Dean's misleading NH ad

This is the ad that some people are talking about. I scanned it for your pleasure.




I first found out about this at Kucinich HQ in Manchester, NH. I was walking by there around midnight my first night and saw people. I went up to say hi. They were all very nice and we exchanged information. One of the women there said “Did you see the latest Dean ad?” I said no. She picks it up and puts it down on the table in front of me (with some force). She opens it and says read this. First line in big letters is: “ONLY DEAN OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START.” Now anyone paying attention knows that’s not true. It is a lie to not qualify that and it isn’t qualified. Then it goes on to say all that about the major candidate as you can see.

Here are the problems:
a. It is a lie. Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark were all against the war. Kucinich actually voted against it. Clark testified to Congress against it.
b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

The Kucinich volunteers (or staff) were irate. Dean has created an anti-Dean situation with them. They see through this. They don’t like being marginalized and they don’t like Dean misleading people for votes.

naughty naughty Dr Dean

announce participants.

I am not sure what you mean. I walked into Dean HQ in Manchester and asked for it. They are in the same building as Kerry.

3 questions:

1. how do you "open up" a one page flyer?

2. did you get this flyer from the Kucinich HQ as stated in the thread opener or at the Dean HQ as stated above?

3. why did you make 6 trips in 5 days to the other candidates HQ's while you were in NH to campaign for your own candidate? Is that part of your campaigns strategy to get out the vote?

It is a trifold brochure type thing.

I found out about it at Kucinich HQ and got my own copy at Dean HQ. BTW Dean is at the corner of McGregor and Bridge in the same building as Kerry but around back.

I made 3 trips to other candidates HQ. The first night to Kucinich's because they were there at midnight and I wanted to wish them well.

Tuesday to see if Kucinich's staff had an extra and yesterday to get one of my own from Dean's HQ. Otherwise it is a small town so they are all bunched up together.

If you fold it into 3, the frontside must be pretty mangled. You would only see a Picasso type view of HD.

Is it like the Mad Magazine back-page? Is there a joke coming?

The thing you scanned is not a trifold type thing brochure, it is a front side and a back side and does not resemble anything I have ever seen from the Dean campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=49199&mesg_id=49758&page=

You would have only seen it if you lived in NH. It has a NH address on it.

if they are mailing it out, how come you, or whoever


Can you link it from Deans NH campaign HQ where you supposedly picked it up from?

Another weird thing is the image of Dean & Judith. The Dean campaign doesn't use his wife in campaign brochures.

I am a contributor to the campaign and have recieved many mailings. I have yet to recieve one with a picture of Judith Steinberg Dean, that is because Dean respects her wishes to stay out of campaigning for the most part. This is yet another reason why I'm not buying your claim that this is an official campaign brochure.

edit to fix link

Call them yourself... 603-222-1900

Will you believe them or is that the number at Kerry headuarters I set up just to trick DUers?

I don't see it on any of the pieces that you have posted.

But call them. Can you do that? Call them up. I gave you the number.

but you don't have a scanner.

I must ask why a person that goes out of his way to campaign for Clark in NH would make the main thrust of his post to engender hard feelings between Dean & Kucinich supporters.

That may be one way to get the anti-war vote in your corner, but its probably not the most constructive ever devised.

I guess we will find out after the NH primaries how that works for you.

in the previous thread about this

:shrug:

Babzilla thinks we're lying about it but, then, I suspect Babzilla is just being disingenuous.
John
The part I like is that Dean proclaims himself "candidate for president," NOT "Democratic candidate for president." Maybe the governor is trying to represent the non-aligned wing of the Democratic party.

They're everywhere. You have to be kidding. First this has nothing to do with creating hard feelings for anyone. Second, do you know anyone with a scanner? Maybe you own one yourself. Third, why would I lie? I have no reason to. Call Dean HQ in NH. 603-222-1900 Ask them about it. Don't take my word for it. Call them.

This has nothing to do with Kucinich, Clark, or who I know that owns a scanner. This has to do with this Dean ad and Howard Dean. That's it. Call Dean HQ and ask for your self. Why can't you call them?

they told me that helicopters will be by to pick me up soon.

2. yes I know that the only thing this post has to do with is Howard Dean and this "Dean Ad". That is why I am not buying your scan, or your friends scan, or whoever has the scanner.

3. You say it has nothing to do with Kucinich Clark or whoever in the post above but here is what you state in the original post

Here are the problems:
a. It is a lie. Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark were all against the war. Kucinich actually voted against it. Clark testified to Congress against it.
b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

4. yes I do own a scanner, but it doesn't work for your pleasure.

No hard feelings indeed.

Just wondering. What did Dean HQ say?

only a helicopter

in the small print

"major candidate" is the area of text that comprises that majority of the flier. There's no asterisk and fine print at the bottom.

You used the term "small print" to distort, sandnsea

and honest ones

and its windansea thank you :hi:

You might want to start getting feedback more often from friends and family. You need more outside input.

Headlines are not requiered to be detailed and since the very first line of body text under that headline does qualify the statement in the headline with "major candidate" the claim by the Kucinich people that the headline statement is not qualified is a flat out fabrication.

between BODY TEXT and small print.

not "Only MAJOR candidate"

But I guess the headline is unimportant. It's not like the headline is supposed to summarize the article, and I'm sure no one in the Dean campaigns realize that some people only scan the headlines.

Nah, it couldn't be that.

instead of addressing this vile form of pandering wont get anyone anywhere!:puke:

It deliberately distorts the meaning. A lot of people pay attention to headlines only, as is well known. Even if they read the fine print, the words "only candidate" are already imprinted in their minds.

Besides, what gives Dean the license to say he's a "major" candidate and others aren't?

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, until after the primaries. And Dean's continuing to lie. He's just started to claim he's the "only candidate from a farm state." That's on top of "only anti-war candidate," and "only white candidate to talk about race to white audiences."

That is perfectly in line with a journalistic standard for qualifying a statement in a headline.

Headlines are to be short and punchy, not detailed and complex. Any clarification needs to be in the body text, not the headline.

