We have a Crisis of Candidate not a Problem of Platform

This is our crisis:

Howard Dean was a good Governor and is now the undisputed front-runner of the Party nomination. But he is not a credible candidate for the post of COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of U.S. Armed Forces in the middle of what is perceived by the public as a global war.

This in not the crisis of the anti-Dean folks. It is the crisis for all of us. The reason for all the "chatter" is that this crisis has to be faced.

It is as simple as that. We need to give some respect to the 60% of our fellow citizens that will likely never be convinced otherwise. The truth does not support a Dean candidacy, and as Democrats we don't want the play the Republican deception games. We need to put forward a different candicate

As Democrats, this is our time to choose which leader we want to offer to the rest of the nation for the job of President.

On the one hand, we have Howard Dean, a candidate with a newly minted anti-war credentials and a moderate/conservative record who cannot be elected because his campaign rhetoric and media spin tags him as a leftist.

On the other hand, we have John Kerry, a candidate with long-time anti-war credentials and a progressive record who can be elected because he has a strong national security credentials and is perceived as a centrist.

The old joke on Democrats is that they lose because they would rather be right than win.

This year we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to be right (or should I say Left) and still choose the candidate who can win.

Howard Dean wants to put all green-eyed people to death. Dean wants hazel-eyed people to be slave labor!

Vote Kerry. He won't slaughter green-eyed people.

That sinister Dean will be the death of us all!

women, children, and pets..the Grim Dr. Dean approaches.

Funny.

Dean '04...

their time promoting their candidates positions rather than nonsense.

we are soooo screwed........

I agree that Howard Dean is not electable.

However, I don't agree that John Kerry is.

So I'll match your Dean is not electable, and raise you a Wes Clark for President.

I've come to this conclusion after many hours of meditation . nameste.

I haven't been here since Wednesday and I C nothing has changed. Truly amazing!

Come back after Super Tuesday.

And now back to the battle....

:smoke:

I don't have a lot of confidence in his ability to campaign. Kerry is not perceived as a centrist, but as an arrogant, aristocratic, waffling northeastern liberal who stands for nothing.

The trick is to forget about the "perception" bs and get real flesh and blood voters to the polls. The proof is in the pudding.

I do *not* want to take the Kerry disaster to the national level.

  " Kerry is not perceived as a centrist, but as an arrogant, aristocratic, waffling northeastern liberal who stands for nothing. "  

This IS the perception of a great many people.

I have been to a Kerry house-party event. He is not at all the Dean
caricature. He is a warm, patient listener and responded fully to every question. All at the party, including several Republicans, were totally impressed.

But the Media Moguls have been delighted to propagate Dean campaign
inventions regarding his opponents.

Now I know much of what comes of of the Dean campaign is just that --
campaign stuff, with no basis in reality. GREAT JOB Governor. Single-handedly you have collaborated with the Corporate Media to destroy
the Democratic leadership.

Every time he speaks.

"Kerry on, my wayward son. There'll be peace cause you are done."

at the same event that I decided to support Howard Dean, long before he was even noticed by the media.

and as you said " the trick is to forget about the perception bs".

Howard Dean has much wider cross party appeal than any other candidate. Clark is right up there too. Kerry ? I don't think so.

Early Focus groups showed the opposite: -- When candidates were
presented, Kerry and Lieberman had broadest appeal.

But, Now that the Corporate Media has decided what the Story
should be, we must go along. RIGHT.

What were their military backgrounds prior to serving as Commander-in-Chief?

Wilson didnt grow up in a war era, and FDR tried to serve but got sick and another time in WWI, wanted to but Wilson wouldnt let him go. On the other hand, I do see your point, just saying what I know about those 3.

thought I read that here. :)

edited: to add the was in subject

At the time the perceptions of the two parties were very different. The Democrats were thought to be the more "hawkish" party, with the repubs. were isolationists.

Perception is all important here given the times. IOW, an unlearned and inexperienced bushco, trumps an inexperienced Democrat every time. The Democrats must overcome "weak of defense" or lose.

Couple that with rolling back the middle-class tax cut, and the media driven perception that Dean, who to my mind is too far to the right, is a liberal, and voila we've found the recipe for electoral disaster.

