Now all supporters are alienated.

Kucinich people here in our area have already made it clear they will not vote Democrat unless he is nominated.

Kucinich people on DU will not vote for Dean. Kucinich will not be the nominee. Whether Dean could have handled it diffently, he did tell the truth. He was the only major candidate that opposed the war.

Clark people will not vote for Dean on the whole, and have organized seemingly endless threads against him.

Kerry people, probably will throw weight to Clark people, or vice versa.

Dean people including myself are becoming more and more angry with the hatred toward us as well. I see our national party head laughing about all the vicious attacks, and saying ....more more more.

I read that MacAuliffe is salivating getting Dean's fundraising database after telling the others to go for it and laughing in his face. Well, I am on that database, and I am not going to be passed around like an item.

I see Carville on CNN actually "making fun" of Dean. Yes, he does.

Last year we got excited about politics. This year, just now, we got unexcited all over again. I do not know how we will handle it, but it is awful to get a bunch of excited people.....then kill their interest with hatred.

With the others who have voted for:
1. the war
2. the medicare bill
3. the tax cuts
4. no child left behind
5. the patriot act
with the others I see status quo.

I see Bush in the WH next year again.

Dean is the only one constantly alienating other supporters of candidates with his rhetoric and campaign themes.

I have seen many times when Dean supporters, to their credit, have said they will vote for someone other than Dean if necessary.

So no problems, if my feelings on who is going to be the nominee is accurate. It will be a candidate that is able to unite the party well.

Not true we are the only ones. That is hogwash. We got tough skin, finally.

That really was a direct hit. Thanks, as things are getting clearer.

It's that simple. I am 100% alienated from the other eight candidates.

but I think the vast majority of Democrats, despite what even Dean himself may say, will vote for the Dem.

99.99% of all regularly voting dems will vote for our candidate. only the petulant will abstain.

I'm through voting for Democratic Party Elite Insiders.

This would not be out of petulance. This would be out of a looss of all hope for this nation.

Please, do not paint me with your broad brush. Thank you.

It's always been hopeless in terms of a real progressive candidate being nominated. I learned that with Eugene McCarthy. It never stopped me from taking a few hours to vote against the Republicans. What's the big deal? It only takes a few hours out of one day.
I offer a suggestion for some people. Take a break for awhile let things play out without adding fuel to the anxiety.
Take some time to have fun. We do what we can. The system is inately corrupted. That's just the way it is.
People just set themselves up for disappointment.

The only real way to create progressive change is to work all year round, in the community, in educating, raising hell etc. We do what we can..

Fire Bush: www.codepinkalert.org

I can tell you straight up that the only candidate in this race who hasn't pissed me off with their attacks on my candidate is Braun. She's the only one other than Dean that, at this point, I could vote for and feel good about voting for her. Kucinich has attacked Dean in the past. In one of the early debates, long before Dean didn't include him as a "major candidate". The attack wasn't an honest one, either. I don't care for Kucinich for president because he's a bit on the radical side in my opinion. I think he's a perfect fit for where he is, though, because he helps keep balance. Sharpton and Edwards totally turned me off when they played into the race baiting crap. That was about as low as you can get, IMO. Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt have been rabid in their attacks and I can't stand any of them. I don't think I could vote for any of them. It'd be thrid party or staying home unless I could write in Dean. As for Clark...I used to like him quite a bit. However, his behavior over the VP issue burned my butt. Realistically, the man isn't even qualified for the VP role, let alone the presidency. He brings only one thing to the table, and it's just not enough for me. And in light of his overinflated ego and the absolutely horrendous behavior of some of his supporters on here, I really have grown to dislike Clark.

To claim that Dean supporters have not been alienated tells me that you must not be listening. I have been called many names on here. I have been insulted and attacked. I'm NOT talking about insults and attacks on Howard Dean...I am talking about insults and attacks on ME personally. There is a very distinct difference. I resent being treated that way and I'm going to be very hard pressed to vote for anyone else besides Dean who stands any chance of getting the nomination.

Also, I don't want to hear any of that "party loyalty" ABB stuff because I'm not a Democrat. I owe the party nothing. I am a registered Independent swing voter who has finally found a candidate I actually feel great about voting for and really believe in. That candidate is Howard Dean. A natural disaster won't keep me away from the voting booth if he's on the ballot. If he's not on the ballot, I am not going to be motivated to want to vote. People aren't going to like hearing that, but it's the truth.

Every attack on Dean and disrespect of Dean supporters pushes me further and further towards the Nobody But Dean camp.

DU has certainly changed, for the worse, as this has heated up and gotten ugly.

I have mourned the passing of many good people from these forums, and seen the rise of dubious elements who do NOT, in my opinion, have the best interests of our party at heart.

But hey, it's just a web board, right?

Happy New Year.

The Mondale campaign did things like send out poster rip down crews, sent out fake fliers with false statements by Hart, stuff like that. I got real bitter. It took till like the end of October before the hard core Hart people wandered into Mondale campaign offices. Mondale was too far back for any help by then.

Do you know who worked on the Mondale campaign and pulled 1001 dirty tricks? Dean's campaign manager. I am NOT happy at what I've been learning about this guy and it explains a lot of the discomfort I have felt with the entire Dean campaign from the start. I am about to swear off DU and even politics because I am so disgusted at how too many people do it and all the smoke and mirrors they set up to trap unsuspecting prey. And on edit: let me add that Trippi is NOT the only one nor is Dean's campaign the major one!

Before founding TMS with partners Steve McMahon and Mark Squier, Joe Trippi worked on the presidential campaigns of Edward M. Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Gary Hart and Richard Gephardt.

As a campaign manager, Trippi has run Senate, Gubernatorial and Mayoral campaigns. He was selected by former Vice-President Walter Mondale to manage the Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses in 1984, and later went on to run several key states for the Mondale for President campaign. In 1988, Trippi was the Deputy National Campaign Manager for Richard Gephardt's Presidential campaign.

Trippi began his work in media consulting at the Democratic media firm of Doak, Shrum and Associates, where he was involved in developing the strategy and producing the media for the successful campaigns of Jerry Baliles for Governor of Virginia and Bob Casey for Governor of Pennsylvania. Trippi was also instrumental in the re-election campaigns of U.S. Senator Alan Cranston of California and Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles.

and then I googled Trippi + dirty tricks http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Trippi+%22dirty+tricks%22

Come on, Tinoire, you can do better than that.

Dean & Trippi have run a masterful campaign, and the only "dirty tricks" they've been pulling is telling the truth too bluntly.

