DEANIACS :: I THINK WE GOT DOUBLE F%^$ED

Think about this.

Remember how hard we worked? Remember the super organization we had on the ground?

Remember how we were sure we would kick ass in Iowa and NH and how surprised we were? Remember how fishy NH voting looked?

Guess what I just realized my friends and former deaniac workers. Karl Rove screwed us first before he screwed us and the whole country and world again.

John Kerry wasnt the miraculous come back kid. It was rigged. Karl Rove was scared to death of Dean and he sabataoged us, it wasnt just the scream.

Im sure Kerry didnt have anything to do with it and would not have allowed anything like this to happen. Kerry won for us and we need to kick bush and rove the fuck out of our house and into a jail cell.

My point is I think we should have won with Dean and its a god damned shame. Of course we would have gotten just a defrauded in the pres election. We need to fight now for our lives.


5 4 3 2 1 ...... Deaniacs for Democracy.... GO.

too? Right?

That's BS, Dean lost the primaries fair and square and Kerry lost the GE.

And that is my right.

He had all the momentum coming out of Iowa and it was apparent.

I just don't see how your theory can work.

Let me share with you how the DNC/DLC/Kerry/Gephardt/Vilsack people did it (with a little help from Dennis Kucinich thrown in just for good measure) -- not in any particular order:

1. Get the list of your key opponent's #1 supporters (it's easy if you send someone young and lie about why you need it). Robocall those supporters at all hours of the night, pretending to be their favorite candidate, until they're totally pissed off.

2. Call those supporters and tell them the WRONG ADDRESS for the caucus.

3. Get your own moneyed supporters (and a union or two) to help fund a 527 ad picturing you and Osama bin Laden, meanwhile you run ads and get all your DNC/DLC buddies on TV and elsewhere to talk about how "electable" you are (because you've got the Natl Security creds, donchaknow, along with the spiffy Vietnam service) and how "unelectable" your opponent is.

4. The wife of the popular (tho apparently ruthless and unprincipled) Governor of the state comes out to endorse you (while the Gov remains "neutral," of course). Meanwhile, the Gov pulls out all the stops and gets all the editorial boards in the state to run editorials about how "unelectable" your opponent is -- all of it a bald-faced lie, of course.

5. But wait, there's more! Put that Governor's political machine IN GEAR, organizing in preparation for the caucus. Make a deal with Gephardt to throw the unions behind you, offering a swipe at the VP slot as a carrot, but "certainly" a place in the administration (according to Gep's longtime friend, consultant, employee and dirty tricks and hijinks administrator, Joyce Abouzzi).

6. You've already got a huge leg up for the caucuses because all YOUR people, and Gep's people, are longtime caucus pros and know how to muscle things through, rig the system a little or a lot by ignoring the real rules (starting early or late, or ending early or late, not adding things up correctly, that kind of thing).

7. Make a deal with Edwards to make a deal with Kucinich to throw their caucus votes behind ANYone but Dean. Why Kucinich fell for this God only knows, except he sure seemed pissed off at Dean refusing to pretend he was a mainstream candidate, which makes DK look awfully damned petty and little -- surprise, surprise.

And other things I've probably forgotten.

Oh, yes, you most certainly CAn rig the caucuses. Unfortunately, the Dean people were poorly trained, young and/or naive and inexperienced, and so forth and so on, and ALL these little dirty tricks and regular "organizing" techniques worked like a charm againt them.

And oh yes, the DNC did its own little trick by frontloading the primaries so that anyone not winning or 2nding in Iowa had NO chance to regain their footing before NH happened. Even so, Dean did REMARKABLY well and had he had another week or two would have been a serious contender again. There's nothing illegal or even immoral about this frontloading, of course -- unless you have the silly or quaint notion that "the people" really ought to be the ones who choose or nominee instead of the DNC/DLC.

And then, of course, there were the machines in NH. There too, exit polls showed Dean in much better shape than the "actual results," just like for Kerry now. In a way, maybe it's poetic justice. Or karma. I don't know.