Which is exactly what this does. The first line in the body text qualifies the headline with "only major candidate."


As usual this is an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill when there isn't even really a molehill.

Headline.

It is only present as a qualifer in the small print.

Many people don't read the small print... that's Advertising 101.

Do they read footnotes with asterisks? No. Do they read the ACTUAL MAIN BODY text, yes. There is no asterisk. The statement is at the top in the main body.

and then, maybe, they read the text.

We here all have followed the candidates....splitting hairs, arguing as to who did what first is childlike. These candidates are democrats...yes the democrats, the voice of the people opposed the war......Were all on the same team. Be glad the information is getting out there!

that lies about fellow Democrats and marginalizes fellow Democrats. Can I ask you??? Does this ad make you proud? Do you support this?

My enemy is *bush, night and day....make no mistake, it is *bush who is destroying this nation. Dean is the leader, a democrat and having him out with the message is fine with me. The others will not make headlines.

Kinda like....essentially...asking yourself which triplet was born first....Who cares as long as they are healthy. I'm for getting the message out. All the above were in sync with the opposition...So was Senator Byrd.

You would flip if this came from the other side. WHy is i OK for Dean?

He is a democrat.

Repuke's adgenda is different, they are the enemy today as long a *bush is in the house.

I am not sure what to say.

The term "major candidate" is in the main text field of the flier. There's no asterisk with fine print at the bottom.

this really isn't from dean......for america.

What is dean.......for america anyway?

what I want to know is if ...... is a cover up for the "other side".

when I see ....... I think "other side".

That is "WHy is i OK for Dean." WOuld i flip if this came from the other side, you bet i would, what do you think I'm doing now. i OK.

If Kucinich was at 10%, he wouldn't be marginalized.

Kucinich is in danger of losing to LaRouche.

He was against the war and meets your threshold.

I was stuck with CNN's war coverage like most of the rest of us then. I watched Clark on CNN with Aaron Brown. Clark sure didn't seem too anti-war during CNNs coverage. He never said a word the whole time he was doing analysis for CNN.

I don't care if Clark told a Brownie Troop 404 during an appearance at the same time he was anti-war if he didn't use his main podium, the CNN analyst position to attack Dumbya's war.

Clark testified to congress that the war was a bad thing.

CNN was his job. He was a journalist. Unlike most of the journalists we were dealing with, he didn't editorialize. It is funny how he has pissed off both sides. He was almost fired for not being for it and catches heat for not protesting it against the integrity of his job.

Brownie Troops get more press coverage than Congressional Committee hearings.

If clark was anti-war, he should have said it from the CNN analyst desk.

editorializing? Are you a Fox News watcher? This double standard is worrisome.

THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

From Judy Woodruf to Wolf Blitzer to Candy Crowley...

They all make their right leaning opinions known.

Besides, Clark was an ANALYST. ANALYSTS are paid to present their OPINIONS.

not whether we should have been there. WHy did the white house want him fired if he was so pro-war?

Clark was doing military analysis. It is well within the range of reasoned discussion whether the war being fought should have been fought.

charge with some evidence? Cause otherwise its just another unsubstantiated smear from a Dean supporter against Clark. What a surprise.

it's okay to lie if you are working at CNN?

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

He was a paid military analyst, fer chrissake.

He sort of hesitated over his answer. The next time he was asked he said he would of voted against the war. Kucinich with his 1 or 2 % in the scientific polls is not a leading candidate. So Dean was correct.

That would be interesting to see.

OPINION! There is a difference!

Clark testified to Congress about his opposition to the Iraq war as early as 2002. He's written two books on the subject of what needs to be done in the war against terror. Sheesh.

Be for or against whatever candidate you please, but at least *try* to tell the truth.

:eyes:

that doesn't mean that I think that he is the best candidate for president... even if he opposed it from the very start.

It is very shrewd, this ad. Because while it is perfectly honest and true... the Kucinich folks are still going to get cranky over it.

Which does two things... makes them look like whiners who are overreacting to this and it gets this ad a hell of a lot more coverage than it would have gotten all on its own.

on national TV when DK exposes this garbage

It will be just like the last time.

Kucinich will look like a crybaby nit picker, and Dean will look like he is NOT the far left cry baby nitpicker.


Frankly this is genius... Dean gets to draw a real distinction between himself ad the far left guy, by having the far left guy implode on TV over some petty petty shit.

He was far from alone on being opposed to from the start. Dr. Dean, I saw the Reverend Sharpton speak out against the war in person in autumn 2002, it was Dennis Kucinich with house leader Pelosi that led the fight against IWR. I hope they did stop disturbting this ad.
This is disappointing.

I got it yesterday at 11:00 am from Dean HQ. It was on a table at the front door.

Feel like these are the times when I should just pack up my bags and get out of politics. Anyhow, thanks though.

light of hope burning for future generations. Politics and politians can get ugly at times but they are a necessary evil.

can only get a bang by stirring up trouble between other candidates?

His entrance into the race has done nothing but cause disruption. If he manages to somehow get the nomination it will only confirm him as the spoiler candidate. He can't beat Bush .. he's on the same side.

What has Clark stirred up between other candidates? Specifics would be helpful.

Also sorry that Clark's entrance has disrupted Deans coronation. How could he get in the way of the chosen one?

n/t

I can't blame his supporter either because at least one of the original threads in PC was not started by a Clark supporter and also because we all bring unpleasant facts up for discussion- as well we should I think.

Kucinich HQs alerted people to this because angry Kucinich supporters brought it to their attention and Kucinch sent out the following e-mail on the 29th:

Dean Misrepresenting Kucinich's Record:
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.'"

Here is an image taken from the brochure, which the Dean campaign has mailed to people in New Hampshire and other states:

<image snipped/Only Dean 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.

<snip>

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


The rest of your post is a whole other topic and yes, I agree that his entrance has been a huge disruption but this isn't from the Clark camp.