ABB all the way!

:hi:

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

But of course there will be a thread saying we won't. This thread is a perfect example.

Several Clark supporters have said they'll sit out the election or vote third party if Dean gets the nomination. And before you ask, you know that I can't name names, so ask some of your cohorts if you don't believe me.

Thats how urban legends & tall tales work.

I could do the same with supporters of most candidates here, including Gov. Dean's, but naming names is against the rules.

And yes you can link threads but won't beacuse...Urban legend.

Deny it all you want, but it IS true. :shrug:

unless there arn't any?

I'll bookmark the next one for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=976059

If there was something I wanted to bring to your attention in this thread I could just by linking the thread, then you would be able to see the information without using anyones name. What is so diifcult about this?

Unless of course we are talking urban legends.

I know damned well how to link a thread, and if you think insulting people is engendering a civil discussion, you're wrong! Do your own freakin' research, unless you're gonna pay me for my time! :grr:

But the one's here in the thread making the claim should. Other wise it is what I have said all along urband Legend, which I seem to get pleny from Dean supporters starting with this thread.

Deal with it.

I deal with all the time here, thanks for another one.


on edit: People say UFO'S they exist, but I have yet to see one.

Try reading the archives.

I am not the one that said they do. But then again I don't believe in UFO'S either.

If I ever make a claim, be rest assured I will have the facts and or links to back it up. All I am asking is for the same in return.

Demonstrates the absolute weakness of your arguments. Some of your fellow Clark supporters have acknowledged that they exist in this very thread; you might know that, if you read posts like this one:

#54, infra.

I will leave know in search of more urban legends. Peace be with you.

Why am I not surprised? :eyes:

Look up the word peace, please.

They are a minority, but we've all seen a few folks say they won't vote for Clark or Dean or DK or Kerry or Sharpton or Edwards or CMB or Lieberman. But to say the Clark campaign as a whole is exaggerating, who knows maybe here at DU but IRL...I highly doubt it's true. JMO

The ones in your camp are the good guys, the ones in the other camp are the bad guys.

I've seen the threads where the people for the other candidates (including your own!!! shock!!!) say this, too.

It's really odd, but if you look under our clothes, you'll see that we are all human beings. And we tend to behave similarly. The virtuous ones who support candidate X, for example, are oddly enough, just as virtuous as the virtuous ones who support candidate Y. And the nasty or foolish ones who support candidate X are just as nasty as the nasty ones who support candidate Y. Who'd have thunk it?

No one's got a monopoly on Saints, Grinches or Trolls

You're suppose to remember enough detail from some thread from who knows whne where someone likely mentioned in passing it was Clark or no one for them. Don't let it bother you, look at the facts instead.

How many Clark supporters have you met here or in real life declare they are only involved because of Clark? I'd wager many. That has been my CONSISTENT experience. I have a PM in my box now from a near hysterical Clark supporter declaring they are actually a Green.

We have Clark supporters coming in and talking about major fundraising for Clark. We have someone here in my area getting involved as deeply as possible (at least where access to all our list info is ;-) ) "only becuase of Clark".

That's great that someone is inspired by a candidate enough to get involved in the process but, like many of our Dems who were hand-wringing when it really counted, where they hell have they been the last three years??

I'm sorry but I'm just not all that impressed at folks who will haul ass just because of their own little particular something. What about the greater good? What about the party?

Just think if all had been involved in shaping the party and growing it like this all along?

Yes, Paddy there are people who won't vote for anyone but Clark but they are not my biggest concern. What of those who will go back to doing nothing (posting to DU counts for "nothing" as it's not the Real World and does accomplish exactly NOTHING)? Or worse, what if they are so sore over losing they do what they can to prove themselves right and make sure the Dem nom loses?

Who knows what to expect? I don't. I've seen some pretty irrational behavior here (much of it in my In-box) and to see so many building their entire posting history on merely bashing others with an occasional "my guy is God", frankly I find it troubling.

Just for fun, here's a piece of a little something from my in-box, supposedly from another "Dem":

I can't wait to watch people like you get turned to ash by what is coming at you in the general election. You're pathetic, unable to recognize good press and interesting allies when you see them, and you are going to get laid waste. Win or lose, you are in for a rough road, and I'm going to laugh my ass off watching you. Pathetic. Totally pathetic.

You see the viciousness? See the hate/anger? Sad, no?

Julie

I wouldn't be totally surprised to find supporters of all the candidates who will definately move to Canada if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Wouldn't shock me if they did either. I know enough to realize that no one is screening people to be supporters of candidates. It is hard to get rejected for being unqualified. or having the wrong attitude.

While it is possible that there is a slightly higher small minority of such people in one campaign vs. those found in another, no matter who wins the nomination I'm sure some backers of losers will sit out the General Election and that includes some current backers of Clark. I rarely if ever encounter fellow Clark supporters with that attitude however. Honest.

of the swing voter. As such it is not necessary for Clark supporters to threaten to sit out the election. The constant talk of Clark's appeal to swing voters imply that if he is not the nominee that many people who would otherwise support Clark would vote for Bush. The strongest weapon in the hands of the people at extremes of the political spectrum is the threat of sitting it out. You cannot expect those with strong views to let the swing voters be the only decision makers in an election.

I don't consider Clark evil becasue he's a swing voter. I've already said I'll support him if he gets the nomination.

The point I want to illuminate is that only 20% of the voters are swing voters. If you alienate the base by nominating a candidate that is so conservative the base can't see the personal worth in taking off a day from work without pay, or showing up up for work late and getting yelled at by their boss on election day... they won't vote.

Lets not forget. For most of the Democratic Party base, running home to vote for a couple of hours means they may have to pay their water bill late this month. They will only do that sort of thing if they see the value in doing it. If the Dem is so conservative they see no value in voting for them, they won't. This isn't about people acting in a snit. This is about people 1 paycheck from homelessness making real choices.

I was just making the point that while the poster above says that Clark voters don't threaten to sit the election out, the whole talk of swing voter is a thinly disguised threat to not only refrain from supporting a different Democrat but to even go so far as voting Republican.

Should Clark get the nomination, there will be very few Deomocratic voters thinking he is "too conservative". The contrast to Bush will be stark. Clark is the Teddy Roosevelt of our time (but without all the stuffed dead animals). Some people worry Clark might be a trojan horse. They should, the Republicans I mean. His record of service to America deflects attacks that he is another "crazy liberal". In reality he will be more of a solid progressive. I hope he gets the chance to prove that.

