Eight Simple Reasons Why Howard Dean Is Electable

I’m sick and tired of people saying Howard Dean is unelectable. Well, let me make this clear:

Howard Brush Dean III Is Able To Be Elected The Forty-Fourth President Of The United States In The 2004 Presidential Election!

As a matter of fasct, I consider him to be the most electable of our nine candidates.

If I made a dollar every time I heard someone call Dean unelectable…

Anyway, here’s why Dean is electable, in a nutshell:

1. Dean (in my biased opinion) is tougher, more energetic, and more aggressive toward Bush* than Gore was three years ago. Don’t get me wrong: I love Al, I would have voted for him had I been old enough, and I was an all-around big fan of his. Oh, and yes, he won in 2000. However, so many people have accused Gore of not campaigning hard enough, or of coming across as too boring or uptight. Dean wouldn’t be called ‘front-runner’ had he not been campaigning very hard, and to call Dean boring or uptight, would be a lie in every sense of the word. Angry? Yes, but so are many people who have lost their jobs, gone without health insurance, and so forth.

2. Dean has wide appeal.

Have you seen how many DUers have posted about longtime Republican friends and relatives saying they will vote Democratic in the next election because of Bush’s war? Why would they not vote for the antiwar Howard Dean, then, if he is the nominee? The big issue with angry Republicans involves fiscal responsibility. Bush is so fiscally irresponsible, he has angered many of his conservative allies with such huge deficits and outrageous spending. Many of them would willingly support Dean if he is nominated.

Greens support him because he opposed the war in Iraq, and he is taking on W. in a way no one else has dared (except perhaps Kucinich and Sharpton).

3. Dean is not as weak on national security as someone of his opponents want him look.

Dean has a plan to protect us from terrorism:

a circle of preparation and response to ensure that the resources are available immediately at the local and state level to enable first-responders to mitigate the effects of any future attack and cope with the consequences of such an attack without compromising our civil liberties;

a circle of protection to defend our critical infrastructure and borders;

a circle of prevention, in cooperation with Russia and our allies, to reduce the chances that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will fall into the hands of terrorists or states that mean us harm and to promote the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in societies that have heretofore been breeding grounds for terrorists

As I recall, Bush’s plan involves a circle of war, another circle of war, and another circle of war.

4. Dean can’t be accused of being Clinton’s Vice President. Nor was he Secretary of State, Attorney General, Chief of Staff, or even HHS Secretary.

As much as I love Clinton, you know that many Republicans love to blame Clinton and witch-hunt people associated with him.

The only connections Dean has with Clinton is that he was Governor when Clinton was President, Clinton said he admired him, and Clinton’s Vice President endorsed him. Other than that, Rove&Co. can’t tie him to Clinton.

5. Dean can clear up questions about his past better than W. or Cheney could about theirs.

“Why won’t Howard Dean release his records?”

By refusing to release his records, Dean is guarding the privacy of countless Vermonters, unlike Cheney, who has hidden many of his records to hide his work with big oil. Wouldn’t you want some privacy if you had records with your state’s Governor’s office, or do you prefer your good name to be stolen? (And yes, Virginia, there still is a Fourth Amendment.)

“Dean is a draft-dodger.”

Dean went in for a physical, and they refused to let Dean enter the military. His back couldn’t handle the weight normal people’s backs do.

On the other hand, someone I know went AWOL from the National Guard in the 1970’s.

“Dean flip-flops a lot.”

In life, we all ‘flip-flop,’ or change our mind, every now and then. The only difference is that politicians just do it in the open.

W.’s flip-flops on so many issues, such as carbon dioxide emissions, steel tariffs, Osama bin Laden, the Palestinian state, the UN, and so forth, make Dean’s flip-flops seem trivial.

6. Guns are a big reason why Dean can do well in many battleground states. Apparently, a lot of people didn’t like Gore’s position on guns. In fact, some say Gore’s tough-on-guns stance cost him Ohio, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee. Those six states amount to 81 electoral votes that we could have by simply nominating a less tough-on-guns candidate. The gun vote also played a big part in the Gore states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Iowa. Gore could have probably won by bigger margins in those states, which add up to 70 more electoral votes, for a total of 161 electoral votes in those states.

