In hindsight Dean could have won...

Kerry was too Johnny come lately to the anti-war movement, if he was there at all..

electability wagon, except ME!

Which states did Kerry win, exactly, that Dean couldn't have?

say that. Dean could have also got blown out by Rove making him into an even bigger caricature then they did to Kerry. I do think he would have had a harder time passing the Presidential threshold.

It is a mistake to over-estimate the wisdom of the American people. That is the one lesson I learned from this election.

Plus, I grew to respect and love John Kerry. I think he would have been a great president.

In passing, I brought up the election results with someone I’ve only worked with a few times so I don’t know exactly where he stands on the political spectrum. However, I had to use his computer to access my email and noticed that Fox News was listed in the IE Favorites Bar.

Anyway, he eventually said that he never trusted Kerry. To him, Kerry just seemed like someone who would do or say or not say anything to be President. I was shocked to hear this from someone in NYC, especially since Kerry’s debate performance was SO much better. And if you bothered to look at his record (keywords: bothered to look) you would know that he was telling the truth.

I conceded that the goose hunting photo op might have contributed to that perception, but considering the * alternative of brush-clearing, etc. I had much more confidence in Kerry and voted that way. At that point, he shifted the conversation back to the work at hand.

And this is from a NYC area voter that was not subjected to the extreme campaign ads that were aired in the battleground states. I have to wonder if it was the Fox and/or GOP Koolaid that tipped this opinion and how it played out in the swing states. Franky, after this conversation I’m surprised we got as much as we did.

I know that there were massive tactics to obstruct our vote. I’m sure the vote tabulations were compromised wherever and whenever they could be hacked. I’m still waiting for a report that a Democrat mistakenly got MORE votes than a Republican candidate.

I know we won this election. And yet, my conversation with just one person (not a poll) makes me wonder by how much more we could have irrefutably won or supposedly lost.

At least we'd have the Presidency.

and Kerry became my "anyone but bush" guy. I've said it in other posts here -- I think Kerry could have done more to make us like him. I felt he was lacking personality and working to hard at defending himself 1/2 the time. If you're going to rise above the fray, then do it and stop defending yourself -- tell us who you ARE and what you stand for.

I really liked Dean. I also think Edwards might have had a good shot at "the new millenium's JKF"

or even Dean.

...Dean was losing to Bush* while Kerry was winning over Bush* in polls during the primaries?

Mmmmyeah.

he was scared of him. too unpredictable. and the dlc establishment didnt want him either.

pretty much the same thing happened to janet reno here in florida in 02.

Even if your conspiracy theories were true, if Rove could take someone down in the primaries, he could take him down in the general with the same means, thus making Dean as unelectable as he was during the primaries. Anyways, this is a seventhson conversation so I won't let it spool too long.

Vote fraud can steal a close election, but the wider the true winner's margin, the more vote fraud is required. I call it "the margin of fraud."

If Dean had energized people, he would have received an even larger (legitimate) margin than Kerry received.

Dean might have been so far ahead in the polls that Rove couldn't have stolen the election without the reality being obvious to the whole world.

Hopefully we've caught him anyhow! Let's hope!

If Dean had energized people or if George W. Bush admitted openly that he's not up to the job of being the president or if the media started covering things well enough or if people suddenly realized what a mess we're in or if people started caring about the poor and this country. If.

But that's not what was happening during the primaries, according to the polls. Dean was putting off people.

Kerry was winning big over Bush early this year, wasn't he?

There's already one like it at GD, and it's proving toxic enough already.

I even ended up liking Kerry--thought he would be a great Prez.

Jury's out now though--let's see what he does with this mess. Does he really have our backs like we've got his?

For the record, I was a big Dean supporter who wound up working my heart out for Kerry.

But I think a glance at the GD thread on the subject makes "toxic" an understatement. Someone suggests Dean could have made a better showing. They then get inundated with Kerry supporters reminding them that "your guy lost, remember?" or "Dean would have been beaten in a landslide" or "will you Deaniacs just Get Over It?" These, in turn, bring out a volley of replies about how Kerry "let us down" or was a poor candidate. And the wounds are reopened, and everyone is relating to each other as enemies again, instead of finding common ground.

:-(

The rabid turn on Kerry here makes me sick. We have a long fight on our hands and we cannot afford to be divided. Everyone had a favorite candidate here when I first came on, but I was so impressed at how everyone came together after the primaries.

We need all these major figures in the Dem. party to stand together for this fight, and there will be a fight. Pointing fingers at each other will not expose the disgusting coup that we just witnessed.

As for myself, I thought it was a wonderful statement for the Democratic party to show how many great candidates we had to choose from. I found something honorable in each of them.
Let's see if anybody could say that if you lined up 9 potential republican candidates.