All I know is that I am thoroughly and unalterably disgusted with our Democratic "leaders" and their dirty tricks and unconscionable behavior. I want things to be different -- honest, upstanding, principled, moral and fair -- which is why I became a Dean supporter from early on, and always will be.

You go girl!

The Democratic leaders are intrinsically compromised.

I'm not losing sleep wondering why Kerry conceded so early.

Face facts. Kerry had a superb ground game in Iowa. He counted on the Vietnam vets turning out for them and they did- en masse.
It also didn't help Dean that he blundered the tax cuts- saying he would give them all back- allowing Kerry the opening to give back only the cuts above 200k. He then seemed the ultimate populist compared to Dean.

instead of the privacy of the voting booth.

It wasn't Rove that rigged NH, it was the Kerry people (with a LOT of help from the Shaheen machine). There were plenty of ugly dirty tricks... just one reason it took me a LONG time to even consider voting for Kerry on Nov. 2.

Eloriel. I believe 100% he had a hand in Iowa too with the help of Gephardt and few other "friends"

1) Making things up in order to further some kind of agenda.

2) Nuts.


And that is my right.

Why?

I haven't seen anything that points to this, and apparently no one in the party apparatus has either.

Kerry can take it back. Ive been doing my damndest to convince him.

This election was a complete fraud. Is this a democracy or not? Do we just let it go ..... AGAIN.

call bullshit?

If fraud was so apparent, wouldn't they be the first ones in line to claim their rightful victory?

and then concede when that fraud shows itself? To me, the concession doesn't "mean nothing", it tells a lot about the man.

This is a fight by the voters, for the voters. If you don't want to join in, fine.. wimp out. There are plenty of people here on DU who are stronger than that, we'll take up your slack.

it was revisionist history of the time before Iowa and NH. Im sure Kerry did gain momentum after the first bunch of wins.

in every poll in the final days leading up to Iowa.

I was surprised myself, but I don't think it was vast conspiracy where every pollster was told the fix was in and to come around.

and the pollsters? It boggles my mind how people selectively "believe" the media when it is something they agree with but outraged and calling them all whores and liars when it's something they don;t agree with. They are either liars or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't believe there was a vast conspiracy amongst pollsters to get rid of Dean.

He did the hard work all by himself.

he did go away so we could be left with a sure thing.

Oh wait...........

to knock Dean out of the race?

Kerry wasn't my first choice in primaries, I bought into the inevitability of Dean, but Clark was my guy.

a conspiracy of the pollsters. Probably not, but I do believe there was a conspiracy. And I believe your man Clark was a part of that conspiracy. He had a purpose, and winning the nomination was not that purpose.

Sent in by Clinton himself to stop Dean.

And DU was inundated with a small ARMY of aggressive, nasty, vicious Clark supporters who were found out (documented) to be organizing elsewhere specifically to stop Dean at DU.

AND the DNC independently conspired to knock Dean out of the race and the MSM (as usual) just reported the 'he said she said' and Dean was left out in the cold. Bottom line, the DNC didn't think Dean would be 'mainstream' enough to be the Democratic nominee. I'm speaking as a former (still pissed) Deaniac.

As amusing as it is, some of these folks just can't let go of the fact that Dean would've got his ass kicked.

My whole family and everyone I knew favored Dean until the last several weeks.

Something about the combination of his scream and Kerry and Edwards both appearing much more presidential was Dean's downfall.

The guy had no chance of being elected with his anti-war rants-even though most of what he said was 100% right.

How did you and your family's bet on "looking presidential" work out for you?

but we still know that Howard Dean was not the answer.

...After Tuesday, I've found myself almost wishing Dean would have won the nomination...Just so he would have gotten CREAMED (And he would have, BADLY), just so these trouble-making kooks would shut-up. I just don't know if I can take this woulda-shoulda-coulda crap. It was bad enough after the primaries. Now they've got infinate opportunities to screech "DEAN WOULD HAVE WON!! DEAN COULDN'T HAVE DONE ANY WORSE THAN KERRY!! DEAN GOT SCREWED AND WE GOT STUCK WITH KERRY". Etc, etc, et-FREAKING-c...