Whether you look at domestic or foreign or defense issues, Dean outshines GWB. Bush trashed his own state, and now is trashing this country and two others. Dean helped Vermont to heal from the Reagan years and to shine in the new century.

To say he is unqualified is to say that all non-presidents are unqualified. To look at what he has already done-running for office, getting elected, and doing the job well (running a state), is to see that he is in fact the only qualified candidate on either side.

Seat-warming and total screw ups do not qualify a person for anything.

but has a gigantic donut hole on foreign and defense issues

I realize he has traveled to "lots of countries" and negotiated important border issues with Canada...and carried his x-rays bravely to his physical...

kind of tough going against a war-time prez with 60% plus numbers

who have negative foriegn policy experience. By negative, I mean actual experience f***ing things up, or colluding with those that do.

If the accumulated experience of these candidates left them trusting Bush*, let's just say - I wouldn't be highlighting it on my Resume'.

"George W. Bush" is the strongest arguement for NOT sending another
unqualified Governor to the White House. WE NEED TO BE BETTER THAN
THE REPUBLICANS.

both Kerry and Clark have strong credentials in defense/foreign issues...which one has the best plan for Iraq & Terror?

Bush isn't a disaster because of lack of experience bush is a disaster because he believes that he has been ordained by god to lead all the nations of the world to bow at the feet of the United States and because of arrogance. I was quite happy with Clinton foreign policy record, not bad for an unqualified Governor.

This is our dilemma:

Howard Dean will make every American eat one kitten a week, if nominated and elected! 60% of the American public will find this unpalatable. Howard Dean must be stopped, and a credible, non-kitten-eating candidate chosen instead! Thus speaketh the Insufferably Pompous Voice of Wisdom and Doom and Other Stuff! Hear, and obey! :eyes:

wait a minute....

Are you even familiar with the term "Gored"? Do you not see how the best among us is picked apart? Do you see that this fate would befall EVERY living human being ever born, once the primary piranhas fix their tiny little teeth upon him/her?

Taking our country back from monied special interests would grow some pretty determined enemies, don't you think?

:shrug::eyes:

The American public does not trust Democrats with National Security issues. They may tell the pollsters that education and jobs matter the most, but in the voting both they vote for a president whom they consider strong on National Security.

WHY?

Unfortunately for Democrats and the country, the repubs own National Security and any GOP candidate gets at minimum a B+, even AWOL monkeys. The reasoning is faulty, a result of over thirty years of rightwing propaganda and a Democratic base which includes anti-military elements to the point of cutting off its nose as well as the vote.

That bush would have gone to war no matter what happened in the congress may not be a foregone conclusion, but there is plenty of evidence. As it was, he never received the okay from the UN to go to war, because the UN felt the resolution did not authorize war. Hmmm? Why are these facts so easily dismissed? Because people will only seek to believe what suits their case. Yes.

Anyway, the GOP has controlled the presidency throughout the much of the Cold War. That they are chicken hawks and liars may be intellectual understood by many people, but discarded by the majority especially with a war on. The GOP knows this and lost to Clinton during a period of peace; the Democrats would seem to not care.

It will be difficult to oust bush, but not impossible if National Security is off the table. Dean's supporters think this is just a ploy to garner support for another candidate. They could not be more incorrect. Dean can say all of the right stuff--he can surround himself with the mightest foreign policy people who ever lived--it will not matter. Dean lacks gravitas. He cannot challenge bush on foreign policy, because the pre-conditioned voters are not easily led on this issue.

"A hole in national security" is more than just something needing to be filled; it, even more than the middle-class tax-cut rollback and the cultural war issues, is what will lose us this election. Dean's weakness becomes our weakness. I have a right and duty to speak out about this, because I and my family will be going down with you. I have the worst of feelings about this entire election.

Kerry and Clark's strengths have been well aired in a thread that actually produced a fair discussion. As you know, I lean toward Clark because of demographics and the "who" element strengths I think he brings. However, I am in overall agreement that we are currently fucked. Sorenson has endorsed Clark...so at least one of our wise men is in in tune. :-)

love the bold

The reason for all the "chatter" is that this crisis has to be faced.

Chatter? Did you really say chatter? Hard orange alert, hard orange alert. Man the battle stations.