Whoever gets the nomination, gets my vote.

:hi: I don't want to see another 4 years of Bush.

Fight hard, fight fair, keep your eye on the goal, and never sink to the lowest denominator. I'll be with you in the Fall, one way or another.

ABB! :dem:

mis-steps. I am not saying this in reference to DU but in reference to the behavior of most of the frontrunners.

Begala was right..maybe they did write it off and are actively helping.

I guess we will find out, won't we?

This is very sad time in our country.

Shame on him for belittling any democratic candidate. I've begin to wonder about him, because after all, he's married to a republican. At one time, I truly admired Carville, but not anymore. How disappointing. :spank:

Carville is a professional political hack, just like his wife. He's a creation of the politico-industrial complex, just like Dick Morris, Roger Ailes (the evil one), Joe Trippi, George Stephanopoulos, etc.

Their existance is based solely on the premise that voters need to be conned and manipulated into making the "right" decision and that politics is more about "focus groups", polls and fundraising than it is about doing what's right for the country and standing up for it, no matter how "unpopular" it seems to the useless whore media and their political "analysts".

Screw Carville, screw Morris, screw Trippi, and the rest of their ilk. Put them on a slow boat to Vanuatu and make them live on what's left of that island. They have done more to ruin politics in this country than Nixon and his Watergate crooks could ever have. They (and their ilk) have made this country cynical about how we're governed, and have been responsible for driving voter turnout to all-time lows.

The "Professionalization" of politics has gone on for a long time, but it's gotten worse in the last 20 years. The candidates are largely interchangable, largely due to the "handling" they get from these so-called "experts".

How sad. :(

I wish everyone would wake up!

Can't we suppress our egos even enough to save the country?

My support is with my candidate in the Primary but my vote is with the nominee in GE.:pals:

but DU is not the real world. You get all kinds of partisans here. Relatively speaking there are not that many active members on DU maybe a thousand or so. Of that number the true partisans who every day do nothing but try and cut down another candidate (and I'm not saying some Dean supporters are not included in this) is a relatively small number--especially when you consider the real world. It just seems like there are alot because they post frequently and rather than posting something positive about their candidate they think they can accomplish more by demeaning another candidate. My advice (and sometimes I find it hard to follow myself) is just ignore them or put them on ignore.

in the primaries, but I will vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination. I will NOT sit out the election, and I will NOT vote Republican or anything else. I am a Democrat.

they are blwoing smoke and yuu guys are falling for it

because the Dems are going to nominate Howard Dean as their candidate.

A centrist won't be able to beat Bush...and that is exactly what Howard Dean is(among other things).

I did not know that. You mean is really is one of them creatures?

:P

As much as I like Dennis K, his ratings are certainly not very high,
and I'll stay with Dean until the election, and if he's not the nominee, so be it; I will vote for the nominee, whoever it is.

The same can not be said about Dean.

He did so in an attack on Dean in one of the debates. I remember because it infuriated me since I live in Vermont and knew it wasn't the truth.

:eyes:

I could probably find it if I felt so compelled to do so. I watched him lie in a shrill attack on Dean during a debate. It pissed me off, so I remember it. He claimed Dean held a position that he doesn't hold. It was a lie. That's the only one I'm aware of him telling, but he did tell it. :shrug:

General Shelton said that Wes Clark was removed as NATO commander because of integrity issues. General Shelton has yet to provide any proof to substantiate his allegations about Clark. We must therefore dismiss General Shelton's allegations as sour grapes, with a touch of McCarthyism.

Unless you can back up your assertion about Kucinich, you will have as much credibility as General Shelton does about Wes Clark.

Or a retraction.

Kucinich and his position about choice.

Either Kucinich was lying when he was voting against choice, or he's lying about his pro-choice position now.

You don't make the dramatic shift Kucinich did (the day he announced his candidacy) on that issue and not have dishonesty mixed into it.

That pissed me off to no end. I was shopping for a Wellstone-like candidate and Kucinich scared all the other possibilities of them off, then finished his campaign out of the gate with that ridiculous gaffe.

You don't make the dramatic shift Kucinich did (the day he announced his candidacy)

It is not even worth the time it takes to reply.

Posting 2 links here for people who care about the truth and don't care to get tangled up in more misrepresentations:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=173242&mesg_id=173242

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=28445

Wow it sure gets deep in here. And I mean I need taller boots.

TWL

Dean usually gets criticized for being too liberal from people who don't really know much about him.

Beating Bush is far more important than who we nominate. Politics is a rough game, but you can't go into a funk because your guy gets his hair mussed. And you can't threaten to take your ball and go home because you don't like the way the first quarter is being played. Dean is taking a pounding now, but so what? My guy, Kerry seems to have cement block tied to his ankles. If people are going to have fainting fits now, because the other guys are being mean how will you handle the shit storm the repukes are going to unleash? Stand by your guns. Keep the powder coming. This war has just begun.

that Democrat will not end the war, or repeal PATRIOT Act.

us what we need. I refuse to pretend a naked would-be emperor has clothes on. I'm better than that, and worth more.

If we Dems run a barely-disguised Republican, we'll lose. Talking a good line isn't enough. ISSUES MATTER. POSITIONS MATTER.

Even if they almost fill my wish list, but I don't agree 100% on the approach, doesn't that sound a whole hell of a lot better than the guy in the White House?

I don't get the "nobody but my candidate" position. We can't afford another 4 years of Bush - people's very LIVES the world over depend on us doing what we can to get him out. It would be selfish to isist on our ideal perfect world scenerio or nothing at a time like this.

and the extraordinary powers that the PATRIOT Act gave to the executive branch at the expense of our civil liberties, then you really don't appreciate what freedom is all about.

It does matter who we get in the WH. This philosphy of "anybody but bush" will bite us in the ass. Once we get that "anybody" in the WH and he turns out to be incompetent, we have more damage done to our party than we will be able to fix. We need to fix our eyes on the prize but not "at any cost". We as a party need to start thinking smarter and getting qualified candidates in office that will make our party look respectable.

