign team would make mistakes and that EVERY Dem had a storyline prepared against them that the media was ready to use for the RW message machine and corporate masters.

I challenge anyone to name ONE Dem that beat out the press in 2003 and 2004. Hell - go back to 1997, cuz that is when the RW took over near-total control of broadcast media.

The newsroom EDITTING ROOM is a very powerful place that NO DEMOCRAT controls.

He did win despite a massive media campaign against him. William Jefferson Clinton, outside of 1992 and a short honeymoon period, he was crucified by the Press time and time again.

Harry Truman had the ENTIRE PRESS against him. But he just went out campaigned by blasting his opponents with no quarter. He took his case to the people.

Howard Dean is not exactly Truman...or at least he was not in 2003/4 but he is party loyal, he works DAMN hard and he goes to ALL of America now.

Next guy needs to be someone who will not care if the media hates him. Because the media probably will. But if you know you are what is better for this country then a bunch of corrupt, wall street teat suckers then you go out there and TELL THE PEOPLE.

:eyes:

I think Deaniacs are unique in their inability to get over the fact that their guy LOST fair and square. I have no idea what hubris or cult of personality moves them to craft elaborate and ridiculous theories for Dean's loss that exculpate their candidate and themselves from any blame, but it sure is tiresome.

Iowa...New Hampshire...what's the purpose of having THEM choose the candidate. They have no population, thus no electoral votes. It's a crock.

From another poster the other day (a non Iowan):

"Incumbent congressmen almost always get reelected. But surprisingly, one place where dark horses with less money often win is in US presidential primaries. It occurred to me that the reason for this is that the decisive votes are often cast in Iowa and New Hampshire. Those states are won by retail politics at the grass roots, by shaking hands and talking with small groups of people. Under those circumstances, a candidate's ideas and presence are more important than money."

I just don't see where that means ANYTHING if we then have to send that candidate to a national election.

So what is the solution? Having a large state first?

So then money becomes the deciding factor. There is no way a lesser known dem with good ideas and a slim wallet would be able to campaign in New York.

Have multiple states first?

So then you get a tarmac to tarmac campaign filled with the same stump speeches and empty rhetoric. No real interaction and no true vetting of the candidates.

What is your solution, other than complaining?

Yes, I know there would be issues with money and time, but at least it would be representative. Iowa and New Hampshire are NOT representative of the U.S. as a whole. It's silly to let them pick our candidate.

Yes, there would be an ENORMOUS issue with money and time. We (as a party) wouldn't get nearly the amount of interaction with our candidates and would be stuck with rich candidates only giving cookie cutter speeches at airports nationwide...woo freakin hoo.

Nothing about a bunch of rich folks with "popular" messages going from airport to airport would be representative of our field of candidates.

Besides, where is it written that states must follow Iowa or New Hampshire? Clinton didn't win Iowa did he? Is there any reason why our choices in a "small, no population" state affect your decision making skills?

supposed to be representative of the entire country. We can never be what we are not. What we are is small and inexpensive. What we are is inquisitive and insightful. What we do is test the candidates and their staff (and media consultants) and prepare them for the big adventure out there.

What we are is first, nothing else.

If you want to BLAME someone (and I don't mean you, Seth).

Blame the media for turning the process into a circus, blame the National Chair who allows several states to go right in a row. Blame whoever decided that Montana (3 votes) and New Jersey (3 votes) should go last and not a larger state with, say 20 or 30 electoral votes. Blame the damn calendar that doesn't give a candidate that stumbles in one state any time to regroup before the next contest.

There are many to blame, but not Iowa and New Hampshire.

...I'm suggesting that it's a lousy way to pick a candidate.

MONEY: Set a cap on primary campaignin spending...say $200k.

TIME: The primariy season wouldn't have to be changed (or it could be made longer), the only change would be that states would all vote during the same 3-day period (Sat,Sun,Mon).

How could any human being campaign in all 50 states to prepare for a 3-day primary on $200,000? That wouldn't even pay airfare to each state. Even if a candidate could afford to do that who would? The wise campaigns would hit CA, FLA, TX, NY and ignore the smaller states in order to get the most bang for their tarmac-to-tarmac buck. Forget speaking WITH voters, they would only have time to speak TO voters in a large venue where very few would even be able to see the candidate. Why would a candidate waste the time to run? use the $200,000 to finance some end of the campaign TV ads and sit at home.

What is the problem with candidates actually having human interaction with voters? Why not draw out the primary campaign? Does it matter if the nominee is chosen in February as compared to waiting until the convention? If a person is going to contribute to the nominee they're going to do it no matter what month the nominee is chosen. Slow things down, give each state a chance, have smaller states go first and hold the larger states until summer. Give candidates the time to raise money and establish staff in each state AND spend time with the people who will be working for them in the general.

The states aren't to blame for their lack of population...we're to blame for letting them occupy the position they do.

That said, I left out a couple of zeros...I meant to suggest $2M for the primary (I had just been reading about the Cleveland Mayoral race, so the "hundred thousand" thing was stuck in my head). Not a lot of money, but the limit would allow less-well-heeled candidates a fair shake.

I think interaction with voters is great and I'm not suggesting that the primary season be shortened. I just think that spending most of their time in two or three states doesn't serve us well.

each of the states, being able to learn the individual states needs as well as the national pulse.

Suggesting a three day primary does shorten the primary season, unless you propose that the proposed primary vote occur three days before the national convention. Then I still see campaigns taking up only the most populous states (delegate rich states) and 44 or so states never seeing a candidate unless you count looking up as they fly over on their way to New York or California.

I still don't see the problem with Iowa and New Hampshire going first, like having Rhode Island or Montana going first is going to change the media's behavior and our buying into it?

Lengthen the primary calendar, choose small states to go before large states to keep the delegate count competitive, quit listening to the MSM about who is ahead in which state until it is time to caucus/vote in your state.

...at the end of the primary season...

The 3 days (Sat,Sun,Mon) is just to give everybody a chance to vote (something I advocate for the general election, too). Sorry if that wasn't clear.

My goal is to eliminate any undue influence by ANY state. At the end of the three days, a winner would be announced. That seems, to me, the most unbiased way of doing things.

states ate one time? And you don't think that your plan would give undue influence to the larger, delegate rich, states? Who in their right mind would campaign in Montana when they could spend the same amount of time and money campaigning in California? This plan would give CA, NY, TX, FL influence over ALL the other states of the union. How does that make it fair?

Plus, how would Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich EVER be able to campaign in 50 state simultaneously? Kerry and Bush didn't even do that in the General Election.

Why are we always "TV Ads and flying planes?" There is still a railroad in this country, there is still a way to have a car campaign. Anyone who is NOT willing to do that, should not be willing to go for the presidency.

Think outside of what we do now. Why not have someone drive the country? Why not have someone do a train tour? Plus it would be cheaper.

And I think that you should have to campaign in all fifty states, you are the President of all 50 not just whatever swing ones that the polls say.

I've seen the criticism "But then candidates would have to campaign in all 50 states"...

GOOD! That would be much more representative than allowing a few states to essentially make the decision.

And if you're going to have the candidates campaign in only a few states (which would gain them greater recognition in the general election) why Iowa and New Hampshire??? Why not pick a few states that would deliver some electoral votes in the general?

Again, where does it say that every state after Iowa and New Hampshire has to follow us like lemmings?