Before you flame me, yes, I realize that not everyone who voted for Bush on the gun issue in 2000 would vote for Dean in 2004. However, I believe that if we want to win in any of these states, it is important to take guns as an issue off the table. By doing this, Dean would probably attract more gun owners who would have voted for a less pro-gun-control Gore in 2000. (I emphasize, not all, but many)

7. Bush or Dean? The American people would have a choice. A dirty environment or a clean environment? The education system as it is now, or a better education for our young people, in early childhood, K-12, and higher education? Bad healthcare or good healthcare? I think Dean can make that clear, especially in his Democratic National Convention Acceptance Speech or a debate.

8. Dean is an optimist. Sorry Rove, Sorry W. He’s not the pessimist you wish he was. Just look at his announcement speech on June 23, 2003:

“Today I announce that I am running for President of the United States of America. I speak not only for my candidacy. I speak for a new American century and a new generation of Americans -- both young people and the young at heart. We seek the great restoration of American values and the restoration of our nation's traditional purpose in the world.

This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere.

<snip>

We are the great grassroots campaign of the modern era, built from mouse pads, shoe leather and hope.

<snip>

You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny.

You have the power to rid Washington of the politics of money.

<snip>

You have the power to restore our nation to fiscal sanity and bring jobs back to our people.

<snip>

You have the power to take back the Democratic Party.

You have the power to take our country back.

And we have the power to take the White House back in 2004.

.....................................................
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Democratic Underground, I rest my case. If you still think Howard Dean is unelectable, prove that to me. And no, don’t use polling numbers! Polls are insignificant ten months before the election, and you should know that.

I've held that any Democrat can beat Bush. In 1932, people voted against Herbert Hoover more than for Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1980, any Republican could have probably beaten Jimmy Carter. The same held true for Poppy in 1992, and may very well hold true for W. in 2004. Usually, people are more anti-incumbent than pro-challenger. That's why I believe Anyone--ANYONE--can defeat George W. Bush on November 2, 2004. However, fopr the readsons stated above, I believe that Howard Dean isa the most electable oif our nine candidates.

How Dean could win: A conservative's view
An influential Bush supporter sees the Democratic front-runner as a credible challenger to the president
By William Kristol, Washington Post
http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/insight/article/0,1713,BDC_2494_2499900,00.html
"If you have no enemies, it is a sign fortune has forgot you."
- Thomas Fuller (1608 - 1661)

Great post. Thanks! "You got the power!"


Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300

Bill Kristol said that Dean was the biggest winner of 2003. I think Kristol is quite a believer in the Dean campaign!

... will tell the tale. If Dean does very well in the Southern and Midwestern primaries, then we'll know he's electable.

There's a movement afoot in many Southern states who hold open primaries to spur Republicans to vote for Dean to be the nominee because, frankly, there's another candidate out there who terrifies them - and it's not Dean (see my avatar).
Therefore, it's a wash.
I think you guys need to go start reading the GOP sites to get a feel for what's going on out there. It's pretty scary.
(And if Bill Kristol is scared of Dean, I'll give up - well, gee, I don't have anything much to give up since I'm so poor in this Bush economy).

Dean's community appeal. This is something that is intrinsic. Clark is not appealing to people in my area. I live in a small midwestern\southern city with a large University. The students go for Dean. The personality factor is a big deal here. It's a small enough town where people like to know their neighbors. The thing about the south and midwest that people underestimate and fail to recognize here is that it is related to being a part of a small community that people have in common with Dean. It's not a regional it's a cultural. Add to that Dean has made a life out of communicating with people on their terms. That's what doctors do. Their job is to make sure that everything they tell a person is understandable to them no matter what their education level, language experience, hearing ability, etc. This is an education that contributes huge flexibility to his political skill.
And yet this guy who has spent a lifetime of forced conformity in an instition is supposed to have broader appeal??????
Interesting thesis.

It's a speech full of hope, optimism, and vision. I'm sure we'll be hearing more along those lines shortly, and I can't wait!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean241.html, With this not only will he turn away Reps but a lot of Dems too.

What a shame that the neocon Sun Times would let such a thing happen to such a precious treasure. Novak, perhaps?

That'll turn away a lot of folks.

:spank:
Now that's comedy.

Total non-issue

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean241.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean241.html.
Non-issue? There are more POW/MIA Flags in pickup windows than CF.

http://wits2020.net/archives/000314.html
That's when the defining crisis arrived. Charlie turned up missing. Younger by 16 months (they'd shared a bunk bed as boys), he was the more idealistic. "Charlie was the more community-minded, the more focused on politics," says third brother Jim Dean. In 1968 Charlie enrolled at Chapel Hill, a font of civil-rights activism. In 1972 he plunged into the anti-Vietnam War campaign of Sen. George McGovern, only to see him crushed in 49 of 50 states by Richard Nixon. "Charlie was very disillusioned," says Jim. "That is when he decided he needed to leave the country."