I was fanatical for Dean in the primaries then ended up campaigning for Kerry harder than I've ever campaigned for a candidate in my life (including for Dean last winter).

There's nothing wrong with examining how our other possibilities may have fared against Bush.

We didn't quit on him. We turned our worlds upside down to make him Pres and he threw it away. I liked Kerry all along. I would feel less betrayed if I had been wise to him all along.

would have lost a lot more votes from people in the middle.

Kerry got most of his votes when he convinced people that the economy, jobs and healthcare were very important and Stan Greenbery said that Kerry lost support in the last 10 days when people started thinking more about war thanks to OBL video and missing explosives (and that was even though those stories cast negative aspersions on Bush in theory).

Dean had little or no chat about much other than the war. I don't see how he would ever had been able to do the job Kerry did convincing people that the economy was important.

If one grants you the speculation that "Kerry lost no votes by not being ant-war," that can only be among the people who voted. The lingering question is would other people have voted if an anti-war candidate was running? You can't stick Dean in the election paridigm created by the Bush v. Kerry match-up without allowing for the possibilitiy of a different electorate showing up at the polls.

people who didn't vote were engaged people who only cared about the war but couldn't be motivated to vote against Bush.

People who didn't vote were poor people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics and who probably vote on jobs and not on war.

if you say so.

Dean's voters mostly voted. Some of them were even active in the Kerry campaign. When Dean dropped out of the primaries, however, he stopped recruiting new Democrats (yes, I know about DFA, but it never came close to the enthusiasm that Dean did as a candidate). Since we know that nearly 40% of Americans didn't vote and we know that we only lost this by about 3%, new voters were the key to winning. Dean had a much greater ability to motivate new voters than Kerry. In addition, Dean's campaign would have had more enthusiasm (my opinion).

I'm right where I was a year and a half ago. Dean was the man for the job and I believe he would have won.

were many people in the 40% who didn't vote who could have been reached by Dean's anti-war talk.

The farther you go into the people who didn't vote, the more you're going to find people with transient lifestyles, the poor, the poorly educated, and people who weren't paying attention to politics.

In a year when a record number of people voted for both candidates and people were very energized, I just don't think there was much more room to find voters who were attracted to the kind of campaign Dean was running.

I'll admit that I'm biased, but his campaign had an energy to it that I never saw in the Kerry campaign. I was an enthusiastic Dean supporter. Supporting Kerry was work.

...Would have brought more voters to the polls. And I don't know where you were at but I can also tell you it is total BS when you say that the Dean campaign was more enthusiastic than the Kerry campaign was. THAT IS TOTAL BS AND LAUGHABLE! I like Dean and all that but there is no way he would have got people to the polls. If he was that great he would have won the primaries. Edwards had Dean beat. Hell you had the two top canidates on the ticket. And this BS about Kerry being a quitter well its like this it not over yet and if enough evidence comes up proving Kerry won you can bet he will uncocede. All Kerry did by conceding was get the media and the repugs out of the way until they could get to the bottom of what really happen here. Because had he not conceded when he did they would have to be dealing with the media and repugs with all their stupid spin as well as the repugs getting in the way back tracking to cover thei A$$E$. Where is in the way it was done they are out of the way to busy bragging and making all their big plans. And Kerry has never been a quitter at anything check out his record and see for yourself. This man was also an attorney so I'm sure he knows how to do what he's got to do, when to do it, and how to go about it to get the best results. The man brought down BCCI. It sure as hell didn't happen overnight but he did it. The fact of the matter is Kerry is a smart man, a true patriot, and he loves this country as much as anyone. This man has always fought hard to help people in this country and he will continue to do so. And wether or not this election is overturned when all is said and done Bush and the repugs will wish they never heard the name Kerry. So for anyone to call this man a quitter and say that their canidate reguardless of who it was would have done any better and would have won this election is pure BS! Now if you want to know who the real quitters are in all of this I will tell you it is all of people that supported this man a few weeks ago, went and voted for him and then turned right around when things were not going to suit them and Kerry didn't do what they thought he should do and when they wanted him to do it and started calling the man names and making nasty remarks about him. That is the real quitters in this not Kerry! So if you are one of these people take a good long hard look in the mirror and you will see a real quitter! Because it is like this if you can trust the man to vote for him for president you ought to trust that he will make the right decisions even when the chips are down!

Not only with the voting machine corporations in bed with the GOP, but because the Boosh campaign is so good at appealing to complete morans.

LOL this Jesus ad is something Bush would do lol

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Fight them for the oppressed and the meek.