Ask Bill Clinton.. It really doesn't matter what Iowa says about our candidates. It is people like you who over emphasize the little "power" we really have.

The frontrunners in Iowa and NH get all of the media attention...and most go on to do well in the later primaries. That being the case, if we're going to insist of keeping these staggered primaries, wouldn't it be better to hold the first ones in states that could actually deliver some electoral votes in the general?

electoral votes in the general election? Are you implying that New York, since it didn't get to go 'first' in the Democratic primary process would send it's electoral votes to the republican in the general?

They really don't have anything to do with each other.

John Kerry received the most delegates in Iowa in the caucus, so why didn't Kerry win the electoral votes in Iowa in the general?

Why do other state's voters continue to buy in to the MSM's crap? A win in Iowa is just that, a win in one state. It's up to the supporters of the candidate of choice to ignore the MSM's garbage, work for the candidate of their choosing and get the delegates their candidate needs.

I still disagree with the argument that a win in Iowa/New Hampshire is a win of the nomination - otherwise we may have been reading about President Gephardt or President Harkin. We're only one state.

Iowans (regardless of political affiliation) get more exposure to the candidates than residents of states that have later primaries. Iowa has 7 electoral votes in the general. New York has 31. If you had to choose which market got early media coverage of the candidates, wouldn't you choose the larger market?

That's the relationship to which I'm referring.

Democrats traditionally vote for Democrats in the general - so why would it matter who goes first in the primary season? Again, are you saying that, since New York didn't get to go first in the primary process it's Democrats wouldn't vote for the Democrat nominee? That doesn't explain why Iowa's electoral votes went to Bush and New York's went to Kerry.

The two really have nothing to do with each other.

Sure, drive the country. Sounds great. So now how in the heck is that logistically possible? Do you know the TIME it would take to drive across the country, making stops in at least 2-3 places in every state (and 2-3 stops would do no one justice).

Be real here. You think a candidate could drive ALL 50 states, stopping and actually having interaction on the ground with real citizens? Even a train tour, do you expect candidates not to sleep?

That doesn't even sound feasible. Candidates fly out of necessity, not because they don't like to drive.

This would be a good time. Heck, it's hell just driving across Iowa and New Hampshire - imagine making that 'quick jaunt' from Sacramento to NYC for a couple of fund raisers? :eyes:

fall in lockstep with Iowa (which is not true). Maybe you should be blaming the DNC for contracting the primary schedule to such a short time that no candidates can gain traction later if they lose early on.

scrutiny through close up encounters over an extended period of time.

If the state wasn't small enough to do that, then BIG MONEY candidates would be the only ones getting known through ad campaigns.

as usual.

...And then blow it on stupid ads that convinced no one. Sorry, lack of money is not an acceptable reason to whine about Dean losing. Actually, there is no acceptable reason to whine about Dean losing. He LOST. He has managed to get on with his life; it's sad so many of his supporters can't. I highly doubt Dean would like to know that his supporters are continuing to undermine this party by sowing division and rancor by refighting the primaries ad nauseum.

dried up alot of his donations during the last crucial months. The media thought they had Kerry out of the race and ignored his personal retail advantages and the strength of his ground support.

Media misreported throughout the primaries and I believe they did so with the purpose of taking down ALL the Dem candidates to a degree.

Once they thought they had one down, they'd move to destroy the next one on their list. They didn't count on Kerry coming back as tough as he did, and they had already moved past him to Edwards, Clark and then Dean.

They in no way should be considered the ultimate decision makers. If Iowa and New Hampshire made the ultimate decisions then we never would have had a President Clinton.

Iowa and New Hampshire are good places to test the candidates, they are small and they are inexpensive. Don't blame Iowa and New Hampshire for John Kerry losing the election (heck, he won New Hampshire in the general).

So what if Iowa or NH pick one or two candidates? The rest of you still get to vote. If you decide not to vote for a candidate because he lost in Iowa, that's your decision--and a silly one at that. I just don't get this. Honestly.

I guess I am in Iowa, so I am one of the evil first-pickers, but I sure don't give a rats booty what polls say about each candidate (for the most party anyway) when selecting who I caucus for, and I sure wouldn't let another state invalidate my decision.

the reason Clinton was able to pull off his win is there was several weeks between Iowa and New Hampshire for more extensive campaining in other states.

This time we had a large chunk of primaries right after New Hampshire. No time to breath and reasses who is best.

Would Kerry still have won? Probably not. In retrospect I think Edwards had a better understanding of Joe Average then anyone else on the ticket.

But people tend to follow the leader. You get someone like Kerry in front and people start to go for him since "everyone else does."

Kind of like ants going to a food source, if a few do it, then the rest do it.

Where campaigns have time to re-group if a loss occurs in one state or a stumble (or scream) gets too much air time. Don't jump on me, I know the 'scream' occurred after the loss in Iowa and the campaign had MANY more problems than the scream. I just wonder how things would have gone if Trippi had been fired after New Hampshire and Dean's new campaign had three weeks to put themselves back together. (It could have been the same result, we'll never know). Clark could have pulled what Clinton pulled in 1992. And you are correct, Edwards could have gained quite a bit of momentum.

I'd like to see small states in weekly or eight to ten day succession with a couple of weeks off and then a large state and keep that going so that the delegate count could conceivable remain competitive throughout the process.

This would also put Iowa and New Hampshire back where they were during the '80s and '90s. First, yes, but not final. Dick Gephardt was not our nominee, Tom Harkin was no our nominee, but they did win Iowa.

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

Are you actually a democrat? 'Cause if you are, heckuva way to stand up for our side. Gay slurs. Nice.

The media manipulated opinion and people fell for it.

Then, once the Democrat was selected, by that manipulation, they proceeded to shred him any way they could.

"fair and square"? You should be ashamed to even say it.

Oh, no. It's just another tinfoil hat theory from someone who can't get over the fact that his candidate lost. Iowa was fair, and just because your preferred candidate lost doesn't mean it was "STOLEN." Jesus. THIS is why Democrats lose - too many of us are too willing to be myopic and selfish and refuse to unite behind a common goal.

It's not useful to take the opinion of one person and apply those words or that opinion to a very large number of people.

If TIA were a Deaniac by now we would have 2,046,748 Excel spreadsheets showing that Dean actually won every primary but Kerry somehow stole them. ;-)

If TIA were a Deaniac by now we would have 2,046,748 Excel spreadsheets showing that Dean actually won every primary but Kerry somehow stole them. ;-)

Iowa is only the first test, in no way is Iowa the ultimate test (Just ask Bill Clinton!)

though I worked for John Edwards, I always though the whole process was a set up - that Dean was set up as the dragon Kerry must slay and that everyone else was dismissed - that powerful people made the decision in back rooms and the primary campaign was for show.

That would almost have to mean that Kerry could depend on the outcome of at least some voting machines, wouldn't it? Nah!

For God's sake. :eyes:

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

the front runner -so to speak- and the public decided otherwise in the primaries.

I find it pathetic that people think Kerry was "appointed"...truly asswipe mentality...

Seems to me, the answer is "Not as long as we continue to give blind obeisance to traditional (TWO-)party politics.

The Demopublicans give us all the choice of an old-fashioned Politburo-sponsored Soviet election: vote for the party-sanctioned candidate of your choice, but VOTE! (or ELSE!)

It's been this way for too long, but (IMO) the final nail in the coffin was the decision to replace local caucuses with Winner-Take-All primaries.