Of course I don't really wish he would have won the nomination because it would have lead to a landslide of epic proportions for the Idiot in Chief and his coattails would have hurt our party BADLY, but I can't help wishing we could shut these clowns up once and for all.

And this coming from a Dean supporter who LOVES his dedication and passion, but lives in the real world and therefore recogonizes his limitations on the national level.

Sigh....

some of them pals of Kerry's.

You can't say Kerry lost the GE. That's what we're trying to prove.

And, anyway, it goes well beyond that now. The objective now is to reclaim our right to vote in a fair and honest election. Otherwise, kiss the Dems and any other 3rd party goodbye.

I'd also hope Dean wouldn't let it affect a Kerry Presidency if it's proven. DNC chair would be a good consolation.

Even if we prove that Rove fixed the primaries. That is past and Im just looking back to set history straight.

John F Kerry is my president. We elected him. The Chisto-Fascists lost. Their false baby god is a liar and cheat, a murderer and a torturer, a war criminal and a soulless monster.
All wrapped in the flag and soaked in jesus' blood.

http://www.mikehersh.com/printer_Why_Rove_Fears_Howard_Dean.shtml

Why Rove Fears Howard Dean

According to Republican pollsters Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser: "The potential for the economy to remain sluggish... and conditions in the Middle East are impossible to predict. Should these situations remain status quo or worsen, America will be looking for someone new... who can shake America out of the doldrums and reinvigorate the body politic. Dean would provide solutions and excitement where the other Democrats... are not as convincing because they don't have the perceived conviction of a Howard Dean."

"A Dean candidacy is a lot more realistic than people think Dean's appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan's than any other Democrat running today.... The Democratic Party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes, which they believed would marginalize him to the far-right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters... looked to the bigger picture, where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems."

All the top-tier Democratic challengers can beat Bush, but Dean poses the biggest threat. Republicans once hoped Dean would get the nomination to run against Bush. No longer. As Dean continues to gain support and break fund-raising records by drawing on 100,000s of supporters, the Bush brain-trust (Karl Rove) and the pro-Bush media have changed their minds.

Republicans want two things: first, a long and bitter Democratic primary fight leaving the party split and the activists exhausted and second, a weak candidate they can trounce. If Dr. Howard Dean wraps up the nomination early, that would frustrate both Republican aims. The Republicans no longer see Dean as the weakest of the top Democrats......

of what you say. As for Kerry being clean. I'm not so sure I agree 100% witht hat.

...caucus are hard to "rig" like that. They can be strongarmed through better organization and training, and it's my understanding that is exactly what occurred. Now, as for the press going apeshit on Dean after he said he'd like to break up some of the conglomerates, and thus manipulating opinion, that I'll grant you...

How do you figure? Do you live in Iowa and participate? Have you ever seen how they are run in person? I have. They are wide open for rigging. There are virtually NO checks or balances with a caucus.

I agree that it's hard to rig a caucus other than by bringing in people who aren't from the precinct.

One of the establishment types at my caucus tried to tell us that voting for anyone but Kerry or Edwards was "wasting our vote," but I said that this was the primary season, and people should vote for the candidate they liked best, that this was the only time they could state their true preference, and that Kerry was going to win the nomination anyway by this point (Super Tuesday). My caucus ended up going something like 45% Kerry, 35% Edwards, 20% Kucinich, with a few votes for other candidates.

As a Kucinich supporter, my impression of what happened to both Dean and Kucinich in Iowa is that they relied too heavily on volunteers from out of state, and they didn't have an in with the Iowa state and local parties the way Kerry did. Iowa is mostly small towns, and in a small town, if you don't win over the local authority figures, forget it.