You know, if Dean supporters hadn't spun this issue so much when it was first brought up (the first time and this week), I don't think Bleacher would ever have scanned this and posted this thread because no one would have cared. But a challenge was made by the Dean camp last week to scan it so someone did, had it not been a Clark supporter, it probably would have been an angry Kucinich supporter because several people requested copies of it from various sources.

As a Kucinich supporter, I'm really hurt and angry over this because it's not the first time it's been done and Dean has deliberately marginalized and mis-represented DK from the beginning.

We saw this early on and were hurt before Clark ever even entered the race. The hurt runs pretty deep- and this is just one more confirmation that we, Kucinich supporters, can't trust Dean. This is no way to go into the Primaries and I'm really hurt. I'm also very concerned that Dean will have alienated so many people by the time/if he gets to the top that he won't garner enough votes.

I just now, right before this sentence, Googled Trippi and dirty tricks. There is a lot that turned up and I'm really disappointed because my candidate has been hurt and some of the things I just turned up confirm what I thought was happening in the Dean campaign from the start. Trippi has created Dean's success so I can understand why his supporters would think this is ok but all is not really fair in love and war and some things really cause deep pain. This is one of them.

The spin in this thread added the insult to injury. Thank you for not having been a part of it.


Who can play dirtier? Joe Trippi or Karl Rove
by braveheart
Fri Nov 28th, 2003 at 22:56:19 UTC

Joe Trippi's creative, aggressive and quite frankly, dirty tactics were in full play while he was still campaigning for Mondale long time ago according to this article (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=uPrIwAEG7fHpGFSjMCq7tR%3D%3D which I will snip below).
"We started really early in the day," Trippi remembers, reflecting on how he and an Iowa colleague named Tom Cosgrove solved their JJ problem. "They stopped about three miles out the staging area--the Mondale buses coming from Minnesota or wherever they were coming from." What follows is one of the most ambitious political makeovers in history. A team of Mondale aides, led by Cosgrove, plasters the bus with Cranston paraphernalia--stickers, posters, buttons, everything. Three miles down the road, the bus pulls up to the Cranston tent, where a Mondale/Cranston supporter gets out and tells a real Cranston aide he has 52 people on the bus. The aide looks up at the bus, surely admiring the military-like discipline that has brought a busload of Cranston supporters from "Los Angeles or wherever" out to the middle of Iowa this early in the day, and quietly congratulates himself. He promptly hands over 52 tickets.

"And it continues like this, through bus after bus of Mondale supporters: Stop three miles up the highway, lather the bus in Cranston paraphernalia, drive on to the Cranston tent, claim your tickets. And the Cranston campaign just keeps forking them over. Happily. Hell, the more buses that show up, the more impressed the Cranston people are by their own handiwork. Never does it occur to them that these busloads of supporters aren't the genuine article. At least not until the real Cranston buses start showing up. "Twenty buses pull up, and they're out of tickets," Trippi says, still amused at the spectacle almost 20 years later. "More Cranston buses keep pulling up, and they don't have the tickets anymore." Score one for Walter Mondale. "

The problem now is: Can Joe Trippi be as evil as Karl Rove? Can Joe Trippi go toe to toe, play as dirty as Karl Rove in order to defeat Shrub?

Do you think Joe Trippi will be the man to help Dean pull this off?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/28/225619/34


===

Everyone tells their own version of how Walter Mondale won the straw poll at Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in 1983, but they all go something like this: In early October, a young Mondale aide named Joe Trippi shows up in Des Moines to check on Mondale's Iowa field operation. What he finds there horrifies him. Somehow the Iowa team has allowed the rival campaign of California Senator Alan Cranston to nearly corner the market on tickets to the JJ dinner, an annual affair designed to raise money for the Iowa state Democratic Party. This is, to colossally understate things, a problem. The dinner's traditional straw poll is an important barometer of public opinion in the state that hosts the nation's first caucuses. Mondale is a former vice president from neighboring Minnesota. Not only is he expected to win the straw poll; he is expected to win big. But the way you win is by packing the convention hall full of your own supporters. And the way you do that is by selling them tickets or buying tickets for them.

Trippi is nearly hysterical when he calls Campaign Manager Bob Beckel and Deputy Manager Mike Ford in Washington. "He speaks so fast, it was hard to keep up," Beckel recalls. "I said, 'Joe, What's the bottom line? What do you need?' He said, 'I just need permission to do whatever I need to do.' ... I just said OK." But there isn't a lot Trippi can do. He can try to get the Iowa Democratic Party to sell him more tickets. But there's no way they're going to sell him $275,000 worth, which is what Trippi estimates Cranston has bought. And, even if they would, there's no way he can afford to drop that kind of cash on an off-year event. When it comes down to it, Trippi is going to have to get his hands on tickets that have already been sold. Cranston tickets. Lots of them. And yet, once he accepts that proposition, the solution is almost elegant in its simplicity: What's to stop him from just marching right up to Cranston's people and asking for them?

<snip / and then the bit about the lemonade stands>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=uPrIwAEG7fHpGFSjMCq7tR%3D%3D

concept in this fashion to evoke inner party discord. Makes more news for tomorrow. Obviously it's effective. I'm just brainstorming...I don't know who wrote or published it.

I'm just not in Shock-n-Awe at all here.

When this was first reported...

Dean supporters claimed to scan it to the web...not believing it.

And now that it has been scanned...

Dean supporters are claiming it is a scam created by Bleachers to discredit Dean?

MY FREAKING GOD.

This type of thinking is just as bad as Bush supporters.

FACE REALITY PEOPLE!

The reality is the main text portion of the flier copy said "only major candiate"

That is accurate. The flier is accurate.

As a mass comm major, studying the media, the press and public relations...this is not accurate at all.

Dean is alienating a large base with his lies.

He will not win...and we'll have another 4 years of Bush.

Why oh why are democrats supporting a liar?

The only way to beat a liar, Bush...is with a person of integrity and truth...that is not Dean.

As a professional broadcaster, I know it is true.

The main text portion of the flier states "only major candidate" at the top of the brochure. That puts the information on an equal presentaion with the rest of the info about Dean.