I'm afraid the only possible solution remaining to us is

1] to disavow the "Demopublican Option",

2] to seek people in our own local communities who have demonstrated, by their willingness to volunteer their time, their talents and their efforts without recompense, their fitness to serve, AND (most important)

3] to replace most of the current office holders (some few WILL be worthy of retention), from the local level up, with third-, fourth-, fifth- (etc...) party candidates who have (as noted above) demonstrated their fitness to serve.

If this notion appeals to you, talk it up amongst your friends, especially those willing to examine a new concept on its merits, rather than waiting for some quasi-divine imprimatur from some soi-disant "Authority".

Use this idea freely, disseminate it as widely as possible; all "copyleft" standards and practices apply.

The Howard Dean of December 2005 is pretty different from the Howard Dean of December 2003.

Have a close look at the campaign of 1948 and how the issues worked. Truman had an unfinished but coherent FDR agenda to sell, and he made his case for continuing with it.

In comparison, Kerry in 2004 had a Party on his hands which had no agenda to finish and refused to unite on a coherent, relevant, new one. Bush pretty much had the remains of the Nixon(-Reagan) agenda on his hands and made the case for attempting to implement it.

Btw, this is no longer the country of Truman and Eisenhower. It's 65% white, not 85%. Its voters are generally middle class, not working class, now and significantly older and somewhat wealthier on average. The economic transition of importance is not from farms to factories, but from factories to offices and laboratories and computerized machinery.

human nature DOES NOT change. People like a man who will stand up. Dean is NOT perfect but he is a damn sight better then someone who let assholes smear his war record.

he did get the information to the media about the lies in the SBVT book and commercials - if they were playing fair - this SHOULD have been the end to it. Note that after the Rather memos could not be shown to be authentic, that entire story became off limits. So, in one case you had 100s of lies exposed against the source and the media continued to play it as he said/ she said. In the other case, one possibly bad piece of information shut down the whole thing.

A few weeks ago, someone posted a CNN story that mentioned Kerry's bronze star. They actually had a sentence where they said that Rassman backed KERRY's STORY that Kerry saved his life. They then mentioned that the SBVT questioned this. The problem here is that this was not "Kerry's story", this was the offical Navy record. Kerry was given the bronze star publicly, in front of his peers. The same with the silver star. There is no record of people speaking out then that either were not deserved, even when he spoke to the Senate, none of these people said that he had in some way cheated to get these medals.

Kerry had the offical record and the man he saved behind him. Nixon had asked the Secretary of the Navy (now Senator Warner) to check (as in find some dirt) Kerry's record when he became a prominent anti-war opponent. He was dissapointed to find Kerry was a war hero and he was squeaky clean.

For the media to pretend that it was KERRY who had something to prove and to ask for no proof from the SBVT was truely sick. It would be like asking you to prove that they really got the As on their official transcript from college because some kid who claimed they sat next to him said he remembers from 30 years ago, seeing the prof return papers to him with Cs on them. Other than pointing to the official record (as Kerry did), could you prove it in your case?

knowing no matter what the defense might be, they had the power to edit it down to suit their purpose and protect the Bushboy for their corporate masters.

You boiled down what I said into one sentence that actually said more.

He assumed people would just believe him because he was a war hero.

He also should have pulled out the swear words. People actually go for that because they assume he is tough.

Imagine this exchange: "Senator Kerry, how do you respond to the SBVT claim that your war record was for less than heroic?"

Senator Kerry: "If those bastards want to cart that manure out again, I'm ready for the fight damn it! This scar on my leg, right here (shows leg) is all the evidence I need to show I experienced the war. THe time will come for SBVT to answer for their lies...(and to get the freepers on board), now or in the here after."

THAT IS A DAMN FOUL LIE NOW SHUT UP ABOUT IT! Or going to campaign events and saying "These guys are lying about me, here is why, here is what I really did, and now here is my plan for the future. You decide."

One cannot control the media but one certainly can demand that they stop lying every chance one gets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

There is a video there too.

to overcome that media image.

So, yes, the media CHANGES whoever they want.

Today's GOP controlled media turns ANY Democrat into a cartoon and any war-profiteering chickenhawk into a hero.

Not a Democrat in the primary. Howard Dean was and is a losing primary candidate. Bitter Deaniacs and their inability to get over the 2004 primaries are a constant source of division in this party.

case for fighting back!

Despite what Rethugs say.. he's doing an incredible job and I have a feeling we're going to hear a LOT more from him as we get deeper into 2006! ~~~

It is people like you fighting for him. Dean by himself is doing very well.

back. This is as more a bash Kerry thread, than a pro Dean thread.

I also seriously doubt Dean "I do not want to be a pin cushion" would have withstood the RW slime throwers better than Kerry. I am not sure what the best way to do it would have been.

There was some precedent - McCain's 2000 bid imploded when he responded by blowing up when the Bush team hit him with lies. Even though McCain within a day had the support of all the Senate vets (organized by Kerry) and some local VVA vets (prompted by Mueller, who is co-founded VVA with Kerry and others and still heads it), he went into melt down.

Kerry was to some degree handicapped by the fianancing laws. In retrospect, he could have spent more money before the convention getting his story out - including the Vietnam war and protesting. But, there are those who say he did too much of that. They also thought the story was dead because they fought it twice and it was quickly ended. In August, Kerry had to choose between spending serious money to get his side out in ads, which would leave them very disadvantaged in Sept/Oct or fighting it by proving both that these were lies and that the Bush administration was behind it. In a fair world, doing the latter should have caused it to backfire on Bush.

Who has supported Gov Dean's grassroots initiatives with time, money and paid supporters since Gov. Dean took over as DNC Chair.

Too bad that so many of the followers of other people in the last Pres election cycle (that did end two years ago or so) cannot follow that lead. Divided we fall. Posts like this that denigrate pols for no good reason are divisive and make it harder for Dems to win races.

Is that your goal?

Then look at the other forums which really don't do that anymore. When you keep making people angry there, it shows elsewhere. Change starts at home. I don't like it at any blog or forum on our side, and I don't take part. Or I haven't.

That said, I am not getting into discussions about the post. I would have once, but I won't now.

I just won't be critical overtly.

You guys need to stop that. I have never attacked him in any way. I point out the left and right extremes that are hurting us.

then I give up. I will go with the flow of what is posted, and quit trying to bridge any damn gaps.

That is what I just said, and I meant it.

It makes me more inclined to just say what I think.

I don't post attacks, but here I am again being accused. I post true stuff. I don't appreciate being accused of not posting facts. You are in effect calling me a liar, and I don't like it.

It was not.

You are sure being hypocritical here.

First, you have repeatedly been told that this is not a anti-Dean campaign of any sort. It was the reposting of a review of a selection from Kos's book. It was specifically placed in the Kerry forum in order to avoid arguments like this in GD, but you insisted on intruding there and starting arguments. The review came from a blog which has had many posts supportive of Dean, including in the past week, yet you keep claiming here that I'm using the blog to wage some sort of campaign against Dean.

The review contained data from newspaper accounts of the issues in the primary campaign. The most critical comments about Dean on the Medicare issue in the review were quotations from two different liberal columnists.

If you object to being called a liar you might think twice of doing the same to others. While I was quoting newspaper accounts to support my statements, you posted at least twice that I was lying. Not only did you post that I was lying, you did not provide a single shred of evidence that any of the facts I presented were untrue.

So yes, you definately do post attacks, as you repeatedly did in the discussion in the Kerry forum.