Kerry had more name recognition than any other candidate except possibly Gephardt and Lieberman, both of whom were decidedly undynamic.

As I've mentioned before, my blue collar relatives thought of Dean as "the yuppie candidate," and if that perception was widespread in Iowa, it probably hurt him, especially if he didn't cultivate enough of a local grassroots organization.

I don't know if we need Dean, but we need someone with that kind of enthusiasm, someone with a bit of Huey Long in him, someone who relates well to the country western demographic, understands their real needs, and knows how to communicate a vision.

not having an in with the local Iowa party like Kerry did. I was one of those out of state volunteers. I was there in September and then again for the week of caucus. Dean had a HUGE support base of Iowa residents. I observed an actual caucus (I was a driver for an elderly woman who needed a ride). NO out of state Dean supporters were allowed to be present at caucus, I repeat NONE, except the very few of us that were drivers because of the huge stink Kerry and Gephardt made about "Dean bringing in out of state people to throw the caucus". I was suprised when I got there to find that the Kerry and Gephardt volunteers, yes the ones that were HIRED from out of state, flooding the place. I watched all night as these volunteers basically badgered and hammered the local people before they could even get a damn seat, as they sat on their cell phones with other HIRED volunteers (which is an oxy moron using the words HIRED and volunteer in the same sentence) at other precincts. The woman I drove commented to me on the ride home that this was the most brutal and worst caucus she had ever attened in her 40+ years of participatining in caucus. How do I know these people were hired you ask? I sat in the airport the next day for 3+ hours with 3 of them at which time I asked if they were going on to NH and the three I talked to stated no, this was just for extra money "I'm not usually involved in politics" i'm going back home. So, do I think the Iowa caucus was a sham. YES I DO!

would be the candidate. It was reported on Meet the Press

I don't know about the NH charge, but Iowa was clearly not rigged -- since they don't have any machines in Iowa, just a caucus with people sitting face to face.

The "comeback kid" and "great closer" thing started in Iowa, not NH. And Dean had poured at least as much into Iowa as NH, hoping to knock out Gephardt and a few others (orange hats, roadtrip of tons of out-staters, etc.)

I would be more inclined to believe the NH charge if there was any actual evidence, rather than just speculation. And the speculation seems ill-founded in light of the Iowa results and the impossibility of vote rigging in an Iowa Caucus.

No voting to rig.

but im still sceptical. how do they tabulate the results of the caucuses?

we all though NH was very fishy though even at the time.

before it is documented by each team leader, and each team leader signs off on the final result. a very public vote in clear view of all participants and obsessively checked for accuracy.

basically the party structure.

accuracy" final tallies were NOT. They were rigged.

They take a voice count, tallies on a board, have people stand in groups for each candidate.

You then go to other groups and try to convince them to join your group. Then they elect people from the groups to represent them at the next level of caucuses. Groups that are too small and don't meet the threshold minimum are eventually disbanded and join other groups as other groups try to grow their numbers and increase their "vote." People can shift back and forth between groups depending on who persuades them with arguments. Basically a big townhall discussion forum.

No way that could be "hacked."

They have to depend on the PEOPLE calling in the numbers to be honest and accurate. Yep Caucus is damn iron clad and impossible to be tampered with.

the results stood ear-to-ear with me--we essentially shared the phone earpiece--so that i could hear exactly what he reported as he did it, asking for my agreement on each number before and after he stated it. i honestly believe it was as above-board as possible, and i tend to be suspicious-to-paranoid about such matters. i felt entirely respected and comfortable with the experience; no hint of hidden agendas/tactics

accurate in your particular small group. Can you be certian it was the same all over the state? The caucus I saw was a free for all that was 3+ hours of the most brutal ugly treatement of the local people. Hell a lot of people just got up and walked out because they refused to take anymore. And you bet when they did the doors were locked behind them. Oh yes, there was that aspect too. The doors were locked and the intimidation began. If you don't like it, you can leave. That is what I witnessed. So again I stand firm with my ioinion that Iowa was most definitely "shaped".

were rigged then too. Look how screwy NH was this time around.

to a form of rigging. What else went on behind the scenes I suspect we are ot privy to it

You can see how ridiculous this whole discussion can get if we follow it out to its logical conclusion. Rove didn't rig the primaries. If he were able to do that, we would have had a much weaker nominee.

did we need? Just weak enough to loose. And we did.

these are not "rigging," they're time-honored and routine, but I rather dislike them personally. I happen to think the people should decide, for themselves. I'm kinda funny that way.