There is nothing in this Dean ad that is inaccurate. Dean's support among Dems is approaching 40%. He shattered fundraising records yesterday.

Sounds like you need to go back and bone up on your basic classes.

Clark was against the war...

Another Dean lie.

I can't wait for Clark, Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Sharpton supporters to get their revenge on Dean for his lies about their campaigns.

Dean is loser because he is a liar.

Cheaters never win.

Lot of camera time on CNN for Clark to say we shouldn't have been fighting the war, and he never said it.

that is good objective journalism right there.

That wasn't his job either to comment on the Iraq war...his job was to talk about American Stratedgy and what Tommy Franks and Company were planning...commenting on stratedgies that were reported...like taking bridges and towns and such.

He said he was against the war...apparently because he was on TV and didn't say it, to you means he wasn't against the war.

Riiiight.

Keep stretching there bud. Dean's comment is a lie about Clark's campaign as well.

Dean is a LIAR!

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

when he was analyst on CNN! I don't know if anyone else has disputed your claim further down, I've only gotten this far on this thread, but I specifically pointed Clark out to my dad and others at the time, BECAUSE he was the only one on tv that I heard criticizing the administration's decision!!!

That's what made me notice him in the first place, and I said at the time that that guy is certainly smart and well-spoken, why can't we have someone like HIM as our president!

See my quotes... he also said that we need to move foward witht he war and that the rest of the world needs to get behind us and belly up to the bar.

Clark also said he'd vote for the IWR.

on

social security age
87 billion dollars
the IWR(for Biden-Lugar)
public campaign finance

and so on...

but you don't want to mention those...do you?

ADSWL

quickly change the subject to some other issues.


"social security age"

Garbage argument based on quotes from an out of context response to a HYPOTHETICAL question based on circumstances that have changed since then.

"87 billion dollars"

He was for supporting our troops, but against spending that money without certain criteria being met by Bush which was not met.

"the IWR(for Biden-Lugar)"

Biden Lugar is not the IWR no matter how desperately some want to claim otherwise.

Here are the facts on the differences.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html



"public campaign finance"

Dean supports campaign furnace reform and his campaign is the very model of this, as it is supported by small donations from hundreds of thousands of supporters and not massive special interests contributions.

Now what does any of that have to do with CLark supporting the war in Iraq?

Next?

I was there. I remember.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

you should know the standards for headlines vs those for body text.

we're talking about the WHOLE DAMN FLYER. Please quit parsing what we are saying and focus on the fact that Dean is, once again, using misleading statements in his campaign materials for his own political gain.

This is exactly the same kind of shit Trippi tried with the Geph '88 campaign, and it too backfired on him. I guess it should be expected from him after all these years, but it is still infuriating to see these same low-brow tactics used to misrepresent other candidates. It demeans ALL the candidates when these half-truths are used in a campaign-- and I for one am sick and tired of Dean and Trippi resorting to these methods when they feel that they can't sell themselves based on their stands on the ISSUES.

But, having seen the patronizing attitude of a small number of fanatical Dean supporters, I guess I should not be suprised. :eyes:

since the offending statement was in fact a headline... and the first line of body text, which was pointedly left out of the initial attack, clearly says only MAJOR candidate.

The scam was in trying to misrepresent a short punchy headline as if it was a detailed statement in this handout, and leaving out the body text which qualified the headline.

nope...

But....but....but....

I don't get it, couldn't he score points with progressives by saying "Kudos to Dennis for voting against the IWR."

I've seen the candidates give each other credit for various things, and it looks good for everyone.

He already did. This is a non issue and you all are beating the dead donkeys of your own candidates campaigns.
Please show me where DK has given Dean any props.

Kucinich congruadlates him for raising all the money, hes raised.

"Dean Opposed the War" and nobody would be picking any bones.

Had he even written "Dean Opposed the War from the start", which is not my impression, few people would even say a word but this is an outright lie.

It may sound like a nothing issue to Dean supporters but it is a HUGE issue to Kucinich supporters and activists like me who attended anti-war march after anti-war march and only saw Kucinich and Sharpton out there giving us support and saying what we were saying, sonsistently and from the start.

It's a huge issue because Dean's distorted record about being anti-war is what marginalized Kucinich and deliberately continues to do so.

And it's hard to understand why they would word it this way when to say "Dean Opposed the War" would be just as an effective message for their target audience which I guess would be anti-war Democrats.

And what I really can't understand is why Dean would pull the TV ads that said the same thing and apologize for the ads and then decide it was okay to print brochures with the same message and think that by adding 'only major candidate' in the text it would make it any easier for the anti-war candidates to accept. Why stir up the hornets nest again? I just don't know what to make of this.

He needed to distinguish himself from the other major candidates. He was the only major candidate to oppose the war. There is no lie, there is no foul. There are no other anti-war candidates that have a realistic shot at getting the nomination.

heard of him?

"let's you and him fight" ... Clark has no bang, so he ignites controversy within his brand new party which he just joined two months ago. How did we ever survive without his contributions before now?

This is on the verge of incoherent. So you are saying Clark is running just to stir things up? He has no bang? Not sure what that means. He is only one of the most succesfull military leaders this country has ever had. He could have stayed retired and that still would be true. He wrote a bestselling book and was also known for his CNN work. No bang?

Just curious....

as recently as this Sunday in Aimes, Iowa: "Of all the people running from Congress, only Dennis Kucinch had the courge to vote against the war."

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04122803_dean.rm

saying in big letters..."the only candidate to oppose the war"?

That is a lie.

Being honest half the time isn't good enough for someone wanting to be president.

some people have set their standards too low.

and some have said it has been released in Iowa as well.

In what publications?

They sent it through the mail. It is like a small brochure. I have a picture of it at thread 152.

And the proof that this was sent to anybody is where?

When is important too (if ever). We are all aware that the Dean campaign sent out a flyer in November which Dean had stopped and for which he has apologized.

I was told this first by the Kucinich people and then at Clark's camp when I brought it up.