Just did. I know you could care less about my support in the GE, I am only a damned kid but I willing. That ad upset me, it still does, but now I feel more determined I think. You act as if its just Dean supporters being attacked, I was called a Naderite as a matter of fact today for telling the truth about Dean's support of the death penalty, and I got attacked as a purist/naderite, if I were that, I would be no democrat, death penalty btw is one of my big issues. Same thread, I urged people not to taunt others who attack their candiate, but to counter it with facts, not to taunt the person, IMO that only adds fuel to the fire. Yet in the same breath I have never attacked Dean either as a person or his supporters, I got many good friends who support Dean. I dont feel 100% about Dean myself, but he will get my support if he gets the nod, that may seem like little but its something.

you've got integrity, backbone and a good heart! We'll need your help this year, so keep your chin up, boyo! :hug: :hi:

Ok. I respect you very much. Every day is hard here. It is either leave or fight, which is quite sad.

I respect your views of Kucinich, and I remember his active work before the war.

Thanks. I try, hard though.

fair, and objective which makes it even more painful to see you depressed over this. I am so sorry that. So sorry to see this.

I hate what the media does as well. I guess that's what happens when your opponents have carte blanche to the media like the GOP does.

I had NEVER EVER imagined that it would be this bad. I am frankly heart-broken over it and wish there were something we could do besides taking silly loyalty oaths and instituting more rules.

I will not, not ever, get upset at my Dean friends here for supporting Dean just because he's not my candidate, or the Clark supporters for that matter because there are too many good, sincere people in those camps- as in all the camps. I just get so mad at the spin and obfuscation and outright lies that will ensure that the nominee won't be the best candidate. And what good will that do us in the long run? Of course, when did the DLC ever care about what was good for US in the long run?

Memes, memes, memes and all the unscrupulous people on these campaigns and on the internet- damn them. And damn them twice for not thinking our powers of observation aren't on to their games and that there will be no voter back-lash.

Peace and may all stay well with you. May we live to see that buffoon yanked out of office and replaced with a finer Democrat who was truly the people's choice- the choice of real Democrats.

You know what scares the day-lights out of me? It's that Republicans have nothing to lose. They can all go register as Democrats and vote in our Primaries. We are well, well on our way to a dictatorship in full transition to a military dictatorship. I hope to God I'm wrong.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks for all your thoughtful posts in the past and today.

Peace

On edit: Just wanted to add that I do not feel alienated from you or from any of the thoughtful, progressive Dean supporters because our cause is still the same. I will still, for everything I hold dear, continue to evaluate the candidated based on their own record and in the end, that's all that will really matter. This is unfortunately going to be part of Dean's record for me but it's not the only thing I'll judge him on and certainly not something I will judge his supporters on. There is hope for us all yet!

You did not get called a Naderite/purist. You can't take two different ideas in my post to you and make them one idea. But while we are discussing the topic, the death penalty is is a big issue for me too. Trying teenagers as adults if bigger. My point was that trying to paint yourself as the high minded purists as many DK supporters do, you can run into trouble when your candidate turns out to have feet of clay.
DK is not perfect candidate. Supporting him doesn't give anyone the high ground.

I meant abolition of the thing which is an issue, I dont see eye to eye with Dean with. I am sorry if I felt like I was being attacked, I felt like a complete idiot. I dont think my candiate is perfect, I havent ever. I don't get it, I wasnt trying to have a moral highground, I have so many faults, I cant even begin to count. I think what set me off today was finally seeing that ad in NH everyone has been talking about.

status-quo guy you're supporting. Tell yourself whatever you like, but don't try to put John in the wrong.

It must have been my Aspergers, high functioning autism. I dont find DK perfect, I do agree he is solid on a lot of issues and thats why I support him. I overreacted about what happened, probably because of my disgust over the ad in New Hampshire.

I, too, would/WILL gladly support whomever, or whoever (not sure of the grammar there) becomes our standard-bearer. I just happen to think it's gonna be Dean, but if he tanks all of a sudden, and I have to look at someone else, I'm damned well gonna do it. These people who resolutely insist it's their guy or nobody will only leave us with four more years of george w. schmuck.

The Iowa caucuses are just - what, 19 or so days away? It's now WEEKS, not months anymore. I think there will be a shakedown period. But those who are stubborn enough to keep punching holes in other people's candidates with SUCH vitriol are doing nothing but playing into the hands of KKKarl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Tom DeLay, James Baker, and all those other assholes.

If we work THAT hard to splinter ourselves as a party, we will have nothing but splinters in our eyes, come November.

You're appreciated, John Kleeb. So are your opinions. I hope everybody will come around to this thinking. I've certainly tried to. If Dean does NOT carry the day, I'm dancing with whomever (whoever) DOES.

and was made worse by the spin.

Don't let it get to you like this though, please. You are too young with an entire life in front of you to have to be exposed to such dirty sheenanigans which in a previous, non-internet age, would not be exposed so quickly.

These are age old tricks. Nothing new under the sun. So sorry though that you are gaining first-hand knowledge of the ugliness involved in political races- especially at such a critical time where it is imperative that we get the BEST possible candidate into that office to heal our country.

actually you have more wisdom and sensitivity than a lot of so-called mature adults. My candidate is Dean but I respect you for your support of Dennis Kucinich. Dean just happens to be more compatible with my views but if Dennis won the nomination I would vote for him.

BTW, the death penalty is a big issue with me also. I'm not against it totally as there are some crimes so horrific that it defies all that is decent, good and right. I think it should be used sparingly and NEVER used on the mentally retarded, severely mentally ill or on persons under the age of 21. Such reckless use of the death penalty as we have seen in Texas and some other states is sure to bring about some drastic reforms eventually. It isn't really a partisan issue either.

I don't even agree 100% with Dean's views on the death penalty but he's not too far off the mark in that respect. I'm not a one-issue voter and I look at the entire platform.

The fact that you would vote for Dean (if you could) even though you don't agree with him on something so important to you---IS something. :-)

Begala was singing the praises to Tucker Carlsson's book, when he started to talk about "vanity" candidates (using the same language that Ted Koppel used about Dennis, Al, and Carol).

The nomination of a prowar candidate will be rejected by millions of Americans, the vast majority of whom have never heard of DU.

Ours today had Carville and Novak.

And Begala did say that; overall, he was QUITE nasty to several candidates...

We, none of us, should take that from those two.

and they will start talking up the Dem that pays them first.

No question about it. :evilfrown:Satan:evilfrown: would be a better vote than Bush with a clear mandate. Please consider that whatever the outcome of the Dem selection process.

For those who may argue there is little difference please conisder that Satan has had an eternity to screw up the planet, Bush* has gone gangbusters in les than 3 years.

a few dozen people in DU and some meetups are jumping up and down and this means everyone in the whole world is going insane?

It's politics, fercrisesakes, and things happen.