Turn off the cable news stations and get a grip on yourself old wisemen.

The old joke on Democrats is that they lose because they would rather be right than win.

Har-de-har-har. The chatter I hear is that no one likes bush and he will go down with a thud.

As far as a once in a lifetime opportunity, I guess if you have the life expectancy of a fruitfly you may be right. There is a presidential election every four years, since Kerry is so convinced that he is the real deal you might get another chance if he doesn't succeed in getting the nomination this time around.

Bush is not a pushover. Read the polls, though they may sicken you.
Bush has a ton of money and agreat strategist. We probably all agree that he is the worst president ever, but he is one of the best campaigners ever also. For some unaccountable reason, people like him.

Just keep all this in mind. It is too important not to.

"people like him ". But now all we hear is whining about the hatred for poor little old Georgie. Guess the GOP should have picked someone a little more likeable.

You think people like him? You watch too much TV. I don't know anyone except brainwashed, corporate people who like him. He's a lousy excuse for a leader and even a man. He is owned by the money of corporations, works for them and the media is part of all that. It's the needed reforming of our system, including campaign reform for candidates that will allow for issues to be discussed, unbiased and uncontrolled by a two party system more interested in keeping the status quo then really paying attention to what people in our society need, or better yet what needs people have. WE HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO.

There are a lot of people in the country who disagree with you! Check it out.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/cat_grassroots_reports.html

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

"1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats (emphasis mine) or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

*cough, cough*

*cough, cough*

i see dean people

anywhere down where I live - despite what Zogby says.

<<<snip>>>

In his zeal to keep pace with Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament, Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

In this interview Kerry states that he thinks his 'anti-war' positions of the 1980's were "ill-advised" and "stupid".

This explains his votes to defeat a cut in funding for Trident Missles, even after he fudged his position to earn a 100% rating from Freeze Voter, a nuclear freeze advocacy group. The article includes a link to the campaign memo documenting the fudged answer.

"Oppose" weapons, vote to fund their construction. "Oppose" uniilateral pre-emptive war, then vote to authorize it. Determine that your anti-war posiitons of the 80's were ill-advised, then claim anti-war credentials.

This man's story is so full of holes that the fact that anyone can conclude that he is electable boggles the mind.

positions of the 80's were ill- advised and stupid ? I think that broad statement is not true. I suggest you read the article again. Putting quotation marks around ill-advised and stupid does not cut it.

In talking about some of the systems he opposed at that time, he said some of those positions were ill-advised and stupid. Surely his opposing certain weapons system could not be characterized as his entire anti-war position of the 80's.

cut and paste from the article is two sentences above and uses a quote stating "ill-advised" and "stupid". Please note the words.

as presented below in a more abbreviated form

<<<snip>>>

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

<<<end snip>>>

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

Some more

<<<snip>>>

"Walker was confused about your answer" on funding the Trident submarine, Rosenberg wrote in an internal memo to Kerry, who had originally hedged in his opposition to funding new subs.

"It is critically important that we get a 100 percent rating," Rosenberg wrote, in a memo that has not previously been made public. "You should explain how your position was misinterpreted so that he will correct the rating before it is distributed to the board tomorrow evening."

<<<end snip>>>

Of course, since then he has voted to fund the construction of these weapons.

there have been 5 "cutesy" Dean comments (i.e. unsubstantial), and only 2 with any type of substantive response.

Interesting.

..it would get worthy responses. :shrug:

the "cutesies" now have six.

The initial post is pompous drivel..

So you get snappy answers to stupid questions.

We must Samba now!

the substance of the original post?

Kerry's identity crisis?

How is Kerry supposed to beat Bush -- by putting the entire electorate asleep with his powerfully hedged, fully nuanced stances on everything from herbal tea to gun control?

Dean tells it like it is. Bluntly. When the emperor truly has no clothes, that is both right and the winning strategy.

Too bad Kerry was too hedged and nuanced to notice.

Dean and his supporters have done an incredible media (including Internet) propaganda job to co-opt Kerry's positions and slime the great Senator. But, his awards should come from the Academy, not from the democratic party.

Kerry's criticism of Bush's little Iraq adventure was noticeably absent until Howard Dean's success made Kerry flip then flop then flip again.