If you don't believe me, do you believe Tinoire?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=49199&mesg_id=50031&page=

I was told this was new. Also someone brought this up as a new matter on DU a few days ago.

first it was the Kucinich camp, then it was the Dean camp.

When did the Clark camp come in? You never brought that up before. Was it before or after Tinoires sister story?

What is the newest matter on DU again? It is so hard to keep up.

try reading through it all again. I know there is a lot to take in.

Of which Dennis is not one.

I guess Dean and his supporters think he is the only one running for president.

I think you need to be on line to win at least ONE primary in ONE state before you can be counted as a MAJOR candidate.

If that statement is what you think is required then NONE of them are "major candidates" including YOURS!

Clark opposed the war. Saying he didn't over and over and over again will not make it true. Just another Dean lie. I must say though, that Trippi has the Dean supporters very well trained. Stay on message no matter what facts disprove your case. Now what president do I know who does that????? Hmmmm....

:mad:

but he NEVER had a shot at getting the nomination. He was never in the running. In the age of television he isn't presidential material.

The point is to draw a distinction between Dean and the other major candidates...

Tha's not a lie, it is a headline that's qualified in the body text.

attack Dean viciously in September/October.....I'm comfortable thinking he will give Dennis much credit after New Hampshire. It's a competition at present time .....the mood should soften soon. Endorsing one another at the moment is not part of any candidates strategy.

when Ted Koppel asked all of the candidates if Dean could beat Bush?

answer: no

Would it have killed Dennis to give Dean props?

Dean did give props to Dennis for voting against IRW in his speech in Ames Iowa on 12/28.

it clarifies, "Howard Dean is the only major candidate who opposed the war from the start- and is against spending another 87 billion there."

:shrug:

b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

Are you proud of your candidate?

Kucinich is at 1%. Kucinich is at 1% because he lost respect after that dating publicity stunt went bad.

Also what about Clark? He isn't major?

funny , I missed that on CNN.

to make such a comment.

his job was to analyze the American Military stratedy and to comment on the military maneuverings.

by not commentating pro war or anti war he was being a neutral journalist...which is a good journalist.

He said he was against the war...apparently because he was on TV and didn't say it, to you means he wasn't against the war.

Riiiight.

Keep stretching there bud. Dean's comment is a lie about Clark's campaign as well.

he's a general candidate

though he could say he's the only major candidate - seeing as he was, at one point, a major...

maybe 'the only major candidate to believe in equal rights'...

(in case you didnt notice, i think the defense of what Dean's campaign did in this brochure is pathetic)

He said he would have voted for it.

Were there any 30-60 day unilateral ultimatums? Oh wrong candidate. I can feel the cutting & pasting of out context statements coming...

Was not Kucinich's doing. He made a JOKE at the Women's Issues Forum and what's stunning is that people choose to take him seriously when he's kidding and ignore him when he proposes a Department of Peace. That you endorse that as some sort of wisdom speaks to the fact that you haven't been paying attention either.

It's even worse when Dean's supporters get all incensed because we take an off the cuff joke from him seriously yet see nothing wrong with doing the same thing to Kucinich.

Howard Dean has already endorsed lying to the public once, it appears he thinks his candidacy either is a matter of National Security or he thinks it's ok for him to lie to the people as long as he isn't in the Oval Office.

Frankly, I would like to see Kucinich get more props. I like Dennis enormously and I am happily supportive of his campaign. I don't agree with Dean on everything, nor should I be expected to, but yes, I am very proud of my candidate.

and still stuck at 2% EVERYWHERE. He is not, in my opinion, a major candidate, DESPITE what you want to believe.

Sure, he raised plenty of money on the last quarter, but it is still not enough to get notice.

"Department of Peace"? That is a joke.

Dennis' flip-flop on his pro-choice stance didn't work for me. He has always been anti-choice, and he suddenly changes to pro-choice? Doesn't work for me.

The media is ignoring Dennis because they consider him too left, and I tend to agree. Dennis may be good, but not right now. This isn't the time for a lefty President. We need to move the direction back to center-left from the right first, and Dean is the man for the job.

Then when this is all said and done, maybe Dennis can run again. But I suggested a while back that he uses the money that he raised to run against George Voinovich, and he didn't. He decided to shoot himself in the foot by being a candidate for President when he has absolutely no shot in winning.

I'm proud of Dennis, however, for bringing the message to the mainstream that the lefties are tired of the pink tutu Democrats, and if Dennis by sudden luck, somehows get the nomination, then he will have my full backing.

Hawkeye-X

you would consider a Department of Peace a joke?

They just spout the media theme that nobody will support it.

They also can't explain why a Presidential Candidate who despises the corporate media would bring up FOX in a supposed serious plea for a woman. They also can't explain why it's ok for Dr. Dean to espouse lying to the people where matters of national Security are concerned, but the same behavior is not acceptable from G.W. Bush. I'm still trying to figure out how you trust a man who thinks it's ok to lie.

I wouldn't call it a joke, though, although technically, that would be how such an idea would be received.

Look, it's a good idea. But can you honestly say that a congress controlled by right wingers and their whipping boys would entertain such an idea? PRAGMATISM.

the people did, by only giving Kucinich single digit support.


Is Kucinich in the lead in any state? Even his home state?

and no I do not believe that your scans represent my candidates campaign.

Just ask my sister in New Hampshire.

In case anybody missed it, the very first line under the headline says "Howard Dean is the only major Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the start."

Hello? How does this morph into a lie about Kucinich?

Kucinich is getting matching funds. That's pretty major. Also Clark isn't major?

In no way makes you major. In fact, in this race, it shows your inability to raise money. Normally, high money raising would be a negative for me, but Deans money comes from allot of small donations from everyday peeps. Clark is far more major than Kucinich, take a look at the polls.

Right now the majors seem to be
Dean and Clark

Almost majors are
Edwards and Kerry

Marginals are
Lieberman and Gephardt

with sub Marginals being
Kucinich, CMB , and Sharpton.