We haven't had the first primary yet, yet all these visions of joy and gloom, depending on what crock one believes.

After all the slung mud for a few months, someone is going to win the nomination, and 8 sets of supporters are going to be disappointed. One set has already been disappointed.

With any luck, most of those disappointed will act like adults and get over it, supporting the Chosen One, whomever that may be and however the choice was made.

That's the way it works in the Real World if you want to get anything done.

It IS important that we not short-change our safety net in the rush to balance the budget.
It IS important that our candidate want to repeal the whole Patriot Act, not just tinker around a little.

In the madhouse of the primaries, we must pick the MOST QUALIFIED candidate.

Have you seen the latest from Granny D. She says so far we have just been going on "image."(Terribly discouraging) If we don't talk about issues and platforms and dull things like whether we should repeal NAFTA and the WTO and just spend all our time sniping at other candidates, we will:

1) never bring out the best in these, our fine candidates. We will bring out and settle only for the Least Common Denominator, the sqeaky wheel, the best one at sound bites that make headlines the media can glom onto.
2) the electorate will NOT be informed and be able to make an informed choice, so we WILL end up with just "image," a hollow shell of a Presidential candidate. We sometimes forget that most people do not spend time on the internet researching political candidates. By just being nasty in a campaign and only criticizing without being positive, we are contributing to the dumbing down of not only Democrats but the whole electorate.

Sorry, gotta run.

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

Welcome to DU Fahrenheit911.

That is giving the GOP all the stuff they need.

You just made my point LYAO at that.

I was going to say welcome, but now I don't think so.

And considering how most folks have underestimated Dean since day #1, I bet on a new Dem party, and I won't shed a tear for the old...

Don't worry madfloridian, you don't actually think that the people who power Dean's campaign will be fooled by the people who tried to deny them that power?

That's what this is about - power.

Who has it and how it is used.

When Dean wins, the talking heads are out, the people are in.

So would my husband. And then we would do what our heart tells us.

This year has hurt us so badly. I remember another America, and this one has lost me.

It is either get it back from the ones who want eternal war at the cost of our social programs....and do it now.....or it will be too late.

Yes, the tears won't last long, though.

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

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

he voted for Gore and Clinton in the 90's

Dedicated Democrat, clearly not. Clark has supported both. That makes him an independent. Can I support an independent over Dumbya? Yep. If he gets the nomination, I can support Clark.

However, Clark supporters, please don't spread that fertilizer that Clark is a dedicated Democrat. It's too obviouly not true. Tell the truth about Clark, and let people make up their own minds.

Admitted by closet bushistas maybe...

:shrug:

Being pro any candidate does not been being against another candidate.

ABB is a myth, which unfortunately is also being used by people like Terry McCauliffe to keep Democrats in line, particularly if Terry succeeds in securing the nomination for one of the 4 prowar candidates.

I thought it was wrong to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, as I think it is wrong to give McCauliffe a blank check on the 2004 nomination.

The answer is that no matter what 100% of all registered DUers say about ABB, the reality is that there are millions of Americans that will never vote for a candidate that supported the invasion of Iraq, and that includes those that voted "Yes" for IWR regardless of the rationale they give for that vote.

Under normal conditions those millions of deeply committed antiwar voters would not make much of a difference on an election. However, if 2004 turns out to be as close as 2000, if not closer, the refusal of those voters to vote for the prowar Democratic nominee will be more than enough to bring defeat.

Let this be a warning to those supporters of the Washington establishment!

I will not allow the DLC or even the DNC to push ANY candidate on me- that's like promising a used-car salesman you'll be the car sight-unseen. No way!

I am so TIRED of voting against something or someone; I want to vote FOR and the quicker the establishment swallows that lesson, the better for us and for this country.

Did you ever stop and ask why are all these people not liking HD? And not give the W answer "terrorists hate us because they are gealous?"

DO like HD? and give yourself an honest answer?

That is what I am talking about.
You know perfectly well what I am talking about.
The attacks on Dean from all sides, especially from one candidate's blog, may hurt him.

They will hurt the party as well.

Dean's stance on terrorism is much stronger than Bush's. Bush wants to attack countries that have nothing to do with it.

That saying was an ugly thing to post to me. It really was, and you should be ashamed.

:eyes:

I'll vote for Dean if he's nominated but he won't win.

in a huff. Someone mentioned it recently right here on DU. That same DUer was offended by Carville's "snot nosed" statement but never really focused on the type of behavior Carville was talking about.

If that person would review of some of the posts on this thread they would clearly understand what Carville meant.

I am that DUer.

I think it is dead wrong for Democratic political operatives to go on TV and make fun of ANY of our candidates.

I think it is shameful. Begala apparently made fun of several today as well.

Talk to me, I am that DUer.

Now as to the "snot-nosed" comment, could you explain?

be labled as a "snot nose". That's what Carville was trying to convey. Dean brought that comment on after saying that his supporters were not necessarily transferable.

which seems to have escaped you. Independents are not bound to a particular party. Independents vote on the issues and the candidates. Independent voters that are currently supporting Dean, or Kucinich, or another of the antiwar candidates, are not going to transfer their loyalty to just anybody just because they have a "D" after their name.

Start calling people snot nosed kids, and you really really win their hearts and minds.

IG is right. It is quite possible for many to support him, not the party.

people as their primary focus. Whatever Democratic strategy it takes to get Bush out of the White House is job one. There is just too much at stake. "Remaking the Democratic Party" as Al Gore put it, should be further down on the list of priorities.

We do not need eternal war, we do not need our social programs gutted.

If it does mean remaking it, then so be it. It will be a bumpy ride.

and the party's shift to the right. I just desperately want Bush out of the White House.

And Dean may be right about the transferability. I do not believe in forced loyalty oaths. Many in our county refuse to sign them for the DEC.

He said both in the same segment.

But I was watching Carville nearly spew saliva from his mouth in his anger toward Dean and used the words under his breath. I assume that would fall under Crosstalk in the transcript, but I call it muttering.

He was hateful.

is one of the few politicians that I fully respect.

and Carville began disgusting me over a year ago.

Begala always has.

Both of them are political Pied-Pipers who sold their souls to the highest bidder and complain that everyone else won't just merrily dance to their cacaphonic tune.

I will NOT dance to their merry tune. I will not help them merge my party into one with the Republican neo-cons.

I am a DEMOCRAT. The very concept of the DLC's Republocratism is repulsive to me and I will have no part of it- ever, ever again. I have more respect for honest well-intentioned Republicans, because there are some, than I do for the DLC and its ties to AEI and to PNAC.