I don't want a naive commander-in-chief.

who can admit a mistake...than a poser extraordinaire who tries to con me.

on TV.

Kerry is the "poser extraordinaire".


The thousands of soldiers who had their legs blown off in IRAQ and the 400+ who have died because of his naivete might have preferred to live out their lives here.

It changes weekly, so i can't keep up whether he's supporting his vote, or kinda supporting his vote, or what... :shrug:

Kerry was publicly opposing Bush regime effort to sideling the
U.N. inspectors and ignore the U.N. Security. He publicly call on
Bush to STOP HIS RUSH TO WAR, while Dean was still wringing his hands and looking to Trippi to find an advisor to give him a position that could take him out of his obscurity.

Kerry had to vote for the War resolution in order to bring us peace.

and calling for unilateral war if 30-60 days went by and the inspectors had not found weapongs. Meanwhile, he was calling Clark for advice. That was before Dean decided to "go negative" and tell lies about Clark. While I certainly don't speak for Clark on this isssue, I would be shocked if he thought this was behavior he approved of.

Hmmmm?

I hear Dean is short too. What oh what are we going to do?

As you posit the well-worn eastcoastcentric viewpoint that we are "in a global world war", and that "a majority" believe this.

No one west of Ohio buys this. In much of the United states, we regognize a ginned up excuse for a hot war against a new cold war style enemy.


peace dividend just wasn't good enough for them.

but at this point I think we need Edwards to fill the void primariliy because he has not engendered ill will throughout this thing. Pull Kerry along for VP.

Edwards hasn't been all over the map on his positions. Poor guy walked into the California Dem Convention, defended his Iraq vote, and the whole crowd booed.

Gotta respect him for be willing to take the bad and the good.

We DO have some candidates in a crisis, cause they are gonna lose and lose bad, but remember "not a vote has been cast yet".

The media is only heating the Dean track. You would think they enjoy lighting fires under our leftmost brethren, just to see them skitter off the track.
Opposing Bush is one thing, opposing his war on terror is another. Two things can happen in '04. One, a major terror attack. People will get freshly enraged and endorse Bush's bloodlust. Two, no major terror attack. People will assume he's being effective. Either way, people do not vote for Howard Dean the Antibush. (Which btw is likely to cost the average voter a $2k/year surcharge.)
If Dean had anything to offer---starting with experience---I'd feel better about his chances against Bush. I'd never vote for Clark, yet I can believe he'd capably handle Iraq, clean up Bush's mess and not start new ones. I don't think Dean could clean up Florida. And with all respect to Vermont, I don't think running Vermont takes a great deal of statesmanship. Or teaches any.
Kerry would mop the floors with Bush. Too bad he won't start sweeping his campaign floors, and he'll never get the opportunity.

No need to kill a man to judge a crime. No need to be a parent to be a good teacher. Don't need to wage war or fight in battles to have a diplomatic edge in foreign relations UNLESS you accept(without thinking) that America's edge is military bravado. Now ask yourself, is it the face we want to show the world, honor as heroes, spend our national wealth and send our children off to kill and be killed form one of aggerssion and force? Soldiers know the business of war, give me a good governor anyday to set the priorities in order.

I hate to tell you this but we are NOT electing the ' COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of U.S. Armed Forces' and we are NOT yet in a global war. We are electing the PRESIDENT of the United States, a CIVILIAN position with the responsibility of commander-in-chief. The truth does not support the Dean campaign? What kind of new-speak is that? John Kerry isn't a bad man but to the average person he has about as much appeal as Gore had and that just won't cut it.

You are correct, I would rather be right then win. If not, why bother?

And John Kerry will be tarred as the next Ted Kennedy in the election. An arrogant ivory-tower liberal who want's to grab guns and raise taxes. The only national security credentials he has is that he supported the war against Iraq, but wanted to do it better than Bush. He changed his rhetoric on the war so many times, even his supporters can't come to a consensus on where he stands. Nevermind that he doesn't have much support from the democratic base.

If you are planning on supporting a candidate because of some hope that the media won't savage him, you are not facing reality.

Bush is a paper-tiger waiting to be taken out by anybody who has he audacity to go after him. You're not going to win the election by playing defense and hoping the media won't be hypocritical.

well said