Even so, there WAS a lot of illegal and morally suspect activity that went on during the Iowa caucus as I outlined upthread.

i agree that there is nothing to "rig." just a bunch of neighbors gathering in a church hall to share ideas and fair, friendly debate. at our caucus, to my amazement & others, too, we were evenly split at the beginning: 1/3 for dean, 1/3 for kerry, 1/3 for edwards. edwards came out on top at the end, when one participant left the kerry camp for edwards; the deanfolks held fast, but agreed to support the eventual dem nominee--whoever-- with enthusiasm. the negatives on dean were all related to the perceived "weirdness" of his facial affect, asumed unpopularity with the "southern" voter, and his braininess, which some found off-putting.

Oh, how sad.

JB

just chaps my ass. About 1% of the population in Iowa even bother to caucus. ONE PERCENT! That equals about 100,000 people STATE WIDE! This is why you hear about the "just a small group of neighbors in the church hall" stories. NO ONE BOTHERS! And that one percent of a very rural state HAS MORE WEIGHT THAN ALL OF US!

I had the terrible gut feeling that there was a set-up. Key Dem spokespeople did not defend Dean when he was accused of everything under the sun and was laughed at by so called journalists and demeaned by some of our own people - while all the time, the answer to the scream was in technology - the reverse of sound pick-up, but no Dem spokespersonon defended him sufficiently in front on C-Span or RPN (Republican Propaganda Networks).

I think Rove was involved, but not at this point. Just as a group of Pubs hand-picked the cheerleader as the Pub candidate - the Dems arranged for candidate Kerry to be put out front - notwithstanding his energetic campaign and his wife, who was a beautiful campaigner.

Where Rove was involved, imo, was in directing RPN (Republican Propaganda Networks) to push Kerry, accept Kerry, endorse Kerry and making it appear normal. This involved a continuation of the Dean put-down and attempted disgrace.

I'm sort of glad Dean is on the sidelines right now. It keeps him from being a target.

I am very curious about the exact particulars of the first two primaries.

But I would hesitate to suggest any theories. (There are some interesting ones in this thread. -- And I never trust what Rove says -- or in polls for that matter.)

Certainly we need to look long and hard at our primary system and its generally close association with the state governments, etc, etc.

And, of course, I was an early Clark supporter myself. But I grew to admire Dean, and he did become my number two for a time.

But is this really the time for this?

Why would they take a chance and expose their plan for the GE in a Democratic primary?

I thought somthing was odd about that...

This stuff is simply never ending.

In 2008 and beyond, you people will still be gnawing at the bitter rind of Dean's failed candidacy.

But it wasn't a cult of personality. Never that.

He was crafty enough to realize that Dean was a SERIOUS threat, so he came out in mock support for Dean. This, in effect, got the impressionable folks worried that Dean wasn't a viable candidate.

In addition, I think Dean was fucked over by the media (a la Iowa scream video), which may have been orchestrated by either Rove or the establishment Dems.

DEAN WAS OUR BEST CHANCE AGAINST BUSH. PERIOD.

DEAN AND CLARK would have been unstoppable...

JB

the context and sound of a cheering audience, so loudly cheering that dean had to "scream" to be heard. he was most assuredly screwed in this circumstance, but quite a few dems--not including me--had strong reservations about dean being too academic.

to all those who had reservations about him being too academic, you have someone now you can be quite comfortable with. Can't accuse Bush of bing too academic can we?