Then after I read it, I will form my own opinions. You did imply that maybe it was time to set the record straight about the primaries. And I will not let you get away with saying that I, or Jerome, or Markos do not tell the truth.

If you want to set records straight, and you think it is time to relive and rehash, that is your right. It is my right to differ. You best have more fact than opinion.

If that is what you want for 08, the anger continuing instead of working together...fine with me. I have a lot of it I put aside to work for the party.

But I reserve the right if I see partial truths (and yes, I said partial truths) to step in and question...no matter what forum.

I am backing off for now. If you are going to relive the primaries because you are upset with Kos, I understand. But the book is out there, and I hope he has been fair. We all know a sea change is coming in the party, and I want everyone to be fair.

You will find a fine line between proving Kos wrong and saying Dean ran a dishonest campaign. I think you may find that is not the way to go. If you decide to do that, you will get some of us presenting our views.

It would be best if we could all put hatreds aside and try to keep a balance, but if that is not what most want then whatever.

You may or may not agree (that is your perogative) but in reviewing these facts I included links to evidence my account was accurate.

You may be interested to know that I first started researching the Medicare issue while a Dean supporter working with Doctors for Dean. I was researching the issue trying to debunk the attacks made during the debates and defend Dean. During this process I was in contact with the Dean campaign. During the course of my research I found that the charges against Dean were true, and that the statements coming from the campaign were not.

I doubt you have researched this, but you just assumed that since this was critical of Dean it was untrue, and posted more than once that I was lying. If you have other information to dispute this it would be one thing, but instead you made accusations that I was lying without offering any specifics or evidence.

As for Kos and the truth--I have often had blog posts debunking false statements from Kos and likely will continue to do so. However, I will continue to do so by citing the facts, not by calling people liers and making other untrue claims about them as you have.

If you want to put the hatred aside, start with yourself. You took a peaceful discussion in the Kerry forum and disrupted it. You also provoked such hatred by making such false accusations in a thread here (in a far more public area than in the Kerry forum).

You do what you have to do.

That's a meaningless comment. If you really had the slightest bit of evidence to counter the informtion in my post you would have cited it in response, rather than just claiming I was lying.

I am not going to even argue with you anymore. I will not defend myself to you either. I will simply, if needed, pass the word to dig out stuff if needed to defend.

There is such a thing as insulting people too long and too often, then it becomes overkill and meaningless.

I reached a different point today about the past. And about 08. Things matter, attitudes matter....

even with the consistency of my support for his work now and the consistency of my criticism of his campaign team who I feel did not serve him or the party well during the primaries?

The problem here is that sometimes SOME people end up with more control over our own personal views than their opinions deserve.

It's up to us to stay honest to ourselves and the facts using accuracy and context. No one should control our views and nothing should alter our views except actual facts.

It looks like that holds true about some with blogs who want to start a campaign now supposedly against a man who is not even planning to run in 08. Just because Kos pissed him off, and because he does not like Dean. When you figure out the logic in that one, please get back to me.

And don't pretend you don't know what I mean.

what the answer would be.

Neither situation is right - it is what it is, and it's up to US as INDIVIDUALS to maintain honest perspective.

if a anti-Kos book campaign is started against us and Dean. I will pass the word, we will get out old files, and all hell will break loose. And it never needed to happen. Most of us are not that way, were not that way. But I'm ready, and so are others. But we are equally ready to be fair and back off.

If someone launched a campaign against Dean as DNC chair as dishonest as Kos is in his campaign against Kerry, then I will join you in protesting that campaign.

of attacking what Kos is saying by launching an anti-Dean campaign...the words are there that he might do that.

Now that should be fun.

it's not Dean's fault that Kos is being dishonest.

I hope no campaign is launched against Dean. If anything, I would bet that Dean wishes he could take back some aspects of his primary campaign, just as Kerry wishes he could. And both deserve our support for what they are doing to counter BushInc today.

Why not set our personal goals to match the actions of the REAL Dean and the REAL Kerry, and not the more ungracious advocates of either men?

"of attacking what Kos is saying by launching an anti-Dean campaign...the words are there that he might do that."

You are the only one's who words say an anti-Dean campaign is being launched. You were repeatedly told in the original thread (and now here after I stumbled upon this thread) that this was a review of a section of Kos's book and not part of any anti-Dean campaign.

We made it clear to you repeatedly that this was not an anti-Dean post.

It was a repost from the Democratic Daily reviewing a section from Kos's book. It was highly critical of Kos and reviewed the facts from the primary campaign to show this, but I also made it clear that the intent was not to rewage the Dean vs. Kerry battles.

Despite being repeatedly told this, you have claimed several times that I'm using my blog to start wage a campaign against Dean. As I told you before, this is untrue. The Democratic Daily does not oppose Dean. I support his efforts as DNC Chair and hope for his success in this and in future endeavors. I have had many blog posts in support of Dean. I had one Dean post after the Kos post which was supportive of Dean and which led to some pro-Dean comments on Democratic Daily. This is hardly what I would do if I was starting a campaign against Dean.

I am far more concerned with issues than personalities. If I disagree with Dean on specific issues, I may discuss this (especially since it was relevant to my review of Kos's book). I will also state when I agree with Dean on the issues. Similarly I have sometimes stated disagreements with Kerry on some issues, but nobody has ever considered this to be a sign that I opposed Kerry or was waging a campaign against him.

We made it clear to you repeatedly that this was not an anti-Dean post.

It was a repost from the Democratic Daily reviewing a section from Kos's book. It was highly critical of Kos and reviewed the facts from the primary campaign to show this, but I also made it clear that the intent was not to rewage the Dean vs. Kerry battles.

Despite being repeatedly told this, you have claimed several times that I'm using my blog to start to wage a campaign against Dean. As I told you before, this is untrue. The Democratic Daily does not oppose Dean. I support his efforts as DNC Chair and hope for his success in this and in future endeavors. I have had many blog posts in support of Dean. I had one Dean post after the Kos post which was supportive of Dean and which led to some pro-Dean comments on Democratic Daily. This is hardly what I would do if I was starting a campaign against Dean.

I am far more concerned with issues than personalities. If I disagree with Dean on specific issues, I may discuss this (especially since it was relevant to my review of Kos's book). I will also state when I agree with Dean on the issues. Similarly I have sometimes stated disagreements with Kerry on some issues, but nobody has ever considered this to be a sign that I opposed Kerry or was waging a campaign against him.

We all have to come together as Dems for '06. That means trying to get through the past. Gov. Dean is DNC Chair. He is trying to get grassroots support for the Dem Party, which, last time I checked, included a range of Dems.

There are disruptive forces here that want to push Dems apart and make it harder for unity appeals in order to fight the common enemy: the Repubs. That much is plainly true. I question their motives and why they want Dems weak and divided.

Most threads are informative about Kerry's various statements, op-eds, committee meeting, bills etc.I know what thread you are referring to. How is it not fair for the Kerry group to talk about and counter negative comments in a book written by two of the most prominent bloggers, who were paid by Dean during the primaries, which distorts the primaries?

And if you think that was what was happening there, think again. What Kos does should not be revisited on us. It is wrong.

Also, of course it was OUR view, that was in the specific case spoken of was backed by fact. Why in the KERRY group, can't we discuss a flagrantly anti-Kerry blogger (who was paid by Dean)?