If he could change water into wine Jesus could have made the voting machines work properly.

I want to send it out to every Bush voting Christian I know. And there are far too many of them!

He was so anti-war that Bush would simply say he didn't support the troops (he tried it with Kerry..)

Vietnam would have been a non-issue. And he wouldn't have let Bush call the shots. I wasn't on Dean's side but now I wish we had nominated him or anyone with some guts.

Dean's back was good enough for mixing cement and skiing but not good enough to fight in Vietnam.

...Dean himself admits that the media pidgeon-holed him as the anti-war candidate when he wanted to be the health-care candidate. He says he's not even anti-war. He was pro-Afghanistan War, and pro-87 billion, and pro-Israel in the IP conflict, and pro-war generally. He was only against Iraq. He became the candidate the media wanted him to become during the primaries. I'm not sure he would have had any more control during a general elecion in which he were the nominee.

I think. I think people would have respected that Dean had a consistent position on the war.

I also think that Dean's manner of speaking would have appealed to people much more. He's great at keeping issues simple and clear.

I supported Kerry in the general election, but I do think Dean would have been a better choice.

...to get.

See my post above. Even bad war news in the last ten days made people think more about the war than about the economy which hurt Kerry.

Dean didn't say much at all about anything but war. He would have had a hard time getting many votes.

He got the huge press by being so anti-war, but he spoke constantly about other issues like healthcare and education. I think he would have done just fine.

He wasn't very good at controlling his persona during the primaries (he said he wanted to be the health care candidate) and wouldn't have been any more successful during the general election. He would have been the anti-war candidate and there would have been no room to talk about the economy, and, therefore, he would have had a very hard time getting as many votes as Kerry got.

Since this election turned out to be more about the war and security anyway, that would have helped him. He had the added benefit of having a constant position on the war.

In addition, he addressed all of the issues (health care, education, the environment, etc.) in clear, simple terms. I think most of Kerry's problem was that people just didn't like him because they took his long-winded approaches to issues as a weakness.

However, I think one of Dean's most valuable qualities was the ability to motivate people. Kerry didn't have a tenth of Dean's ability to get people excited about being part of the process.

It's only an opinion (and everybody has one) but I do think Dean would have fared better against Bush.

persona that they let the media TOTALLY define them. Dean himself said that he never really wanted to be the anti-war candidate and if he could do it over, he would have been the health-care candidate. But you know what kind of candidate the media WOULDN'T have covered? The one who criticized their major source of advertising revenue: the health care industry.

The more the election was about the war, the less it helped the Democrats. Stan Greenberg said that Kerry lost support in the last ten days when people started thinking more about the OBL video and the missing explosives EVEN THOUGH THOSE STORIES SHOULD HAVE HURT BUSH. The less people thought about the economy, the better Republicans did.

Dean was defined by being anti-war.

Another problem for the Democrats was that Bush was running a polarization strategy. It almost didn't work with Kerry. He would have had an easier time with Dean. Dean was a very polarizing image. I know a couple Republicans who said they'd vote for any Democrat EXCEPT Dean.

Dean wasn't "out of control" of his persona. He got HUGE early press by being the "anti-war" candidate when the war was popular. It helped him immensely. At the same time, he spent a lot of time talking about health care and education so people could see him a three-dimensional.

I think Kerry was hurt when people thought about the war because his position on it seemed so murky. According to the polls, more people in the swing states thought that it was time for a change of leadership and the country was headed in the wrong directionthan thought everything was fine. This should have worked for Kerry, but it didn't because his positions didn't resonate with the average person. I don't think Dean would have had this problem.

I don't think the goal this election was to get swing voters. I think it was to get NEW voters. Dean may have cost a few swing voters, but I believe he would have more than made up for it in fresh new Dem voters.

Again, just my .02

he wanted to project.

The media was looking for an anti-war candidate and made one out of Dean. Dean decided to go along for the ride, but later regreted it.

Kerry was hurt on the war because that's how fascists win. When people are scared, they vote for the strong father rather than the Democrat.

I'll repeat: missing explosives is about the worst thing you could say about the war and about Bush. HOWEVER, missing explosives are pretty scarry, so people thought they better vote for the Republican. It makes no sense. However, this is the Republican like chaos. Because, nonesensically, voters will vote for Republicans because of the troubles Republicans create.

When you talk about war, Republicans win. Kerry was extremely clear about the war and most voters agreed with him that Bush messed it up. Nonetheless, when all people think about is war, the Republicans win. How do you think Nixon won in '72? Part of it was because the Democrats only talked about war and didn't talk much about economics, class and opportunity. Why do you think RFK was a threat in '68 whereas the Repubulicans didn't fear any other Democrat? It was because RFK could have diverted the debate away from war and towards a discussion of class and race (and he and MLK would have framed Vietnam as primarly about class and imperialist economics and not about a communist nuclear threat to capitalism).