At least thats the way it looks to me.

Major is a relative term that isn't awarded by the DLC. Its usually pretty obvious who's major, except in politics i guess.

In no way makes you major. In fact, in this race, it shows your inability to raise money.

OK, only 2 dems have EVER not taken matching funds.

Besides that, I don't agree with your assessment of major candidates and the DLC is irrelevant in this.

"In this race" was important. Despite what past races have been like, its obvious that any real democratic contender is going to need to exceed that limits imposed by matching fund rules.

You can think what you want about how they rank. I'm not sure on the middle, its just how i see it.

The statement about the DLC was to contrast the fact that deciding who's major is not done by some authority which seemed to be what the comment before was saying. If Dean decides hes major and says it thats his choice. If hes wrong, he looks like a kook, if hes right it helps him deliver his message to the swing voters which is exactly where that comment was aimed.


FYI
Trying to get a wife as a plank of presidential platform also doesn't make you major.

The initial title "ONLY DEAN OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START" is designed, by all rules of advertising, to be the thing that sticks in people's minds.

The ONLY should never have been there and you would think, after the stink that was raised last time, that the Dean HQs got the message. They got the message enough to throw major in there as a pacifier in case people paying attention got outraged but they still went with that misleading title. This is really disappointing to me.

Not even one vote has been cast! I wonder if the Dean campaign even worries that they are alienating potential voters with this? This is really not very smart. As word of this gets out to the many Progressive Independent and Green activists who are crossing party lines to vote for Kucinich, does Dean think this will endear them to vote for him in the General Election? He could be setting himself up to win the battle but lose the race with these tactics because too many people are paying attention this election and word spreads very quickly in this internet age.

Dean has no need to stoop to this and whoever approved this is endangering us all by creating all this ill-will. Kucinich supporters should be a block that Dean could count on if he wins but he may not be able to not only because this isn't the first time for this &r some of the other distortions but because it's not the time at all.

If this is Trippi, I hope Dean gets someone with more savvy soon.

I agree, the wording of this pamphlet is ill-advised and wrongheaded. However, I do not know how far up the chain of command this goes. I will write to Dean HQ and express my displeasure, and hopefully get to the bottom of this.

Until then, for what it's worth, I personally apologize for any hurt or dissapointment this incident has caused. Not all Dean supporters approve of these tactics.

And it is precisely supporters like you who help redeem my faith that we can all work well on the same team after these bloody primaries.

This is one election we can not mess up.

You don't have to personally apologize! You didn't do it and aren't trying to white-wash it but that really helps diminish the unpleasant metallic taste in my mouth. Thank you!

I would be crushed if we couldn't end up on the same team. I look forward to the days of a united Democratic Party, and a civil and productive DU. We may have different methods, but our goals aren't so far apart.

Peace.

I know many of the Dean supporters here, from waaaay back and also from activist events and I have a lot of respect for you guys. In a very selfish way, I am hating these Primaries because of what they are doing to us. I can't WAIT for them to just be over because I do miss that civil and productive DU and I share that unusual ;) rush to work together to get Bush out.

We will end up on the same team! :thumbsup:

Peace to you

It is wrong to lie and mislead. This ad is clever, slick misleading. What I don't understand is that Dean is ahead, why can't he take the high road? Why must he resort to this?

Small print is the tiny shit at the bottom of a page.

The statement qualifiying the headline is in the first f-ing line of body text.

That's perfectly within journalistic standards.

in my deluded nightmares.

See what happens when you post an untrue headline designed to influence the public but then go on "qualify it" in small print.

Why not say "Dean opposed the war from the start"? Isn't that the important part of his message? Why continue the one-up-manshipism of being the 'only' anti-war candidate?

Especially when Dean pulled the orginal TV ads and apololgized...why even continue with this theme? Why even stir up it all up again? Does he just like apologizing? I'm as confused as ever....

With 9 candidates in the race, Dean should be more careful saying he is the ONLY candidate who did ANYTHING. I will write to HQ, and I will plead with them to stop.

That's what I like to hear from candidate supporters. You are obviously a great asset to the Dean team. Let me know what you find out. Thanks again.

NOT because it could change things and not because it speaks HIGHLY of your integrity but also, mostly, because it will spur many people to read your posts and really weigh the points you're making.

You have just done Dean an immense service at DU and I really look forward to reading your posts about him. They may be what we need to help me and many others see enough past the spin and fluff to make us want, really want, to work for him. I hope they do because it looks like he will be the nominee and we're going to need all the passion we can muster to yank out that Idiot-in-Chief.

Yep, there was a flier produces by a state Dean organization that the national dean office ensure was pulled.

A MONTH AGO.

The best you have is errors in fliers from a mnoth ago?

No wonder Dean is lapping the field.

On edit: this is a different, accurate flier.

I picked this up yesterday from Dean HQ. Now you show me the old one.

It's accurate.

Which boggles the mind as to what length some of his detractors will go to keep fighting against reality.

in some twisted world. What about Clark? He is not major? This type of campaigning angers your rivals. Like I said the Kucinich staff was irate. They don't have to vote for or support Dean after this.

to be pertinent it must also ask "was clark against the war from the beggining." Im pretty sure the answer to that is no. Making Deans comment, "Only major candidate against the war from the beggining" still pretty accurate. Once again, it looks more like a comment aimed at the swing voters than the other candidates.

Because pretty sure is pretty wrong. Clark was against the war from the start and I think polls and money make him "major".

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

snoop, dig, snoop, blab, contort.....

Here is the e-mail from the Kucinich HQs explaining this:

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.'"

Here is an image taken from the brochure, which the Dean campaign has mailed to people in New Hampshire and other states:

<image snipped>

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

<snip>

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 (which I am pasting below)

Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?
PDF | Word

With mainstream media repeatedly labeling Howard Dean a fervent foe of the Iraq War, many antiwar-oriented Democrats have flocked to Dean's campaign. But as the record shows, the presidential candidate who opposed the war consistently and unwaveringly from the beginning is Dennis Kucinich.