Bush went to Harvard and Yale! He was the greatest party-boy the've ever seen!

Yale attendance obviously does not guarantee literacy.

Dean would've been McGovernized.

Kerry knew that, and that is why he wasn't as anti-war as some of you would've liked.

...and here's why.

I really believe we lost this one because our chosen candidate wasn't trusted by the voters. They didn't like his "big words" or his nuances. He didn't keep things simple. That, and the fact that he spent a great deal of time speaking against a war he helped give Congressional approval to, buried him.

Dean isn't half the statesman Kerry is. He is, however, just as smart and I think he talks to people in a way they understand. He doesn't nuance anything (well, almost anything)...he speaks very plainly.

It's just an opinion, but I do think Dean would have been a better choice. Rigged? I don't know...I don't think so.

that dean is more genuine and quietly brave, a finer mind than kerry's, in my opinion

I was in Nerw Hampshire when the tide turned. he lost it fair and square. His staff couldn't keep a lid on him. I loved the guy, but he played right into the hands of those trying to label him as a nut. You can't do that in politics.

Nominating Kery was a mistake. Clark / Edwards or vice versa would have done a lot better. Like it or not Kerry's antiwar activities were the kiss of death in a country high on fear and jingoism. Personally, I wish Gore had given it another shot.

The people blew it. Instead of thinking for themselves they bought into the whole "electablility" issue and ran scared and jumped on the bandwagon that they were TOLD to jump on. Got us real far didn't it?

It's the approach that gave us Dukakis in 1988.

I kept telling people that the primary season was their one opportunity to express their deep-felt opinions about the direction this country should take, but most of them were thinking in terms of who they had heard of before or who they thought would be "electable."

Dean would've got beat down far worse than Kerry.

All out anti-war candidates get their ass kicked.

Take a look at McGovern.

the old McGovern comparison. Taken straight from Fox News. Ya have to admit, those guys over at Fox are damn good at leading the people.

I get so sick of hearing EXACTLY what the Repugs want us to believe spouted as gospel truth here at DU.

Think for yourself, man. For once. And quit relying on the "conventional wisdom" that amounts to nothing but propaganda and lies.

Eloriel, people don't seem to realize they were duped in more ways than one. And I'm not saying they were duped into not nominating Dean. That aside, whether it be Dean, Or Clark Or Sharpton or Kerry or whoever. People are mimicking EXACTLY what the media has told them to believe.

and what I said is the truth.

Name the last anti-war candidate to be elected during an ongoing war.

Kerry was very careful not to be McGovernized, and many here were upset about it.

As fucked up as it is, about 50% of the country still thinks going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

How did that work out for him? Do you not realize that the same ol same ol DOES NOT work. It should be quite apparent right about now.


Also, at what point to we stop playing to the other side? Would you rather sell out and win? I would prefer to loose BIG with the truth than to be no different from what we have now so as to appear to play the game correctly. That is in my opinion what the Democrats have done to themselves. They have completely ignored their suposed base in the almighty quest for the "swing vote" and in the process they have failed miserably to stop the bleeding of their own.

bushies were absolutely aftraid of Dean....the scream did him in and the media played one huge part in it.....because they were told to.....

that was planned...just like Kerry's run was planned...just like the Bush's win was planned...
and as for Kerry taking back his so quickly timed concession don't hold your breath...looks like he's made other plans....


'Fired up' Kerry
returning to Senate
Aides say he wants
to act as counter to Bush

Democrat John F. Kerry plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008, friends and aides said yesterday.


Kerry will attend a post-election lame-duck Senate session that begins next week and has said he is "fired up" to play a highly visible role, the friends and aides said.

Aides said Kerry is relishing the prospect of renewed combat with President Bush, fighting such measures as the president's proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Kerry has spent the better part of the past two years on the campaign trail, meaning that his return to (more)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6438939/

Kerry content back in the senate - right! He said he 'had our back', and call me crazy, but I'm still not going to give up until I see who stands up for the inaugural oath on January 20, 2005.