You had to COME INTO THE KERRY GROUP, to even see it, so how is this revisiting it? Kos started it. It's clearly Kerry related and current(Kos's book) - we clearly should discuss it.

This, however, is in reality a flamebait thread - with a VERY tired claim and it is in one of the MAIN forumns. If you want a place where everyone usually agrees with Dean, set up a Dean forumn - I might look at it, but I would abide by the rules and not bring negative Dean comments into it.

Kos really does not much like Dean, he just wants to sell his book. He likes to push buttons as well.

...the primary process/location changed before the 2004 primary season? I'd be willing to bet none. Zero. I'd also be willing to bet someone's going to claim they did. Let's be honest.

The primary system and locations were just fine in every election season leading to 2004. It was fine during 2004. It wasn't until Democratic voters rejected Howard Dean that it suddenly became an issue.

I supported Wes Clark in the primaries.

I accept that he lost.

I accept the reasons he lost - inexperience, entering the race late, and politics in general.

And I don't hear supporters of other candidates whining about their man or woman coming up short.

Why do some (and I just mean some) Dean supporters have trouble getting over the fact that he lost and the reasons he lost - mainly - voters liked someone else better.

Howard Dean may share one trait with Harry Truman - he was outspoken.

But remember - Truman was the President when he was outspoken. Dean was a mere primary contender.

And I have news for anyone reading this post and pounding their desks and gritting their teeth - in 2008 the candidate may be someone you don't like. You might as well prepare for it.

"Michigan". Take a good look at the discussions on changing the primaries. Note where the most noise and work is coming from and we are lead boldly by none other than our distinguished Senator, Carl Levin.

Julie

I noticed that.

will affect the needed change.

Julie

caucus then Michigan should hold a true caucus, not a primary, and have the ability for all precincts to be represented, not grouped together. Unless Michigan wants to hold the first primary, then the polls should be where people were told they would be and the polls should be open when people were told they would be open. Michigan needs to decide what it wants to do, then do it well. Whenever it holds it's contest.

Michigan used to have primaries. The State pays for those. Now we have "caucuses" which the parties pay for. And yeah, there was some confusion about voting location last time, I believe it was mostly in the city of Detroit. I hope it runs better next time, as well as earlier.

Julie

but by running a 'pseudo' caucus and then having foul-ups within that system isn't really the way to petition to hold the first in the nation contest. Hold true caucuses for a couple of cycles or go back to primaries. Make sure that the system is running well. THEN get out there and push to be first. Iowa didn't have foul-ups that I am aware of, either did New Hampshire. Didn't Michigan go early in 2004? earlier than it had ever gone before?

No talking about it ever? keeping our mouths completely shut?

You know, I ranted because I was feeling mad and wanted to calm down. That is how I calm down. Yet apparently it is not okay to do so.

Dean lost, I know why he did, and I accept it. But what I do not accept is the idea that we have to have ANOTHER person who will not be a firecracker. We need one of those. Too often we have Dems who are "willing to see the other side." No, the other side is the other side and they deserve no quarter. At least Dean was willing to do that. Kerry never showed that to me and I know I am not the only person who feels that way.

that everyday.

Yes, he took office after FDR died. But he did have some advantages.

He was polling very low, he had no money, barely anyone wanted to give him any and he had stood up for civil rights which caused a split in the party with the Dixiecrats along with the progressives who were Russia appeasers.

Truman did not have a lot of advantages except one: an opponent who would not fight back.

That is my problem with Kerry, he never fought back hard and fast. Two seconds after they found out about the SBVT ads, he should have blasted back with extremely tough words and been very forceful about how Bush has hurt America.

for JK, and he DID win...if ALL votes are counted.

Comparing JK to Dewey?!! Please...

And in retrospect, I wish we'd run Dean.

would have been a ball of fire and he understood long before he became DNC chair that one needs to have the 50 state strategy. Kerry was...well "electable"

I still maintain if he couldn't make it out of the primaries he was going to eaten alive in the general. I don't care what dirty trick people think befell him. The Bush campaign wasn't going to be covering him in kisses.

And lets not forget, first and foremost- Kerry lost, (with or without the help of the GOP election theft machine).. it's a pretty weak argument to say, "well, Dean would have lost worse!"

IMHO, Dean might have won where Kerry didn't. Because he wouldn't have rolled over when attacked, and he wouldn't have been painted as a "nuanced flip flopper".

If nothing else, he would have gone down fighting.

I think we need to stop running candidates who tell the American People what they think the public wants to hear, and start running folks who clearly and unapologetically stand up for what they believe in.

the freepers would have been dressed as waffles instead, since all the GOP did was borrow from the primary playbook.

I agreed with Dean. I thought Kerry was the "pragmatic" choice. And again, in retrospect, I think Dean would have run a better campaign. At worst, he would have gone down fighting- but I suspect he might have been able to win where Kerry didn't, (or at least garner too large of a margin for Bush to steal it again) actually.

And I'm not sure Kerry would have been a better President. I want someone in that office who has an unequivocal moral stance vis a vis Iraq. Which is why I seriously hope Al Gore runs in '08.

To suggest that Dean was our answer is just totally wrong. Dean aligned himself to what he thought would be his best opportunity to get noticed. his views and opinions are actually more centrist than John Kerry's ever were. He did more grandstanding than he actually did appearing sincere about his convictions.
Also, where were you during the election? John Kerry did stand up and he did fight against Bush. He presented himself in a more presidential manner. I never thought Dean would make a good president-he didn't have the temperament for it.I actually think he is better off where he is now as chairman of the DNC.
Finally, we would all be better off if John Kerry decided to run again. He is the most intelligent,knowledgeable, forward thinking leader and we will need these qualities in order to clean up the Bush mess and move forward.
Now, I didn't want to go negative on Dean, but your post begs us to, indirectly. I like and appreciate Dean's efforts in regards to his grassroots efforts and I contribute on a monthly basis. This post, however, just angers me and drudges up wounds from the past election. If you didn't and don't care for Kerry that is definitely YOUR LOSS. I however, refuse to accept the stupid notion that all we needed to do to win in 2004 was to sound like jerks and loud mouths.

difference than those who are too cautious.

Not when you say you would have voted for the war all over again. I don't usually take part in threads like this, but no one notices and everybody blames me anyway...so hey why not.

Dean never had to make that difficult choice, I can't respect his opinion as much as Kerry's. My guess is that Dean would have voted in a similar way as Kerry's if he had been in a position to do so. What he did was take advantage of a position that was up for grabs. It's easy to criticize and second guess when you haven't had to deal with it yourself.

Take me a while to get it right.

:sarcasm:

I love how what Democrats are supposed to do is always the polar opposite of the tactics Republicans use to gain power.

We always have to be the nice guy while we're being smeared and called traitors.

We have to field "electable" "presidential" candidates who never close to speaking the truth (no class warfare!!)

We have to pick "Centrist" candidates and appeal to the swing voters, we can't pick a candidate that motivates our base, or even people who don't vote.

Meanwhile Republicans use every dirty trick in the book, tap a very unpresidential and seemingly unelectable moron coke-head frat boy with a history of failure in business and in government, who can't string a sentance together. And they run a campaign that centers aroudn motivating and energizing thier base.

The reason Dean didn't get picked was because the corporatists (DLC, among others) that have taken over our party did not want the people's candidate to take control of the party apparatus. That's the long and short of it.

and use there dirty tactics? The public will not stand for these tricks much longer. I also think most reasonable Americans see through the Republican lies.