By contrast, Dean made alternately hawkish and dovish statements on Iraq prior to the Oct 2002 Congressional resolution, then muted his voice after the war started in March 2003, and recently insisted to the Washington Post that "I don't even consider myself a dove" and "now that we're there , we're stuck." Dean has also declared the bloated Bush military budget off-limits to cuts.

Here is a relevant timeline from mass media accounts:

Sept 21, 2002, KUCINICH -- "Leader of the Opposition"
The NY Times runs a news story about how "a small group of Democratic die-hards in the House is trying to rally opposition to military action." The piece refers to "two dozen or so mainly liberal lawmakers...though they may be viewed as outside the mainstream of even their own party, they are raising their voices against an invasion, even if their leadership is not." The piece accurately calls Rep. Kucinich a "leader of the opposition" and ends by quoting him: "This is an attempt to start a serious debate inside the party."

Sept. 23, 2002, DEAN -- Might Endorse Pre-Emptive Strike
Dean gives a waffling endorsement of President Bush's pre-emptive war:
"Pre-emption is not off the table, but the moral high ground does matter," he says, as quoted in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The paper reports that Dean "also said he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them."

Sept. 25, 2002, KUCINICH -- Denounces Pre-Emption
Introduced by anchor Judy Woodfruff on CNN as "one of the most active House opponents to President Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq," Kucinich denounces Bush's policy of pre-emptive war: "Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?...America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone."

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

Sept. 29, 2002, KUCINICH: "There Is No Imminent Threat"
On the same CBS "Face the Nation": "At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States." Kucinich adds: "There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat."

Oct. 10, 2002, WAR RESOLUTION -- Dean at 1%
Thanks heavily to Kucinich's leadership, nearly 2/3 of House Democrats vote "No" on the war resolution. But the four men in Congress then running for president all vote "Yes": Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman. Dean is at 1 percent in polls (Marist College poll, Oct. 9-10).

February 2003, DEAN -- "Democratic Wing of Democratic Party"
First reference in news media (according to Nexis Database) of Dean using the Paul Wellstone-line: "I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

February 19, 2003 DEAN -- Unilateral Action Is...Unavoidable Choice
Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

March 19, 2003, WAR BEGINS

March 20, 2003: DEAN (Muted Remarks) vs. KUCINICH (Pulled No Punches)
Dean and Kucinich address press groups in Washington D.C. AP reports on their respective comments:

Dean: "'I'm not going to back off my criticism of the president's policy, but I'm certainly going to change the tone,' Dean said between the speeches. 'There won't be the kind of red meat remarks that you make in front of partisan Democratic audiences.'"

Kucinich: "Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took his presidential campaign to the same newspaper audiences, but he pulled no punches in assailing the president for starting the war. He urged Bush to bring the troops home and focus on problems in America's cities, including unemployment, pollution and failing schools. 'This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq,' he said. 'These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.'"

May 2, 2003, BUSH DECLARES END OF "MAJOR COMBAT" IN IRAQ

August 12, 2003, DEAN -- "We Cannot Leave Iraq"
"I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq" (Buchanan & Press, MSNBC)

September 7, 2003, KUCINICH -- Get U.S. Out and U.N. In
"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion. We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."

http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php

What rot. :eyes:

I wish Dean would stop it.
That brochure saying he was the only anti-war candidate
was disgusting. Kucinich voted against IWR in congress.

Clark is a General.

I am not a Deanie, but this kind of post from Clark bores, helps insure that he is not the man.

and it's Clark's fault? Makes sense

:shrug:

How about giving up the appoligist act and taking responsibility.

campaign, I like Clark, and pray that he can keep from attacking fellow Dems. I will vote for the nominee. I despise folloewers who cannot get a positive message on their candidate, but rather resort to pulling down the competition. Let's face it DK is a footnote(I like him the most, but really).I will probably vote for Clark or Dean.

I posted several positive items about Clark today. This ad by Dean speaks for itself. That's why so many people are pissed. Dean put out this ad. If it is causing this much trouble, maybe it really is trouble.

no need to take it out on the Dean supporters.

Maybe it really is trouble.

Where in that post does it say Clark said this? This is a Dean ad based on a MAJOR LIE. Explain your reply.

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

Despite Kucinich's integrity and good ideas, Hes not going to win. Its clear, since every other statement on his web site is about dean, that he is now relegated to defining himself by contrast with Dean instead of in contrast to Bush. Kucinich has never really been a real contender and the statement of Dean being the "only major democratic candidate" is kinda true, it just doesn't feel that way from a Kucinich supporter's point of view.
Dennis Kucinish has very progressive ideals and i salute him for that. Society just wont progress fast enough for him to be seen as mainstream enough. Even if it could, somebody else with greater ideas would surly arise and be to progressive to be popular. I know it seems crazy to lean toward popular in a contest that holds our future in its hands. Reason is, after all, more like a race in the sense that the more intelligent outshine the rest of the pack early on.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that i recommend that you try and get comfortable with the circumstances. We need all democrats to stop fighting and start outshining. Bash bush more and Dean less.

eom

of politics is perfectly ok when it's done by the good doctor who does nothing wrong. Surely you know that it was actually the Kucinich campaign that put out this flyer as a way to discredit the good, good doctor. LOL

As far as im concerned, Dean was all over Bush and only bush until a core group decided to dog pile him. So he can bash them all he wants.

is that what it's called when the masses do everything they can to show a candidate willing to say anything even Major Lies for a few more votes?

As far as im concerned, hes the only candidate with his comments under the heat lamp. Im sure all the others have made mistakes and comments, changed direction and position, or tried stunts. Kucinich is probably exempt from that statment but once again. Its to late to matter. He didnt make a big enough impression to garner support.

Dean is the only candidate since the end of the summer the MAJOR MEDIA has allowed on thier air waves. This wasn't just a "MISTAKE" as you say, this was an "AD" where alot of brain power and money went into getting a "LIE" across to those unsuspecting voters. Call it for what it is and recongnize the behavior of the indivdual that would "SPIN" such a tale!