Pieced together in later years, many of the whys and wherefores of Charlie's journey remain a mystery: a freighter from Seattle to Japan, then Bali, then Australia, then to Laos, where his dad knew a man in USAID. Why Laos? Perhaps Charlie was just on the hippie circuit, and saw it as a way station to Nepal. Perhaps he wanted the thrill of seeing the flickering flame of the Indochina war he had wanted to help try to end. Later, his parents thought that perhaps he had become a spy--a theory fueled by the fact that the Army listed this civilian as a POW/MIA. "I don't happen to believe it, but for all I know he was in the CIA," says Howard Dean.

Or is he really out to play the race card?http://thewall-usa.com/cgi-bin/search4.cgi

Pandering and Lies covered by Lies! B*** does that crap.

The neo-cons probably removed it so they could meet their dream candidate in Nov.

That is very unusual to have the wide range of support. We had a lot of Republicans on the McBride campaign with us as well last year.

Many many of them are disillusioned with the Bushes.

Dems (of course), and independents all like him. This will only get stronger should he win the nomination.

And, not only do I find him unelectable, I just don't like him.
So... to clarify - not ALL Independents like him. Fact is, I don't know any Indies that like Dean.

http://deanindependents.org/

Do a google search. Quite a few out there.

He is attracting a lot of them, though.

Besides, how many independents do you know?

Former Dem, now independent, for Dean.

5) Opinion on your part. Why not release his records now? Honestly, do you think an answer of "he is trying to safeguard the rights of Vermonters" will work? That looks like tapdancing of the worst kind, as is the explanation of why he didn't go into the military. Try and explain that to the guy who went in because he felt "the need to serve when called." This has been gone over many times before, but those of us who were draft age know why he brought his x-rays and doctors notes - he didn't want to go. As someone who was (and who wouldn't have, most probably) I find fault not in the act, but in the foolish ways people are trying to spin it. Oh, and PLEASE do not ever try the line that his "back couldn't handle the weight." But he could go skiing??? For a year??? Don't rationize - apologize. That would be the way to go here.

Also, don't try and contrast the fact that "Dean did A, but Bush did A+B." As crazy as it sounds, sitting rPresidents hold some type of perverse moral high ground, and "I might be bad but you're worse" attacks always fail. You must frame the issue in terms of why his policies are bad, and why yours are better.

6) In this case, Dean is trying to take the NRA moral "high ground" away from Bush, and can't. The gun stand will not help when viewed against the "Vermont issues." Hunting is the caveat here - that is what propels gun owners to the Repub side. Somehow, the mental image of Dean in a duck blind ranks up there with Dukakis in the tank. Sorry. I don't think he can convincingly make the case to recreational gun owners without being portrayed as a cariacature by the right.

7) Moot point. Any candidate can run on an us vs. them platform - nothing special about Dean in this regard.

8) What you have posted here is rhetoric - pure and simple. Sloganeering, mostly, and almost all boilerplate. These types of things (slightly modified) would not be out of place on a "conventional" candidate website, or a Nader website, for that matter. What makes you think that this political climate lends itself to grassroots activism? I would suggest you look at Perot '92 to see how grassroots translates to GE votes.

I'll let someone else work on 1-4, although I'd like a shot at your national security argument. :)

#5 Dean has said he would abide by the Judge's decision (in lawsuit to release the records by neo-cons). His own explanation is that is to soon to release some material that maybe embarrassing to some Vermonters (i.e., "Dear Governor Dean, my husband has aids ...," etc.). By letting a Judge make the decision he is staying impartial to what is released.

And as to apologizing for trying to stay out of that meat grinder Vietnam. WTF! I wasn't going either. By the time I was of age most of my generation knew that war was idiocy. S'cuse us if we didn't want to ruin our lives in avoiding that crap!

Less then 10% of my generation served. I know plenty of Vietnam Vets who think Dean is great.

That dog won't walk.

Nothing stated about apologizing for not going to Vietnam (reread the post). An apology for hemming/hawing re: the reasons would do more good than anything. He has already stated once that he brought those records in hopes of not going- - how about he actually sticks to that?

Take some time to compose yourself before responding. :)

"But he could go skiing??? For a year??? Don't rationize - apologize. That would be the way to go here."