Face it, Kerry didn't win because people were not going to abandon a war time president and Democrats are perceived as weak on defense issues.I think it unimaginable the public would have bought Dean's anti war/peace stance during the election period.Not with all the scare tactics and attack warnings being orchestrated by the administration.

I'm saying we need to stop listening to conventional wisdom crafted by loser consultants, the corporate media, the DLC, and republican pundits and shake up the way we pick our candidates and run campaigns.

Face it you can't pick one reason why Kerry lost. Especially not in the era of Diebold.

I do think that there are a group of people here (I don't think you are part of) who have said that we need someone who would act in such a way that I would call him/her a loud mouth. These people have suggested that Kerry would have gotten more votes if he spoke like Whoopi Goldberg, Carvelle, Begala, or Michael Moore in bashing Bush.

Kerry attacked Bush ON THE ISSUES as hard as anyone. The people he needed to win were people who DIDN'T ALREADY HATE BUSH. To do that he had to convince them that he could be a better President. He couldn't do this if they preceived him as intensely angry (except when he spoke of things like not securing the ammmo dumps). He also had to do this with media totally biased against the Democrats.
(This is not personal to Kerry - listening to the news last night, many of the news people are saying that both the Democrats and Republicans are involved in this Abrahamoff scandal. In fact, a possibe new theme (that I heard from 2 people) was that the winner will be which ever party takes the lead in passing legislation to fix this! (Really fair test)

Does that mean you talk in a way that makes you seems smart but unlikable and uncomprehensible.

And tell me how "presidential" is George W? "Bring it on" "With us or against us?" "Smoke 'em out of thier holes?" "Food on your family?"

Please....Kerry turned people off because he was the walking empitome of the effete limousine liberal, he coudln't speak straight "I voted for it before i voted against it", and people didn't trust him, so they went with what they knew.

He was the DLC's "anybody but Dean" pick, and once he got front runner status after the DLC put out the hit on Dean in the lead up to IOWA it was a fait accompli.

to work and do what is right by her. You are a true leader and willing to take the criticism that goes along with opposing points of view. You take the time to listen and you take the time to care. You represent our country around the world and the image of our country is often defined by your bearing, your knowledge, your respectful manner and strength. Sorry, but Dean didn't represent much of these in my view.

Oh, and Kerry was never a true DLC pick. Kerry accomplished what he did on his own. Your IOWA crap is just that CRAP.

All those things apply perfectly to Dean. Dean had about 100 other advantages over Kerry.

On example: Dean raised more money than any other primary candidate in history, mostly from individual donations. Despite being the favored candidate of the DNC big donors.....he had to morgage his house to keep his campaign going.

Kerry was the DLC's "anybody but Dean" pick, and I don't care if you think it's crap, but go back and look at the way the DLC coordinated the attacks on Dean, both from the other candidates and with quotes in the major media, and maybe you'll think differently.

But you've probably shut your mind off to the facts, just like anti-evolution people. When you shut your mind off, it's easy to dismiss something as crap.

to a large majority of Americans- and I still don't see it. He has enthusiasm though, I will give him that.

Who had greater turn out for rallies, greater buzz, greater excitement and raised the record amounts of money from individual non-rich donors? All Dean.

I can dismiss your POV using facts, not just saying : "that's your opinion"

but it was one of less than 5 gaffes in a year of speeches. Read Kerry's statements. He has often made very good, very quotable comments. Look at his comment on the body armor - it is beautifully crafted and says exactly what needs to be said - guess what it's shorter than Pelosi's or Clinton's and far more eloquent. (I have no doubt which one had the deepest feelings on this.)

“There is simply no excuse for our troops not having the body armor that can save their lives. It’s a tragic and stark reminder of the very real human cost being paid for this administration’s mistakes. Failed leadership by the President and Secretary of Defense is no excuse and no solace.

“My thoughts and prayers go out to those families whose hearts are breaking again with this news.

“Congress has appropriated billions of dollars for this very need—the failure is the administration’s. It’s time for them to hold people accountable and deliver. No more rhetoric, no more lip service. Our troops deserve no less.”


If Kerry was the DLC pick "in the run up to Iowa", why was the Kerry campaign so broke that he mortgaged his house to get money? Kerry was neither a party insider or media favorite until he won both NH and Iowa. Where were all the DLC donors? A better case could be made that the DLC ABD candidate was Clark - who had Clinton connections (which Kerry didn't) and immediately raised a large amount of money. Earlier, they were the ones who made it CW that Gore, having won, should get another chance. When Gore said he wasn't running, it was Lieberman they backed. They may have liked Kerry better than Dean, but they clearly didn't back him.

As people here have said, Dean worked very hard for Kerry after he became the candidate. Some people who had worked for DLC people didn't.

And I still have my Kerry button on my bag.

I have no doubt that Kerry would have been a fine president - at least 200x better than Bush.

Reading Kerry's words are a lot less painful them hearing him deliver them. He doesn't talk like a common American. The tone of his voice and his cadence is that of a northeastern liberal elitist. He grew up in a time where people all the elites wanted to sound like the Kennedys. There was time in this country where seeming intellectual and cultured was a good thing. Now they want the president to sound like a moron faux cowboy frat boy. And Kerry does have a problem being concise and comprehensible. You picked some of his best quotations. But I watched a great many of his interviews and I never walked away from them with more admiration for him.

As to why Kerry's campaign didn't have enough money, I'm sure it has to do with campaign finance rules and the fact that Lieberman was the DLC's blessed front runner. But Dean never had a problem raising money and he wasn't tapping the rich people. He raised so much money because he fostered good will for himself because he had charisma and spoke plainly and aggressively.

I'm not saying that Kerry was the DLC's man. Because it's obvious he wasn't. You rightly point out that that was Lieberman.

But the DLC and the other corporatists feared Dean for the potential he had to transform the party. As chairman he can make changes but with the Presidential bully pulpit he could have done a lot more to undo the DLC's agenda for the party and the country. That's why they had to stop him.

They went into war mode and engaged in a behind the scenes "anybody but Dean" campaign. They used the major media and organized attacks from the other candidates to smear him as unelectable. You may disagree but I think the facts bear this out.

Now just because the DLC did this to stop Dean isn't a slight against Kerry. I'm just saying that the DLC undermined democracy and we ended up with a weak candidate as a result.

Now you can point out that he has a "centrist" approach as governor. First of all i challenge this notion that if you are for balanced budgets you are "centrist" as opposed to liberal. I've never really understood why balance budgets = centrism. Secondly to the extent that he was a DLC type politician I think that was because back then that was seen as the way to win power. The internet, and the ban on "soft money" has had changed politics a lot. And it has reduced the effectiveness of the DLC way of sucking up to big business and the big money donors who own big business.

I agree that the DLC liked Dean even less than Kerry. I think your comment that they were afraid of Dean's ability to transform the party is very likely true - it would diminish their power (and in fact the power of power brokers in general) I think that they had similar fears with Kerry - not because of how he ran his primary or his ge campaign, but because of his willingness to weed out corruption even if Democrats were involved.

One thing to think of. The power of the DLC as a group is likely less than it appears. Dean generated excitement, Kerry was able to win over voters - their candidate, Lieberman went nowhere. So, in a way, the only candidate they can successfully push is one that would excite people even without their support.

By the way, I apologize for jumping to conclusions and reading into your posts things that were clearly not there. I'm sorry for doing so. The quote was chosen, not because it was his best, but because it was from yesterday. The media did select what to show.