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

This man is not presidential material.

I think he has pissed off a lot of Kucinich supporters. I know I won't be rallying behind him if he is the nominee.

Liars should not be president.

And Dean is not a liar no matter how hard you try to spin that meme.

:eyes:

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

Already got one...don't need another. One in the same.

Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean

:toast:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

I am always happy to see Kucinich supporters here because I know there are many more out there than the media has been letting on and I am tired of seeing the "Kucinich is unelectable" meme become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Everywhere I go, I run into Kucinich supporters and yet the media would like us to believe that we don't exist! Go figure!

Good to see you join in!

Peace & Kucinich 2004 :toast:

while you support Kucinich?

and you wonder why DK is not a major candidate?

:shrug:

and you have no idea who the enemy is. I will support the Party's nominee. Those who don't are willing to give america away.

Especially after Kucinich called Dean out on this and Dean said he would stop saying that.

This is one side of Dean & his Campaign that I don't like because it's the equivalent of a paper running a lie on page 1 and then retracting that lie 2 weeks later, in small print, on page 21.

I hope Kucinich brings this up at the next debate. Dean's supporters will be furious if he does but undecided voters need to know these things because they speak to character and integrity.

I am also concerned that he says that he was against the $87 Billion for Iraq. I went and checked the transcript from the September 25 debate and that's not what I'm finding there:

Text: Democratic Candidates Debate / Sept 25, 2003



DEAN: I believe the $87 billion ought to come from the excessive and extraordinary tax cuts that this president foisted upon us <snip>

So I believe not only should we get rid of the $87 billion worth of tax cuts to pay to support our troops--even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops--I also believe we ought to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut. It is bad for the economy and it has not created one job.

WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?

DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts?

<snip>

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

<snip>

SHARPTON: <snip> In terms of your question, I would unequivocally vote no, because I think to continue to invest in a flawed and failed policy is not wise or prudent. It is really to try and chase bad investment with bad investment. The signal it would sent the troops is that we really do love them. Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy.

<snip>

KERRY: Well, let me begin, Brian, by first of all saying I hope the fact that the ticker is down in both measures is not a reflection of the fact that all 10 of us are meeting here today. <snip> I believe the $87 billion is at issue. I have introduced an amendment, together with Joe Biden, that calls on shared sacrifice in America. We need to ask the wealthiest people in our country to bear some of the burden, as our troops and as the middle class in America is bearing the burden.

<snip>

CLARK: Now, look, this $87 billion is the first we've heard from this administration of anything like a reasonable estimate of what the down payment is. Congress needs to really go after this figure.

What is the strategy? What will make this operation a success? What will it take to exit? How do we get international support in there? There are dozens of questions to be asked on this.

We need to make this operation a success. We need to support our troops. But we need answers on this.

And the final answer that we need is, the president needs to tell us how he's going to pay for it. This can't be an addition to the deficit. We want to see where the money's coming from.

<snip>

LIEBERMAN: That is certainly my first choice as to how we should finance this $87 billion. The fact is that the only Americans sacrificing today for our policy in Iraq, which is critical to our national security and world security, are the 140,000 Americans who are there in uniform for us. <snip>

But we have no choice but to finance this program for two reasons.

We have those 140,000 American troops there. We need to protect them. We need to protect them and bring them home safe to their families.

Secondly, we are involved in a great battle in the war on terrorism. Those terrorists have poured in there. They're attacking Americans. They're attacking the institutions of civilization: the United Nations, Jordanian embassy, Muslim mosques. We cannot afford to lose this fight.

<snip>

EDWARDS: Let me give you a simple answer: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground there. I will not vote--I will not vote for the additional money unless and when we have an explanation about our allies coming in and what we're going to do to share the cost with others.

<snip>

GEPHARDT: Gloria, we've got to get answers to very important questions. I don't think you can assume that Republicans are just going to vote for whatever the president asks for either.

We got some tough questions to ask. What's the money go for? Are we going to just pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq? Is that part of this money? When we can't remodel schools in the United States, can't, apparently, get the electric grid straightened out in the United States, we're going to build the electric grid in Iraq?

<snip>

MOSELEY BRAUN: I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who right now are in the shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves.

And so, it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we just not blow up that country and leave it blown up; we have a responsibility.

Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is.

Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq and I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq, and at the same time asked the question, "Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?" He didn't answer the question then, he's not answering the question now.

But I believe that it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true


Links to debates can be found here: http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/debates/

i hope DK does bring it up...bet he does

and sticks it Dean's face. That's what McCain and Bush did in their debates. There was some real nastiness there. Dean has caused this.

see subject

forced Dean to print a flyer with a blatant lie...OK.

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.

It was him after all with Pelosi not Dean and Pelosi that fought the IWR in the house, I know Dean isnt a congressman, I am not stupid. It was also Kucinich who spoke at an anti war rally. Exactly well put, Maggie welcome to DU.

if they question kucinich on whether he reall y opposed the war, that's just really sad considering he did the most of all the candidates running to oppose it.

Bullshit...what people?

Maybe people started to ask Kucinich is he's a major candidate?

:toast:

is the same as supporting the war?

Darn that qualifier anyway!

In my deluded nightmares.

See what happens when you use a headline to influence people despite adding a "qualifier" in small print?
Do you know what happens when you repeat the headline enough times?

and all he's managed to do is alienate Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark supporters.

Let's just let him continue burning bridges, shall we?

on all sides. Dean is hardly the only offender. Let's not pretend that he is. I will still vote for Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman even after their viscious and unfair attacks on Dean. Nothing done by a Democrat during primary season makes them even remotely as bad as b*sh. Hopefully reason will win out over the cheap histrionics of the circular firing squad.

I think Dean is just aiming at a different crowd now. It probably seems clear to him that he has the primary in the bag and hes using the heat to make statements to the swing voters that they understand. Seems logical to me as the middle folk don't really pay enough attention to understand the language used in primaries. Deans is shifting his focus toward reaching those who live, sadly , off of sound bites and clips.