He was too injured to go into the service, but could go skiing for a year. He should apologize for making folks believe he was hurt. He should say, as he had before, that he went to the draft board armed with tools which would lead those folks to believe he was physically unfit. Once he succeeded in doing so, he was free to pursue, as they say, "other interests." Stop the phony other stuff. If he is as straight shooting as you contend, it should be easy for him. I, for one, would respect him much more should he do so.

Once he gets the hang of this truth thing it's easy! :)

Unless you can prove he falsified something I don't see what he should apologize for. He had a condition that got him out of going to a stupid war. Good for him. He could still go skiing. Good for him.

The Vietnam war was a crazy horrible experience and won't work will as a litmus test for patriotism.

This truth thing is not easy. The Washington insiders will make sure of that.

and fought without protest in the largest mistake the United States has committed in the world stage, backing the conservative war machine that costs millions of lives for no other reason than to make money off the industry of war?

"to the general, all warfare appears noble"

Michigander4Dean was simply stating that the Gun issue won't work as well against Dean as it might of against Gore 2000. The Rethugs won't be able to use it.

Nor will you be able to make much of the Dukakis comparison either.

It is not the "smoking gun" (pardon the pun) issue that will deliver any states to Dean that went to Bush in 2000, which is what I think was implied.

Again Michigander4Dean is making the point that Dean will win against Bush because Dean is good, Bush bad.

I agree. At least half of this country is very unhappy with Bush. And more Americans are no longer sure if Smirk is good for the USA.

Perhaps Michigander4Dean should have said that Dean provides a real contrast to the Bush preidency.

Dean is not Bush-lite, eh.

it is a true statement, but to use it as a reason for electabilty is streching things, yes?

The point being that Dean is the most unlike Dean except for Kucinich. As some of the other Candidates like Lieberman and Kerry are going to have to explain why they supported Bush on many issues.

"You have the power to restore our nation to fiscal sanity and bring jobs back to our people."

"You have the power to take back the Democratic Party."

Sloganeering? I head this speech in person, and I know what he meant.

"You have the power" is repeated several times to audience until we started shouting it too. Made the wee hairs stand on end I tell you.

Sharpton can knock 'em dead at the podium, too. The point being...?

"You have the power" is repeated several times to audience until we started shouting it, too.

I know you didn't mean to, but you just made one hell of a case aginst your man. Um, you know what mental image that projects, don't you? :)

(you may not want to go there...)

The point being is Dean is a great speaker. Clark is not dynamic. Gore wasn't exciting either. We'll need this when we go up against the Bush attack politics.

As far as what your "mental images" are, ... have a ball. I'm not gonna digress into puns or snide remarks.

I'd rather talk issues.

But these things do not win elections. This is not a popularity contest, nor is it a battle of who can turn a phrase. I wish I could get you to see how meaningless rabble rousing speeches are in a general election, but I can't seem to. I am sure they give you goosebumps, but that is all they do. Hell, Cuomo can take the house down on any given day - seen him around lately?

Yeah, I have to say great orators make a difference. That's one of the reasons I think Clark will have a hard time.

You point out Cuomo but I could point out Kennedy especially in his debates with Nixon.

Gore couldn't score points against Bush in the debates and it made the 2000 election too close.

Then we could talk about Reagan, "the great comunicator." That the last time a "issues" candidate from the other side took away the White House from us, for eight years.

Yeah, we need mojo if we're gonna win in 2004.

1) Kennedy did not beat Nixon on oratory - you've tripped yourself up here, as I don't think you were around in those years. It was the first year of televised debates, and Nixon sweated profusely, while Kennedy didn't. Nixon also appeared to have a five o'clock shadow, which made him look evil to Kennedy's good. Most folks who listened on the radio thought Nixon won.

2) Gore took advise from everyone except Buddah himself - couldn't even dress himself, for crying out loud. So exactly why is it a good thing to have him on your side?

3) People believed they were doing well under Reagan- - his acting skills led to his ease in front of people. He was also a one-trick pony candidate - perfect for the times. Again, if you could see that this election should be defined in terms of the political climate and not the political candidate you would understand why so many of us fear a huge defeat w/Dean at the helm.

BTW, mojo only works for Muddy Waters.

I was around then and I'm not saying just a good speaker. I'm talking presence, the ability to excite people. Kennedy inspired people with his delivery. Folks got excited after they "saw" that debate. It was a turning point in the campaign.

2. I was talking about how Gore was "wooden" during his debates with Bush. But I still think he's a great guy. At least half the country (+500) liked him in 2000. Sorry you don't.