They are part of the neo-cancer that is eating away at both parties, destroying this country and destroying the world.

I will have no part of them.

This is not a case of taking my toys and going home. If the rest of the party is that afraid of an intelligent man with a huge group of supporters......then I am scared to death.

This is a turning point.

most people don't want the democrat to lose to *.

It is a power play on both sides, and it is about durn time.
Dean is no more likely to lose to Bush than any of the others. That is spin.

ANY of those 9 candidates could beat Bush with one hand tied behind his/her back.

The difference is going to be in the mix of supporters pure and simple. Personally I want the candidate with the greatest mix of Liberals and Progressives behind him and that based on a proven nad consistent political record.

The Progressives and Liberals are breaking away from the DLC. This is NO time for them to think their scare-mongering will work.

We can always fix the party after the election is either won or lost, but we cannot to afford to abandon anyone who is OUR nominee.

which is exactly what some of those high-paid Democratic pundits are doing on TV.

We saw the negative reaction by many DUers to Ted Koppel referring to the Kucinich campaign as a "vanity" campaign, and asking Dennis to drop out. Why is Paul Begala saying the same filthy shit that Koppel said?

Insult voters at your own peril!

using the Nader situation as an example. I have nothing against people who stand on their principles.

I will not do loyalty oaths.

ABB is a farce.

The difference is in how you define "Us" and "Our".

And the Greens are NOT responsible for Bush's win- I am so tired of that peddled DLC crap. It is time the DLC and its supporters stood in front of a damn mirror and time any Democrat believing that lie started doing a little research into why MILLIONS of people refused to vote for Gore and refused to vote at all.

Let's just keep letting all the culprits off the hook and keep blaming the Greens as the party gets taken over by Right-wingers.

from election 2000. Four more years of the Bush Administration and nobody gets anything.

and we will still have nothing.

There are many here who, while in different camps than I, truly are working to replace Bush with someone who will take the country and the world in a better direction by banding Dems, Liberals, Progressives, Greens, Independent Progressives together.

There are others who want to band with disappointed Republicans and Conservative Independents simply to get a better version of Bush in office. That is not my party. That is not the group I will ever band with no matter how good some of those individual supporters are.

I have seen our future and it's war, occupation, knocking off political opponents under the pretext of fighting terrorism, oil, fighting the Euro, fight the spread of Socialism and Social Democracies so that we can continue exploiting the rest of the world for our standard of living and then sit around all day wailing and wringing our hands crying "Why do they hate us?"- I want no part of that.

The American empire is dying. It started dying long ago but we have mad men who think that if we can conquer the world's oil supplies and continue with corporate globalization, we might be able to hang on. Well we can't. It's dead. Finished. And it is time for this charade to end and America transition to a kinder, gentler nation so that our children can have a chance.


And no, Clinton was no hero. Not with NAFTA, GATT, WTO, welfare to work, Yugoslavia, starving and sanctioning Iraq (WMDs he said too), continuing an illicit war on drugs, pushing Monsanto's poisons on the entire world, increased homelessness and child hunger right here in the US under his watch, Plan Columbia and no I will not buy anymore of this sorry DLC neo-conliberalism. There are certain things that Progressives can not compromise on and our eyes have been opened from our slumber. Nader was absolutely right, things will have to get a lot worse in this country before they can get better. I am only hoping that this is as bad as it gets before we make that change and re-take our country- not from Bush- because Bush is just one of the Hydra's 7 heads- cut one off and another re-appears- but from ALL the unscrupulous people who collaborate with him and from ALL the people behind him. That stumbling inarticulate drunk is not the problem. To think he is proof that we lose, you can't destroy your enemy if you just go after one of its foot-soldiers. You don't win squat that way. All you do is end up with a replacement soldier- so what if he's smarter or doesn't totally trash the place? The place is already trashed! I want the carpenter in to rebuild this thing in a totally different direction from the same old, same old that got us into this bi-partisan mess.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to rant. I realize that was waaaay more than you needed but I needed to get that off my chest.
and we will still have nothing.

There are many here who, while in different camps than I, truly are working to replace Bush with someone who will take the country and the world in a better direction by banding Dems, Liberals, Progressives, Greens, Independent Progressives together.

There are others who want to band with disappointed Republicans and Conservative Independents simply to get a better version of Bush in office. That is not my party. That is not the group I will ever band with no matter how good some of those individual supporters are.

I have seen our future and it's war, occupation, knocking off political opponents under the pretext of fighting terrorism, oil, fighting the Euro, fight the spread of Socialism and Social Democracies so that we can continue exploiting the rest of the world for our standard of living and then sit around all day wailing and wringing our hands crying "Why do they hate us?"- I want no part of that.

The American empire is dying. It started dying long ago but we have mad men who think that if we can conquer the world's oil supplies and continue with corporate globalization, we might be able to hang on. Well we can't. It's dead. Finished. And it is time for this charade to end and America transition to a kinder, gentler nation so that our children can have a chance.


And no, Clinton was no hero. Not with NAFTA, GATT, WTO, welfare to work, Yugoslavia, starving and sanctioning Iraq (WMDs he said too), continuing an illicit war on drugs, pushing Monsanto's poisons on the entire world, increased homelessness and child hunger right here in the US under his watch, Plan Columbia and no I will not buy anymore of this sorry DLC neo-conliberalism. There are certain things that Progressives can not compromise on and our eyes have been opened from our slumber. Nader was absolutely right, things will have to get a lot worse in this country before they can get better. I am only hoping that this is as bad as it gets before we make that change and re-take our country- not from Bush- because Bush is just one of the Hydra's 7 heads- cut one off and another re-appears- but from ALL the unscrupulous people who collaborate with him and from ALL the people behind him. That stumbling inarticulate drunk is not the problem. To think he is proof that we lose, you can't destroy your enemy if you just go after one of its foot-soldiers. You don't win squat that way. All you do is end up with a replacement soldier- so what if he's smarter or doesn't totally trash the place? The place is already trashed! I want the carpenter in to rebuild this thing in a totally different direction from the same old, same old that got us into this bi-partisan mess. I have what, maybe 10, 20, 30, 40 good years left? I have NO TIME for these compromising baby steps designed to ensure that nothing ever really changes.