I prepare for the worst but hope for the best. But I have to admit. I don't have a whole lot of faith.

but I'm not holding my breath....cause there is no one out there fighting for this...

but at this point, after Kerry's rousing performance on Wednesday, I don't particularly want HIM in either. Spineless and cowardly doesn't come close to describing his behavior.

Just ran across this article, which I haven't fully read yet, but it looks (depressingly) interesting:

Why Kerry Conceded Defeat despite Electoral Fraud
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN411A.html

If people would just come out talk about the 1% rich who take and hold title, things would be so much easier to describe. I think they were having this type of problem during the revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago.

Getting drunk on ones own sour grapes seems foolish, but sometimes it still makes people feel better.

I am going with Dean whether or not he is the Democrat nominee. I would follow him to a third party. He may not win as a third party candidate, but I believe he could do very well.

were not designed the way they are. For example, in Indiana we didn't vote until May. By then our nominee was already coronated by 2 months. It is ridiculous. I would like to see all the primaries on the same day, or at least within a week or two of each other.

that the smallest, least populated states weigh so heavy on the decision. You think maybe the people of New York or California or Texas or Pennsylvania or or or or might like to actually be included in the decision making process?

...or thought that Bush was unbeatable. The 2004 election cycle was to be a "throwaway" used for party building and fund raising. So they front loaded the primaries to give them more time to do that. But then it began to look like Bush could be beaten, and it looked like Dean might be the nominee. There was complete panic. Dean wasn't beholden to the clusters of wealth and power. He was a wildcard. Can't have that...

There should be no "super tuesdays" in the mix. Before the beginning of the election year, the schedule should be set up from February through June for a seventeen week primary season. The states should draw in a lottery with three states getting each of the seventeen tuesdays as their voting day. Some states will then be first and some will be last. Next election cycle, the order will be different depending on the draw. This way, the candidates can be well vetted, modify and hone their messages, and gain/lose momentum.

One of the big mistakes made was front loading the primaries so that it was all over by South Carolina. That gave Rove plenty of time to define Kerry in any way he saw fit and as we know define him he did.

Personally I think that a longer primary season would have allowed Democrats to keep their issues out front and to thoroughly vet the candidate. In the current round the only candidate to run the media and party gauntlet as well as negative ads from the GOP (Club for Growth) was Dean--who needless to say came off looking pretty bad compared to Kerry who was spared alot of critical attention. I'm contrasting this with 1992 where Bill Clinton over came both intense media scrutiny, a strong challange from Paul Tsongas and a knock down drag out in NY with Jerry Brown. We won that one because by the time the general election came around the voters knew everything negative they could about Clinton and voted for him anyway (Perot helped too of course).

Rove too was targeting Dean early i.e. the Club For Growth ads. Also I find it odd that Rove would have let Democrats know how eager he was to run against Dean. I've never really bought that one. If I was Rove I'd work hard to make the other side think that their red hot candidate was easily beatable so they'd choose someone else.

I think the fact that the party leaders were ABD (anybody but Dean) whether for arguably justifiable reasons--he was going to lose and take congressional candidates down with him--or unjustifiable reasons--we don't control this guy and if he gets in there's no telling what he'll do--made it nearly impossible for him to win. I doubt if voter fraud in New Hampshire was a factor in the primaries.

Kucinich was my candidate, but I've still thought that this may have happened with Dean. He was way out in front, and suddenly, it was all over. But your point is also well taken. They were bound to steal this election no matter who our candidate was.;(

I'm not sure about "winning with Dean." Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. What we do know, though, is that Rove was preparing for Dean. They had already shot several ads--most notably the "Ski Patrol" ad accusing him of dodging Vietnam and then going skiing 80 times that same year. They were preparing to blindside Dean on foreign policy. Dean would have put up a good fight, but Rove *was* preparing for him. You don't shoot several hundred thousand dollars worth of advertisements--which you then only show to NPR and the editor of Atlantic Monthly--to hide a conspiracy. Rove wanted Dean, because Rove had spent the last three months laying the groundwork to blow him out of the water. Kerry was a surprise for them. You'll note the Bushies didn't even start framing the anti-Kerry debate until a month or two after Kerry looked like he had locked it up.