3. Are you agreeing with me here?

I don't subscribed to the theory that only with Clark will we win. Glad I don't have that defeatist attitude.

OTW, where I come from if you don't have mojo you sing the blues.

1) No they didn't. Kennedy had "the look", Jackie didn't hurt, and Nixon never got past that debate. The excitement you speak was created due to the introduction of Catholism as a part of the dynamic. Kennedy never really "ramped it up" speech wise until after he got elected.

2) True, he was wooden, but why? Couldn't he decide who he was at any given time? BTW, I was not excited about him, but to say I disliked him is something I take offense to. I disliked his campaign, which was one of the worst I've seen in decades.

3) Never!!! :) :)

I do believe that with Dean we lose. This has nothing to do with defeatism, but the ability to look at the entire political equation and work for whomever can defeat Bush. I wish I could believe in Dean, I really do. But he is too full of holes, and his people (at this stage) to eager to explain them all away. So I'll continue to work for Clark, and continue to point out why Dean can't and won't win. This election is much too important to put our eggs in the basket of someone who likes to fall down a lot. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't think so.

Thanks for chatting,

DB

P.S. Where ya from, anyway??

are too blinded by the shiny things on Clark's shirt to understand.

I never served in the military. I don't hunt - my land is posted . I've been a vegetarian for 30 years, and I've never even held a gun, much less owned one.

I thank you for your extremely well thought out comments, however.

mocking supporters of a cnadidate because they happen to be excited about him? Comparing them to a cult? I know for a fact that the other 8 candidates would kill to have supporters half as loyal and energetic as Dean.

I could just as easily say that Clark supporters are morons fascinated with Clark's shiny medals, but I won't. I posted that last post to demonstrate this. Clark's supporters support him for valid reasons, just like Dean's do.

Well, actually it doesn't, but...

I'm going to give my all to see that he wins the general election.

1. "Dean (in my biased opinion) is tougher, more energetic, and more aggressive toward Bush* than Gore was three years ago." (Many view Dean as mean spirited, arrogant, and abrasive.)

2. Dean has wide appeal. Have you seen how many DUers have posted about longtime Republican friends and relatives saying they will vote Democratic in the next election because of Bush’s war? (Just because people are fed up with Bush doesn't mean they will automatically vote for Dean. In fact, I think Dean will help keep Republican defections to a minimum (and I know both Democrats and Republicans who will NOT vote for Dean). In addition, many Dean supporters will turn away from Dean once they get a look at his real record and realize Dean is not a straight-shooter.)

3. Dean is not as weak on national security as someone of his opponents want him look. (There is no way that Dean will be perceived as strong on national security. Once the footage of Dean ranting and raving and doing the empowerment chant is shown around the clock, the american public will not trust him to defend this country).

5. Dean can clear up questions about his past better than W. or Cheney could about theirs. ....By refusing to release his records, Dean is guarding the privacy of countless Vermonters (it has been proven that Dean released records which dislosed the private matters of Vermonters so that excuse won't fly and it's rather disgusting that he trys to use aids patients and other to justify sealing his records).

6. “Dean is a draft-dodger.” Dean went in for a physical, and they refused to let Dean enter the military. His back couldn’t handle the weight normal people’s backs do. (This doesn't pass the smell test).

7. “Dean flip-flops a lot.” In life, we all ‘flip-flop,’ or change our mind, every now and then. The only difference is that politicians just do it in the open. (I don't know anyone that says one thing one day, another the next and so on. To try to paint this as Dean changing his mind insults the intelligence of the American public. Yes Bush lies (call a flip flop what it is), but we will not replace a dishonest incumbent with a dishonest Democratic nominee. We have to have the moral authority to challenge Bush. If we don't, we lose and we also tarnish the entire Democratic party in the process. In addition, how are we supposed to educate people about the real record of Bush when they will be constantly pointing out the deceptions of Howard Dean. Once your credibility is shot, no one is going to listen to anything you have to say.)

6. Guns are a big reason why Dean can do well in many battleground states. .... However, I believe that if we want to win in any of these states, it is important to take guns as an issue off the table. (Take guns off the table - so what, that won't save Dean in the general election).

7. Bush or Dean? The American people would have a choice. A dirty environment or a clean environment? The education system as it is now, or a better education for our young people, in early childhood, K-12, and higher education? Bad healthcare or good healthcare? I think Dean can make that clear, especially in his Democratic National Convention Acceptance Speech or a debate. (Once Dean's real record is exposed, this sure isn't going to be a strong or a winning argument).