We need oil and we need oil bad. Between oil and the Euro our head is spinning at who to fight first but we're going to give it all a good shot waging military and economic wars all over the world because our system, as we know it, demands it. I can't compromise anymore. World peace and the future of our children, of the world's children demand that we stop this and go a TOTALLY different direction.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to rant. I realize that was waaaay more than you needed but I needed to get that off my chest.

respect for you and others who have a better vision for our nation and the world. I don't consider your thoughtful and sincere message to be a rant and I will leave it at that.

really- because I'm hating these Primaries with a passion and just wanting them to be over so we can all band together and that my perverted urge to dig uncover the dirt can finally be put to rest (but it won't really will it? I just realized that the next dirt will be Rove's- urgh!!!! Damn!!))

You have no idea how much I respect and envy people like you who manage to always be polite, supportive, non-divisive & don't cause any rancor in people.

That really was a rant though lol-

Thank you. May we just quickly get to the day where the candidate is decided upon and we only, clearly have 1 target to unite against.

Thank you. That meant a lot to me.

Standing up for my principles and my integrity is not snot nosed.

I support Kucinich because he's a true progressive who stands up and speaks truth to power. He's an honest man with a history of keeping his promises to voters, even when it cost him re-election as mayor of Cleveland. I agree with his policies on issues. I want our troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later. I want single-payer health care sooner rather than later. I want an end to NAFTA and WTO sooner rather than later. I want an end to the Patriot Act sooner rather than later.

Dennis Kucinich gave a speech titled "A Prayer for America" on February 17, 2002 (2002, not 2003), in which he spoke out against things that were wrong in this country, including the war on Iraq that he saw coming down the pipeline. That speech led me to investigate him and to hope he would enter the presidential race.

I will vote for Dennis J. Kucinich.


Initially, I thought Dean was a pretty good candidate -- he was certainly getting good media coverage -- but then I learned more about his policies and actions in Vermont and I don't trust him. He misrepresents his record.

Dean doesn't want to make enough changes to really set him apart from Bush. If he's elected, he'll want to balance the budget whether it hurts people or not. He'll whittle away at Medicare and Social Security and other progrmas that are really needed just to get a balanced budget. He opposed the war but now he'll keep troops in Iraq just because we're there and we "have to finish what we started." As John Kerry said to Congress many years ago, speaking for Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in a failed war?"

I have also heard Dean falsely claim to be "The only candidate from a farm state," "The only candidate to have opposed the war from the start," and "The only white candidate to talk to white audiences about race." He knows he's lying to make those claims and has shown that he doesn't care about the truth.

Is this the man to represent the Democratic Party? I don't think he is.

I was also looking at Dean earlier in the year. I volunteered at his local campaign headquarters here in Iowa for exactly 2 days. The mis-representations and half-truths sent me out the door and it took a long time for me to feel clean again.

For all the Dean supporters out there who are standing by their candidate for no other reason than that they think he is the only one who can win, I urge you to take a good look at all the candidates. Do not ignore your consciences. There are a lot of really, really good people running...and yes, I promise, ANY ONE OF THEM CAN BEAT Bush in 2004.

Every poll done here shows the vast majority of posters will vote for whoever is the Dem nominee.

And even if that were not the case, the posters on DU hardly reflect the party in general.

And if Clark where in the "front runner" position right now, I shudder to think what would be flung at him from all quarters. If you think this is bad, you had better pray Dean doesn't win the nomination, cause it's child's play compared to what the rethugs have in store for him.

 
 

None of our candidates should expect this from their own party when our country is in such trouble.

even if that means that Bush wins in 2004. They did the same thing back in 1972 when they all sat on their duffs, or supported Nixon outright. A war was the cutting issue back then, as it is today.

They effectively put Gore in his place during recount here, many South Florida Dems openly supported Jeb last year, and I feel they discouraged Gore from running.

I am not sure I really understand, unless they are all complicit in the reasons for Iraq in the first place. As stated by the PNAC...."Iraq" is the "immediate justification." They say that Saddam Hussein is more of side issue, would have to look up the words.

Am I right on the reason, or part of it?

I am asking, I don't know

Those Democrats that belong to the ruling elite share the same values as their Republican counterparts. How else can you explain Plan Colombia? How can you explain Democratic support for the invasion of Panama and Grenada, or the Cuban embargo?

Why is it that liberals were never allowed on the intelligence committees, even when the Democrats controlled Congress?

Why is it that there has never been a full accounting for all black programs, even when there was total Democratic control of the government?

Why is it that the CIA has been allowed to run amok, with their own "death squads"?

Both major parties are complicit and have innocent blood on their hands!

Kissinger and Argentina: a case study in US support for state terror
By Bill Vann
31 December 2003

Aside from the intrinsic significance of a text proving that Kissinger and the US government explicitly supported the murder of tens of thousands of Argentine civilians, the documents unearthed by the National Security Archive shed light on another historical controversy—one that threatens to turn the capture of Saddam Hussein into a serious crisis for the Bush administration.

In late 1983 and early 1984, Donald Rumsfeld flew twice to Baghdad, meeting with Saddam Hussein and his foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, in order to seek closer ties. This was the period when Iraq was using poison gas in its war against Iran, provoking international protests. In March 1984, Washington publicly condemned the use of chemical weapons, while maintaining its strategic support for the Saddam Hussein regime and blaming Iran for the conflict.

When Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad that month, he was warned in State Department briefing notes that “bilateral relations were sharply set back by our...condemnation of Iraq for CW use.” He was urged nonetheless to pursue US financial interests by pushing a contract for Westinghouse and trying to convince the Iraqi regime to accept US loans—from the Export-Import Bank—to build a new oil pipeline.

Detailed notes of Rumsfeld’s first meetings with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 have been released, indicating that no mention was made of Iraqi chemical weapons attacks. As yet, the type of “memo of conversation” that was released on the Kissinger-Guzzetti meeting has yet to surface in regard to Rumsfeld’s second round of talks with the Iraqi leadership, after Washington’s formal condemnation of Iraqi gas warfare.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/kiss-d31.shtml

maybe we should find the candidate that first started attacking the others

Who was it?

You will have to find someone to go there. I don't want to get in trouble here. A lot have left or been banned. I have decided to try to be civil and stay.

It took me a long time to settle on Dean but since then I have become firmer and firmer with each passing day.

Nonetheless, should General Clark be the nominee I would support him enthusiastically.

I would support any other of our candidates as well (although I think the race is really between Dean and Clark). That includes Joe Lieberman.

Hell, I'd even support Lyndon LaRouche because the country couldn't possibly be more f****d up than it is with Busholini.

If there really are people who will not vote for our nominee come November they are just children playing at politics.