Kerry's is intelligent, thoughtfull and measured.

People do not want that, people want someone who will tear our enemies a new one while also telling them the "truth" in a easy to accept manner.

Yeah, I was heartbroken as any of us, but in the end probably 99% of Dean supporters ended up working their butts off for Kerry, or their local party or someone... I have been politically aware to some degree since 1968 and I don't think that the Democratic Party has ever been so united during an election as we were in 2004. Yes, we lost anyway... not so much because of Kerry himself (although I don't think much of the people who ran his camapaign) but because of structural problems in the Democratic Party that have been building up for a long time. I think that after the election, we did the right thing by making Dean DNC Chair. He really has been reforming the party, helping out the states, rebuilding precinct organizations, the sort of things that need to be done to really revive the party as the voice for ordinary Americans.

Had Dean won the primaries, would the Democrats all rallied behind him the way that we all did for Kerry? I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I seriously doubt it. And then had Dean gone down to defeat I think the efforts to remake the party would have been discredited and we would actually be in a worse place than we are now.

redefine ourselves to the public. Our party got lazy and started to ignore those we are suppose to represent, we started going for the easy money and not addressing internal problems expecting one candidate to do it all for us. We did do a good job of uniting though and I think that image will live on and bring many into our party.

I think you are way off that we woudlnt' have rallied around Dean.

Maybe the DNC snakes would have tried thier worst but I think Dean would have overcome that.

In the end the DNC snakes did all they needed to do in the lead up to Iowa.

been all I would have done. On the other hand, I liked and supported Kerry way back in October 03. When he became the candidate I even voted for him during my states primary, even though he already had the nomination. I volunteered and worked for him during the general election and donated money also. I can definitely say I would not have done that for Dean. Although, now I do contribute to the DNC and give on a monthly basis.

had more party spirit and graciousness than you do. We worked hard for Kerry, but you would not have done the same for Dean. Thanks for admitting it.

I voted for Kerry, supported him, did more for him than any other candidate in my life. I don't have much bad to say about him other than Dean was a stronger candidate.

what you can offer to support your opinion.that Dean was stronger. If that was the case they he would have been our candidate. I have already mentioned that I was not impressed with him, don't you think it is possible others felt as I did?

In about 4 separate replies in this thread. Go look.

Maybe you're not LISTENING to what I have to say.

You haven't pointed out any qualities that Kerry had that made him a better candidate other then your oppinion.

ungracious ones who use revisionism to continue the feuding give both camps a bad name.

this vitriol probably won't hurt Dean since he is not running in 08.

Most of the people who start these threads were never Dean supporters.

I tried, it did not matter, so I will say what I think I guess.

I followed his campaign, but only became involved after he won the primaries.I was never placed in a position where I would have to promote and support Dean. I also wouldn't classify your support of Kerry as gracious either, when you actually didn't want to support him and I have to wonder how effective you actually were, since these divisional posts keep coming up.

Dean had record turn out in the rallies and raise record amounts of money.

Numbers speak louder than your oppinion. He would have won if we didn't have a front-end loaded primary system and a media that allows the corporatist wing of our party to blackball the people's candidate.

cloud your judgement on how much support he actually had. It could be said that Dean attracted and raised money from the Anti-war crowd only. In the world outside the blogs, isn't it possible that Dean didn't appear as impressive. To be honest here, the times I mentioned him to co-workers and family- who aren't political junkies, they were not thrilled with Dean.

if it makes you feel better.

But you'll never get me to accept that there was more grassroots support and admiration for Kerry as there was for Dean. Sorry, ain't buying.

And the political junkies should be the ones who are driving the selection. We're the one's who know the issues best, know the candidates records best, know strategy the best.

Hopefully in 2008, the activist base gets to pick the candidate rather then the DLC corporatists and the corporate whore media. Fingers crossed.

You wouldn't have worked to get Dean elected had he been the nominee? And you have no qulams stating that? Didn't you realize the absolutely dire straits this country was in? is in now becasue Bush got back in? You really wouldn't have worked to get whichever Dem won the primaries elected? Maybe I shouldn't be surprised to hear someone admit that but I am.

I supported Clark in the primaries. I still do. I wanted with all my heart for him to be President. When Kerry won the nomination I worked very very hard for him. I would have done the same for whomever won the nomination.

The Democratic party was far overdue for reform. The elections this year should provide us with a glimpse of what Howard Dean can do. I can't wait! :toast:

trying to fix the problems in the party. One of my friends said "Clinton Redux."

This is stuff that should have been handled in 1992 but took until now to do so.

"You guys picked the wrong candidate."

Republicans make Dean out to be crazy to neutralize the his threat. They smear who they fear.

a second time around and many that voted for him the last time. Oh, none of those people thought much of Dean.

I didn't even meet very many Democrats who had anything good to say about Kerry other than to say that he was the "safe" pick. Almost everyone I knew wanted Dean or Clarke.

A safe candidate will not beat the Republican machine. They know how to beat a Safe candidate. They haven't had any experience trying to beat someone who speaks his mind in a clear spoken manner and excites the people.

I know voted for Kerry- the man- and not as you suggest. kerry was even able to energize and get many young people involved in politics. My daughter, has gotten involved in local elections in our area and has been active in Project 18 offered at her high school. She will also be doing grass roots efforts for the DNC this election.

And I voted for Kerry also. Bush was the motivating factor, not love of Kerry.

been even more drawn to him.

Clinton had 9 hours of his convention for Americans to be drawn in to him - including the video introduction.

The networks gave Kerry 3 hours and 1 of those hours was Clinton's speech. And one was Edwards' speech.

Kerry's "know me" video was unaired and so was his introduction by Max Cleland.

Please use context and perspective.

Our party was foaming at the mouth over the abuses of the Bush adminsitration and Kerry barely registered any emotion and he talked like a political robot.

But go ahead and blame it all on the media if that is what it takes for you to admit that Kerry wasn't perfect or that Dean would have run a stronger campaign.

Seems like someone's stuck in the "Denial" phase.

Want to talk about denial?

Why don't you argue your point of view without putting words in my mouth - it's a little more difficult but, it's much more effective.

the media had already chosen a storyline against him, and it is unlikely they would have altered that storyline during the general campaign.

Does anyone believe that any Democrat could have controlled the editting decisions made DAILY in the newsrooms? Media knew exactly how to destructively portray Dean by the end of the primaries. Especially when it came to protecting the Bushboy.

Dean would have had the same dumbed down Dem spokespeople and pundits matched up against the ruthless RW message machine that Kerry was stuck with. They were schooled for 8 years in defending Clinton, but knew little about any other Dem to talk about their records effectively.

Dean would have likely won his personal matchups with Bush, just as Kerry did, but lost in the daily battles because the left punditry class and the DNC spokespeople were ineffective matched against the discipline and lockstep message of the RW powerstructure and their mediawhores.

Either candidates would have dealt with a hostile media during the general.

Dean's plainspokeness and 'gaffes' were potrayed by the media (pundits) as a liability but, I would argue that they were one of his biggest strengths. Only pundits dismiss a candidate that doesn't talk like a robotic politician, being safe about every statement. Voters like it.

Everytime Dean said something controversial the media picked up his words up splattered them all over the media. This is a good thing. Its just about the only way the Democrats can shape corporate media coverage: say something controversal that invite ridicule from the far-right.