8. Dean is an optimist. You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny. You have the power to rid Washington of the politics of money........ (Campaign rhetoric and if Dean is the nominee expect to see cult experts on every cable news show).

As far as what Dean would do if he was president - who knows? He'll say one thing and then say another, his rheoteric isn't supported by his record (and in many cases it's not supported by what he recently said). If this guy is the nominee, he is going to drag the Democratic party down with him.

:yourock:

Good for you! Some of us require more.

To off-handedly dismiss every point made by poster shows me nothing but a closed mind. I saw no argument to back up the opinions spewed here.

I remember another poster once dogging everyone in a thread to explain some difference in two bills. All along she had already listed then and dismissed them out of hand. When this was pointed out there was silence. I see the same here.


Julie

"If this guy is the nominee, he is going to drag the Democratic party down with him." :wtf:

I happen to think all of the Democratic candidates are awesome. This negative rethoric is owned by the rethuglicans.

Who do you support?

Add: The rest of the Democrat candidates have no hope of winning. Their refusal to consolidate around Dean will make them the spoilers in 2004. Thanks a LOT!

Send him back to his faux ranch in Crawford.

The new Millennial Generation (now 17-21) 6 million votes for Dean, only 2 million for Bush allows Dean to hold every Gore state plus with Guns more off the table OH and WV come into our column.

Plus Dean will get the Arab vote, allowing him to hold MI, plus the veteran/soldier vote now a swing vote and will make the race much closer down South although Bush still wins everything except AR (assuming Clark will be the VP).

Dean consistenly won 20% of the Repub vote in 5 runs in VT adn will do at least 15% after the the good doctor performs a Bushectomy in the debates.

Many ultra-conservatives won't vote for Bush after the Medicare Bill and will stay home!

Dean wins with 291 electoral votes and no FL!

Dean is electable and those are some good reasons why. He may not be the most easily electable, but that is a different debate, and I do not want to have it here. I think we certainly have a chance of beating Bush with Dean.

is because they just don't like him.

That's all.

That's why. Dean is taking a HUGE gamble by taking on the Bush Administration, the GOP, establishment Democrats and the Washington media. It might pay off big, or it might not.

So do campaigns.

Campaigns and Presidencies cannot be successful without the candidate or President taking certain risks.

All nine of our candidates take risks, as does Duh-bya. They all risk being humiliated, they all risk getting slammed (and they all sometimes do get slammed), all for the sake of holding the most powerful position in the world and for being remembered as one of America's leaders.

In my personal venture to finally pick a candidate, I find posts like this much more interesting and enlightening than the negative posts. :eyes: I hope to see more posts like this in the new year about all the candidates. :)

:kick:

As a Michigander myself I am not at all surprised. :hi:

Julie

Maybe it's the "citizen patriotism" to which our Governor was alluding?

Maybe it's just our governor herself?

Flame me or bill me a dollar if you want. We need a candidate who can beat Bush. That isn't Howard Dean. The fault is not mine for pointing it out. It's Dean's.

Dean admits using deferment to skirt draft

November 24, 2003

BY DAVID RENNIE

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, obtaining a medical deferment for a back condition and then spending 10 months skiing.

Asked if he could have served 33 years ago despite his back condition, Dean told the New York Times: "I guess that's probably true. I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."

Dean's candor may not have been wholly voluntary.

With his campaign under intense scrutiny from Democratic rivals, it was only a matter of time before attacks focused on his remarkable recovery from spondylolesthesis, a painful condition caused by a misalignment of the spine.

CONTINUED...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean24.html

BTW: Dean didn't even bother protesting the war. After skiing all winter, he went to work on Wall Street, where all the money was being made off of the Vietnam War.

As I recall, Clinton won 370 electoral votes in 1992 and 379 in 1996, against WWII vets.

With Dean, that reason is national security. Dean is right on the issue, IMO, but he is the wrong messenger and will not be listened to.

because of following Dean policies:

>>> Balance federal budgets
>>> Universal Health Care
>>> Stop spending blood and treasure acting as world policeman
>>> Pro-choice
>>> Pro-2nd Amendment, allow law abiding citizens to own firearms

I also like Dean because he HAS NEVER LOST AN ELECTION, WON SIX.
I like his strong personality and robust appearance. He exudes energy.
I like that he has ACTUAL POLITICAL-EXECUTIVE experience.
I like his selection of a brilliant campaign team, a sure sign of a good leader.