Rove's a very smart man, and an excellent campaign manager. He's not a god. His reach is not that great. There are times when I would read that Kerry sneezed and blame Rove, true, but right now I'm not feeling any Rove involvement here.

I'm so unbelievably frustrated. It makes me want to cry. It's so wrong. Dean was our man.

I ran across this very inspiring speech that he just made. He's still in there and fighting for all of us. I don't think it's over. Kerry-Edwards are still not out of it, and Howard Dean is not done, either.:-)

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004110801010

...I'm a Dean supporter because I love his passion and vision.

BUT!

Would you please stop with the conspiracy crap? PLEASE?????

We don't need this stuff. Karl Rove is not some kind of evil genius with a way-back machine which he uses to rig elections based on the future potential results.

Govenor Dean was not ready for Prime Time...It's that simple. Senator Kerry was and the people of Iowa and New Hampture recognized that simple fact and their voices were heard...OVERWHELMINGLY!!

Kerry kept it close last week. Dean would have been SLAUGHTERED! Deal with it!!! And PLEASE stop embarrassing us Dean supporters with this kooky conspriacy crap that was ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO FACT!!!


Sigh......

and then go on to lose the election by further Rovian fraud?

Any sense in that ?

Rove could beat Dean with fraud just as he screwed Kerry..

DemEx

edit: this is in reply to those who think Kerry and many other Dems were in on this...

... and Dean being blackballed.
Kerry has shown himself to be exactly what I thought he was when he first stepped into the race and ran basically on his "entitlement": a hackneyed, conventional compromised politician--at a time when we needed someone almost revolutionary. Bush stole the 2000 election and Kerry stole the Democratic primaries and has now handed the fixed 2004 election to Bush on a silver platter. Thanks a lot for nothing, John--and by the way, I want my campaign contribution, which was never acknowledged in any way, back. Unlike you, I have a shortage of food and gas and had to make sacrifices to give that to you. And what did I get in return besides a severe screwing?

Howard Dean was and always will be my candidate. His message would have resonated with so-called Middle America, had he been given a chance to be heard. Does anyone think that Howard Dean would now be silent, thinking only of his glorious renewed Senate career, like Kerry is now? At this point I am ready to bring out the torch and pitchfork and run all illegitimate "leaders" out.


the election was a fraud

about the "media power" on Tweety's show...TPTB did not like this!

ideas for corporate gain, and obscurity for you ( if they can ) for the rest of your life.

Seems to me the Kerry campaign took up a little FCC regulation rhetoric late in the campaign, as they saw they needed a little push upward with a populous bent

only a few of the self inflicted wounds right before the vote.
That being said, we also know the media crowned Kerry in Franken's house, so he was the only one polled against Bush - and it was on all news before every primary - thus creating the "electability myth"
Caucases cannot be Diebolded. They were DNC-ed.

What if Kerry gave up because he recieved a phone call on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning from his opponents, saying something like, "Guess what, Dude. You were only nominated in the first place because we rigged it in your favor!"

What would Kerry's options be? If he goes on w/ his plans to fight the fraud, then it will come out that his own nomination was the result of fraud. (Either by his own admissio nor by media revelations allowed by the bad guys.) The Democrat nominee was supposed to be Dean after all. This would make Kerry look bad, it would split the Democratic party, it would cause chaos in the media throughout the country. It would be just plain bad.

So maybe Kerry would have to just roll over.

You know, this would explain the wierd fact that he had so much in place to fight fraud and then just didn't do anything with it...

Just my own contribution to the tinfoil brigade!

-RvN-