Dean is correct to ask Chmn. McAuliffe to help curb attacks.

Dean is not being a crybaby. Once again, he is showing great wisdom and concern for our party.

Every voter any of our candidates bring to their camp, esp. those out of the electoral graveyard, has the potential to be brought to support the eventual nominee. They are brought into the party, so to speak.

They are attracted to good qualities of the candidates, such as Gephardt's defense of labor rights and workers, or Dean's opposition to the war, or Clark's knowledge of foreign affairs, Kucinich's bravery in standing against the Patriot Act, etc. All these people have a greater chance of supporting the eventual nominee than they would if that candidate did not connect with them.

Attacks against another candidate DO NOT bring anyone into the party. If Dean attacks Clark for being a "republican" (which I didn't agree with) then it only has the effect of diving people away from Clark, BUT NOT TO ANYONE ELSE, and therefore out of the Dem party and to other parties or back into the graveyard.

If all people hear are bad things about one candidate, it doesn't raise the attackers' esteem in their eyes, it turns them off. NEGATIVITY is part of the reason so few people vote. It perpetuates the myth that all politicians are crooks.

Therefore, attacks against Dean, Clark, Kerry, or anyone else, lowers the total number of voters in the party's GE universe. While it might help one candidate in the short run, it is bad for the party as a whole.

You can criticize another candidate, as long as the criticism leads to someone supporting your candidate (such as pointing out a policy difference)and as long as the criiticism is valid (factual, no bizarre conclusions) and not inflammatory.


Our infighting is being seen by many potential voters. This circular firing squad makes us look crass and childish in the eyes of the electorate.


Is what are you saying making people want to vote FOR your candidate?

Is what are you saying making people want to vote DEMOCRATIC?

I might be willing to entertain this logic.
I'm sorry but 'calling off' now just makes Dean look like a weak hypocrite.

so you are willing to damage our entire party just to down Dean?

In Dean's defense though. his use of Bush-Lite refers to the DLC style strategy of agreeing with the opposition on its best issues to neutralize them, which, evidence 2002, doesnt work. he is saying "this strategy is bad".

His cockraoches remark: he uses cockraoch to describe the manner in which Congressmembers would scatter with light shining on them, like cockroaches. If that was truly an insult to Congress, why would so many Congressmen support him?

Dean is guilty of attacking as well. he called clark "a republican until 25 days ago", not something I approve of. Its not going to turn me away from Dean, but were I in his shoes i wouldnt have done it.

He has never hesitated to throw elbows, and still doesn't, so his appeals for a genteel campaign are just not credible.

I agree that party unity is a great thing, but you can't call for unity while accusing the rest of the party of really being Republicans. And, what's worse is that I dont't think Dean is even introspective enough to see the contradiction in what he is doing.

is against dean by far. Like I said, its ok to CRITICIZE as long as it leads to people supporting you. Anonymously calling Clark a murderer is not valid criticism, nor does it birng people in. Saying I opposed the war, when Kerry didn't is ok, it's pointing out differences.

The offending attacks NEVER lead to support of another candidate, just defamation of Dean.


Has Dean called supporters of other candidates "Kool-aid drinkers"?

Has Dean equated anyone personally with Bush?

has Dean run ads with Osama bin Laden, questioning another candidates Foreign policy experience?

Saying I opposed the war, when Kerry didn't is ok, it's pointing out differences.

But, Dean doesn't say that, he criticizes Kerry (and the others) for voting for the war, which they did not ... there was no such vote held.

Also, Kerry did not support the war so that would be in inaccurate statement on Dean's part, wouldn't it?

Dean was the first to launch attacks in the campaign and complains when shed light on his bush-lite record and speaking ability.

once Saddam was captured.

A vote to give power to fight war, is a vote for war in my book. If you oppose school vouchers would you vote to give the president authority to use money for school vouchers?

...that would come back to them come general election.

That's what this is all about.

and any living breathing American is free to criticise those comments.

Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean yesterday blasted new 2004 candidate Wesley Clark as "a Republican until 25 days ago" who has become the "desperation" candidate for establishment Democrats.

"What you see in the Wes Clark candidacy is somewhat of a desperation by inside-the-Beltway politicians," Dean told the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a Republican until 25 days ago, voted for Ronald Reagan, voted for Dick Nixon, supported the war last October."



Look in the mirror, Howard.

and read TWO of my posts in which I condemn those comments.


Thanks

It's almost funny.

...On second thought it is funny!

I've attached the latest mail from the Kucinich campaign.
(Ha ha, funny...)

---

CONCORD MONITOR NOTES DEAN'S CLAIM

On Saturday, Dec. 27, the Concord Monitor in Concord, NH, noted: "Dean recently mailed brochures to homes in New Hampshire with a headline stating that Dean is the only candidate who 'opposed the war from the start.'"

...

It's hard to believe that Dean supporters would stand for this kind of misrepresentation. We won't stand for it.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1.--Contact all of your friends who are Dean supporters.

2.--Contact the media and ask them why they are not asking Dean about his misrepresentation. Remember to be polite and keep to the point. Make each communication unique. No form letters.