What about ABB?

:hi:

At least Zell is from this planet!

and I will not vote for a candidate that supports the war in Iraq, the ongoing occupation of that country, and that thinks that the PATRIOT Act is just peachy.

ABB reminds me of the loyalty cards the Lyndon Johnson campaign distributed in New Hampshire for the 1968 primary.

War and human rights trump everything else!

And I would still vote for him over Bush. At least Jeff was a principled traitor!

I would draw the line at Hitler.

Bush is the closest thing to Hitler we have ever seen, still, I see no need to vote for a Mussolini in lieu of a Hitler. They are both bad!

This argument is largely academic simply because I don't see how any of the four candidates that voted for IWR could possibly win the nomination, unless there is cheating!

in my lifetime. I am trying to prevent my house from being turned into a pile of rubble which seems very likely if the country continues on the road Bushitler is setting out for it.

this next election. It is the most important election of our lifetimes. The chemicals in our water and air, the appointments to the courts, the deficit, the "war" on the middle class, the endless wars, the inevitable draft, oil drilling in our refuges, increased logging in our national forests, the attacks on our civil rights...The list goes on and on.
It is a critical election.
I strongly support Clark, but I will happily work for and vote for any of the Democrats who are on the ballot against Bush. It is disappointing to read this statement in this post, "Clark people will not vote for Dean, on the whole..." This is inconsistent with anything I've read on this site, the Clark blog, or I've found in talking to my fellow local Clark supporters. We have our favorite candidate and are passionate about him. While I'm sure there are people out there who feel this way, I haven't seen anything to merit this sweeping generalization about Clark supporters.

that's not much of a choice then, is it?

At first I was ABB, because of what happened in 2000. But the more things I've seen from various campaigns, it has become much harder to imagine that.

I am sick and tired of lying politicians who campaign as one thing but govern as something completely different. I am sick of "compromising" to vote for the evil of two lessors election after election.

I am sick and tired of campaigns based on "fear" of what will happen if I don't "support their guy". I am sick and tired of being told that we need to be "pragmatic", and that things that should be basic human rights in this advanced society (health care, a home, opportunity to work) are too "controversial" or "extreme", and that I should "settle" for someone who will not deliver these things.

If we elect a Democrat who will NOT work toward full employment, who will NOT make 100% universal health coverage a reality, who will NOT stop our militaristic ways, who will NOT end the useless "drug war" and who will NOT end the death penalty, than what is the point?

If voting for a "winner" is all that matters, why not vote for Bush? If raising money is all that matters, then why not sell crack? If getting elected is all that matters, why not rig the elections?

You can see evidence to this every day.

it doesn't get any worse than that

all the other members of Congress that voted for IWR. None of them will get a pass from me!

They'll be dying by lethal injection spondored by the state
they'll be dying by dirty water
they'll be dying by aids
they'll be dying by lack of free healthcare
they'll be dying by polluted air
they'll be dying by 400 billion defense budgets
they'll be dying by equal rights not being provided
they'll be dying by not having a job
they'll be dying by making poverty wages
they'll be dying by not having food on the tables each night
they'll be dying by continuing a disasterous, unjust, war

yes...people will be dying even if Bush isn't president.

And that's why I support Dennis Kucinich because he'll make sure people aren't dying...

Dennis cares...the same can't be said for just about every other candidate.

www.kucinich.us
One Person Can Make A Difference

Or so I've been told.

Seriously, I'd better not see any of you "if anyone but my favorite candidate wins the primary, I won't vote Democratic" people slamming the Nader voters for our decision ever again.

Ever.

Under pain of branding as a hypocrite.

I will vote for any of the 9 who wins the primaries AND is nominated. If the elites in the party pull a fast one at the convention, and bypass the legitimate primary winner, then and then only will I stay home on november 2nd.

all I see is a strong field of Democrats, all of whom would be better than Bush

and some wonderful, energetic, involved Democrats

why all this division is necessary, I just don't get

if we had the luxury of knowing

1) we had a really good chance of winning, so this infighting wouldn't hurt our chances

or

2) the alternative, ie, the Republican, wasn't such a bad guy to get stuck with

then I guess I'd see it more

as it is, it's like throwing away our only chance of saving the country - unity sounds like a much better plan to me

With the others who have voted for:
1. the war - What was Howard's solution for getting inspectors into Iraq:

2. the medicare bill - Which candidate voted for the Medicare Bill? Who put Medicaid people into HMO's?

3. the tax cuts - Which candidate voted for the tax cuts?

4. no child left behind - This was a Kennedy Bill.

5. the patriot act - Who is going to repeal the whole thing? Who said we might have to give up some civil rights in the wake of 9/11?

What's so amazingly different with Howard Dean?

He has jumped all over candidates, lumped them all in the same basket, misrepresented their votes, and misrepresented his own position and actions on these positions in the past.

Some of us want change too. And we see status quo, right of center policies, with Howard Dean. On top of that, we see somebody who can't even beat Bush to implement his status quo policies because he keeps saying the goofiest things and exhibiting a sort of ignorance about foreign affairs.

So what's the hullabaloo? What's the revolution? Why are we risking the 2004 election on a candidate who isn't going to do anything different than what's been done for the last 12 years?

Why not vote for a candidate who has actually fought against the war? Or one who actually fought against NAFTA? Or one who fought against Medicare cuts, now and in the past?

Every single candidate has a brilliant vision for the future. Every single candidate has accomplished great things and fought tough fights for various policies. There isn't one who isn't a great Democrat in their own right and who wouldn't take this country to a much better place than George Bush has. To be discouraged about any of them is the legacy of Howard Dean. And that is why Howard Dean makes many of us discouraged about him.

Who is that, Kerry?

If Kerry fought against the war, then Bush deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!

If all of this is so important, why isn't everybody supporting Kucinich?

I support Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton. The fact that none of them voted for IWR is no mere coincidence.

In the case of Dennis he has been a champion against the war and PATRIOT Act. I could mention the other things that Dennis champions with which I agree with, but I don't demand 100% agreement on all the issues.

The war is the one issue that trumps all others. PATRIOT Act closely follows it because we need to restore the Bill of Rights as the Law of the Land.

and I have never been insulted as harshly or as frequently by republicans the way my "fellow democrats" have done in the past year.

Sometimes I feel like I'd rather just move out of the US than be politically active anymore. Right now for instance.

If you are a Kerry, Gep, or Lieberman supporter, you can't count on my vote in 2004. Sorry.