It was only the pundits and the far-right republicans who were looking at these statements and saying that it made him a bad pick. I think the independents and the democratic base heard his words and thought: "This is someone i could support, I understand what he's saying, and he shares my anger, he's not politics as usual."

We can argue this forever but I think that Dean would have been a better candidate. In the end I think Kerry did win. The chore of padding the Bush vote would probably have been harder if Bush ran against Dean.

see what part the media played in Kerry's defeat. To ignore the lastest revelations from the NY Times,withholding the wiretapping information and the Valarie Flamme case, to the overexposure of the Swift Boat Vets, then you are not being rational.

media desecrated Dean.. then went after Kerry..just like we predicted they would.

The Media didn't dare air the Kerry video of his life showing what a hero is or allow the swiftboatliars to be exposed for what they were.

They wanted the monkeyboy bush in again and were willing to betray America to get it done.

They are and have been our Biggest Enemy..when are we going right to the source and cut off the head of the Beast?

If I didn't like him, I would not have voted at all. And that was the case with most of those I came in contact with. Certainly, in any race there is an element of dislike of someone that motivates you to vote for someone else. but to suggest that a majority of those that voted voted ABB is just totally wrong.There wasn't that much dislike of Bush out there during the election. I had many people suggest that they were just fine, They had no real issues with Bush, they did however suggest that it wasn't wise to change horses in mid-stream. Kerry represented change and a fresh start.Those that voted for him voted for those reasons.
I never did buy the ABB idea. Bush may not have been polling 60, but he was still a known factor during a time of war and people felt comfortable with him even if he was mediocre.

unless you were watching CSPAN or seeing local TV from where Kerry, Edwards or their surrogates spoke (which the Kerry blog happily had links too), the only times you really "saw" Kerry unfiltered was the convention and the debates.

I get NYC media like you - and couldn't believe how bad the coverage was. I would see a fantastic rally on CSPAN - the numbers of people broke records - then I would see what was on network news or the cable shows. They censored the campaigning. (Even at very trivial levels - one non political sister of mine was surprised when she saw the book of photos taken by Butler - she thought Kerry never laughed or smiled (which he does even in the Senate) and she was shocked how pretty Teresa was. She had never seen anything but very unflattering pictures. (She hadn't caught Teresa's speech at the convention.)

Dean was defined as a far left whacko by the media (partly thanks to his campaign team) even though he had governed for ELEVEN YEARS as a CENTRIST.

The MEDIA LIES about all the Democrats.

Truman would have lost with today's media and today's voting machines.

progressives with him. They even could get more people to attend their events despite having to pay for them.


Yet Truman won. Because like Dean, he trusts the people.

Scab Openers, a new product you scrape on your old wounds to make them bleed again

....and by...

Circular Firing Squad, we like to shoot at each other when we could be focusing on real issues...

down when everyone around him said he was nuts and going to lose.

whose products allow you to avoid your voter's obligation to look at political candidates or their actions objectively, read any real news or study any real history, do any real research into why a good man loses a dirty election, (so much reading about complicated, big words like 'fraud,' why bother?) and endlessly glory in your victimization while denying the truth about what really hurt you. It's easiest to blame others for your own problems, mistakes and grievances, so why not have at it! Lazy, Delusional Partisan's Reality-Shielders' accessories are available in XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL and XXXL sizing, (although we're pretty sure Michael Moore won't want any of our stuff) so you can drag as many members of your community into your insulated world as you wish. No reality. It's really the best way to go.

We have some important elections comind this year, and Howard Dean will be measured and should be measured according to the results of those, rather than "what should have been."

I doubt many of us will be disappointed.

But Dean is no Truman and no populist. Finding a populist like Truman who will stand up and fight would be a good idea for 2008.

connection between Dems and Abramoff.

Dean said it right, NO DEMS got his money. Democrats who received money from Tribes or Greenberg, et al had received money from those entities prior to Ambramoff and very well will receive money in the future. NO DEMS. REPEAT IT. Listen to Howard Dean!

that it would cause a real explosion.

I'm so happy that he is the leader of the Dems now and can't wait to see what happens in the upcoming elections! :party:

I'm proud to have him as the head of our Party!

Yeah, they sucked...but...but...but...

:grr:

:cry:

I used to hate the way Steve Young and the 49ers whined about how they were really good and how they should have won and how the refs were calling bad penalties and such.

If Kerry tries again, and doesn't make it through the primaries this next time, and I start whining about it, you all have my permission to slap me silly.

there are far better reasons to support him - his intelligence, integrity, knowlege, creativity, leadership, ......

Sorry your candidate didn't make it out of the primaries. That's the way the cookie bounces. Neither did mine. Why do you think I, a Kerrycrat, went with the name "Little Clarkie" unless I was a Clarkie at some point. Kerry was my second choice.

(And, of course, you're assuming we lost.)

He'll be my first next time. Catch us if you can.

Apparently.

(of course I disagree with the whole premise of your post, but if Dean was Truman and Kerry was Dewey, how the f*** did we get "stuck" with Kerry? your post makes no sense.)

And I really don't appreciate you attacking the primary voters as not knowing what they were doing. Howard Dean is doing a great job as DNC chair. Kerry was a great candidate who came damn close to unseating a popular president during "wartime", despite massive electoral fraud that the party should've foreseen but did not effectively stop, and the anchor of traditional so-called "Democratic" consultants like Shrum and Brazile. A mistake I am sure you won't see again from him.

Edited for typo.

by Iowa and NH leaving him unable to contest later races because he was broke. Genius!

2004 was not 1948 by any means and Kerry was not a Dewey.

This is a mess, reflecting, in my mind, how polarizing a figure Dean, not Kerry, DEAN is within our Party. Especially at a time when we need unity. One more reason he needs to go.

"This is a mess, reflecting, in my mind, how polarizing a figure Dean, not Kerry, DEAN is within our Party. Especially at a time when we need unity. One more reason he needs to go."

Someone posts something here, an open forum. You say that the party chairman needs to leave the party. I find that astonishing. I really do.

How many others of us would you like to ask to leave as well?

In addition to being a divisive force, a centrist who lied about his history and his positions while campaigning, and someone who can't stay on message with other Party leaders to save his life, I just don't see how his appointment or his presence has helped us in any positive way (especially where fundraising is concerned).

Ok. This has been a most enlightening thread. Maybe it is just as well it was posted. It has been very divisive but very enlightening as to people's motives.

It has helped a lot of people clarify that the ABB scenario a lot followed for party unity did not matter. It will help a lot of people realize what the future holds.

Thanks for much for saying that openly.

Kerry was a much better candidate than he is given credit for. We played into the hands of the Republicans with this tag. Those that claim to have supported him as ABB did him and I think our party a disservice. It weakened Kerry's position and discredited him at the same time. I always said, Kerry was to good and strong a candidate to be tagged in that derogatory way. I always wondered where this deceptive perception of Kerry originated and with Kos distorting the election in his book, I have to wonder if it originated from his camp.

I did not think it had come out yet?

now than any time I can remember in recent history. Do I misunderstand you? If I do, please accept my apologies.

His fundraising has outstripped the last DNC chair's by far already.

As I mentioned upthread--we're not going to know definitively what kind of job Dean has done until the elections. Those should tell us a lot.

.

That doesn't even make sense as a paralell. We should have picked a Republican instead of a Democrat?

in the primary. What makes you believe that he would have been strong enough to fend off attacks from Republicans in the general election?