Here are Email addresses for letters to the editor:
http://www.kucinich.us/responses_contacts.php

Here are phone numbers for talk shows:
http://www.kucinich.us/responses_phones.htm

Here are a few key places to contact:

New York Times News Desk phone 212-556-7356, fax 212-556-7614,
Email national@nytimes.com

Los Angeles Times News Desk phone 213-237-7001, fax: 213-237-4712.

Washington Post Political Desk phone 202-334-7410, fax 202-334-3883.

USA Today News Desk phone 703-854-7121, fax 703-854-2078.

WHAT THE FACTS ARE:

As you all know so well, Dennis Kucinich led the effort against the war in the House of Representatives, is the only candidate who voted against the war, is the only candidate who consistently opposed the war from the beginning and continues to oppose it now, and is the only candidate with an exit strategy. His "Prayer for America" speech against the buildup to war in February 2002 catalyzed this campaign. Rev. Al Sharpton and Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun also opposed the war.

The war is not over. Soldiers are dying every day. And Dean would like to continue the military occupation of Iraq for "a few years," as he said in the debate on December 9th. Dennis is campaigning on his record of opposition to the war and his plan to end it in 90 days.
Dean's flyer and mass mailing effectively calls Dennis a liar. People have begun asking Dennis whether he really opposed the war. Dean knows the truth. After we complained in October about his similar misrepresentations in TV ads in New Hampshire, he acknowledged Dennis' leadership against the war at an AFL-CIO forum and stopped running the ads. He later acknowledged Dennis' courage on this issue during a national debate. And yet he continues to use a flyer that says "Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start."

If Dr. Dean chooses to gloss over the inconsistencies of the positions he took during the first stage of this war, that's his business. But when he denies Dennis's record, that becomes our business, and
it ought to be the business of the media. Dean is misrepresenting a material fact, and doing so despite his demonstrated knowledge of the truth. It is the media's responsibility to find out why he is doing this. The public has a right to know.

Here is information on who opposed the war when:
http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php

Please forward this Email quickly and widely.
(Delete the opt-out link at the very bottom, so that no one accidentally cancels your subscription.)

If you received this Email from a friend and would like to receive them directly, click here: http://kucinich.us/alerts-signup.htm

Contact us:
Kucinich for President
11808 Lorain Avenue - Cleveland, OH 44111
216-889-2004 / 866-413-3664 (toll-free)
http://www.kucinich.us

I feel even less comfortable with Dean now than I did.

I suppose this is the formal, politic equivalent of talking shit. Doesn't make Dean look good.

Frankly, Dean's been giving it out as much as he's been receiving it (see remarks on Clark and the recent flier fiasco) so it's not too good on Dean to start kvetching about personal attacks now.

C

Dean is a politician. A good one at that. Being a politician means he is a hypocrit. Take your lumps Doctor, I am sure you will be handing them out soon enough.

But he shouldn't do it publicly.

I'm a Dean supporter and there's ways to do this stuff behind the scenes. Ya never go after people on the way up that you may need in the future and like it or not, McAuliffe is the party chair for this election. It's a primary and the attacks don't bother me (too much, hahahaha) cuz I figure whoever the nominee is will come out stronger.

But, that being said. . .

What McAuliffe should do is tell all the candidates to lay off the unelectability crap. And Dean should cool it on the anti-Dem establishment stuff. The candidates can argue why they are MORE electable, by virtue of campaign organization, background, history, stand on issues, money raised, etc. but to gang up and go after a particular candidate by name and single that one out as (seemingly) the only one who CANNOT beat Bush is destructive and divisive to the party as a whole. Yep - it doesn't hurt just Dean - it hurts whoever the nominee will be, because it perpetuates the myth that Bush is strong and invincible.

eileen from OH

His "non-transferable" remark was most objectionable of all. Here we are, one presidential election cycle removed from the Nader debacle of 2000, and Howard's talking about "his" proprietary voters who won't necessarily vote Democratic if he's not the nominee. Kerry nailed him best of all today, when he said that Dean sounds more interested in his personal political future than in defeating George Bush.

And, really, for Howard Dean, a lifetime moderate who successfully donned the political stripes of a liberal to stand out from a crowded field of better known competitors, to claim ideological ownership over any voters is a little bit rich.

welcome to DU,BG!

NT

if you look at the actual arguemnt, he is say he cannot guarantee that all his supporters will support the eventaul nominee. He has appealed to many people outside the traditional democratic constituency who may not necessarily like the other candidates.

He has never said he would not support the eventual nominee.

The headline wasn't "Dean will support eventual nominee." Rather it was, "Dems doomed if I don't get the nomination." Part of what worries people about Howard is he doesn't seem to understand how his remarks will play in the media. People can go on and on about the "whores," but Howard is a one-man foot-in-mouth machine lately.

:eyes:

And Howard handed it to them (yet again).

I think the only thing wrong with the attacks is the coordinated nature of them. It appears that they all turned on him at the same time. If thats the case, that makes them truly pathetic. Otherwise, everyone is fair game.

Is that why right out of the gate he was unfairly smearing and attacking other candidates? The other candidates aren't attacking Dean, they are trying to expose the truth about Howard Dean. Howard Dean could care less about the Democratic Party. He only cares about one person, Howard Dean.

because it would be against the rules...

Skwmom's post is great! There is nothing untrue there.