New voters showed up in 2004. Kerry didn't have a problem with new voters. He had a problem when people cared less about economics than about the war. Dean would have done worse because he was entirely defined by the media as the anti-war candidate.

1) Mixed messages

2) Vietnam

I'm a DEMOCRAT and these are the two Kerry issues that I saw most. Dean wouldn't have had trouble with either of these. Sure, the Repubs would have tried to paint him as a liberal loose cannon, but I feel he could have dealt with that.

You're right about one thing, in times of war, people look to the "strong father". Perception of strength is based on consistency and clarity. Dean was head and shoulders above Kerry on both of these issues.

Dean could have won on the war issue alone...he didn't HAVE to stress other issues. The fact that he was also strong on health care and education would have only worked in his favor.

Dean's bad back during Vietnam would have been a big problem.

Mixed messages were not a big problem for Kerry, but to say Dean wasn't going to have problems with that is not entirely accurate. Dean the presidential candidate was very different from Dean the Governor and a whole range of issues from welfare to tax breaks for corporations, to affirmative action and even national security (Dean was for the 87 Billion but agains the war -- that was the flipside of Kerry's problem and would have made for just as bad publicity). And I guarantee you that as gay marriage started to become an issue, the press would have forced him into saying something that sounded like a flip on that issue. Dean changed too much to run for president and the Republicans would not have let him off the hook.

To me, the two things that hurt Kerry the most were:

(1) Values, and
(2) The constant discussion of war, even if it was news about how it wasn't going well, distracting people from what's really going on in America (the wealth transfer to the wealthy).

Dean would have had bigger values problems. Whereas Kerry was merely from a state which allowed civil unions, Dean actually signed a civil unions bill and made it law. As for (2), Dean showed a willingness to jettison discussions about middle class opportunity in an effort to focus merely on criticizing Bush over the war -- and criticizing Bush on the war wasn't the big payoff everyone expected. Notice that most voters were criticial of Bush's handling of the war, showing that all that criticizing was effective. But also notice that a lot of voters thought the war was important than jobs and the economy? That's a consequence of talking about the war without contextualizing it as an issue of class and economics (which is something that MLK did well, and probably got himself shot for doing).

Other problems Kerry had were:

(1) A polarized of the electorate. As Nixon did, Bush was able to take attacks on himself and use them to encoruage his voters to feel personally attacked and defend him as if they were defending themselves. Red staters were told that Blue Staters were attacking their way of living and their identity by attacking Bush. I think it's very obvious that Dean was MORE polarizing than Kerry and would have helped Bush even more.

(2) Kerry was too rich, too northeastern, and too privileged and that made it harder for him to portray himself as someone who cared about economic opportunity. Dean would have had the same problem.

And it backfired...bigtime. Dean obviously wouldn't have done that.

Values...Dean has had one wife and has younger children. He attends their games. He mows his own lawn (in a suit, right before a trip, once). He's real people. The electorate would have respected that.

War...Again, Dean had a consistent position which was in line with the majority of voters at the time of the general election. There was no "I voted for it before I voted against it" with Dean. He made it clear that he supported the first Gulf War (because Iraq invaded another country) and the war in Afghanistan (because that's where the Taliban was based) but he opposed the war in Iraq. He also made it clear that, since we were there already, he would have voted for the $87B to give our troops the support they needed.

Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, for the second, and against the $87B. Dean's positions were right with public sentiment by the time the general election rolled around (which made him kind of a visionary...or at least lucky).

I don't agree with your stance on polarization. The country was divided almost 50/50 on the major issues anyway. Things WERE polarized...Bush didn't create it. Dean was in a better position to capitalize on that.

Kerry WAS richer than Bush. Bush, in turn, is richer than Dean. The "wealth and privilege" issue would have worked against Bush, had it even been raised.

What's done is done. Once again, we picked a candidate not because he spoke to what we're supposed to represent, but because of his supposed "electibility". Once again, we lost.

I just hope that next time we're not afraid to support the candidate who truly speaks for us.

"Dean could have won on the war issue alone..."

What makes you believe this? I asked before, but we dropped it from our conversation below.

Do you contend that anti-war voters voted for Bush?

If so, please provide some evidence other than your imagination.

A loser.

The "new voter" is more elusive than the swing voter. Remember all the new voters who showed up in Iowa to caucus for Dean? Weren't they great?

Now imagine Iowa in a national scale. That would've been the result of a Dean candidacy.

There's one difference.

The republicans had a hand in it as well I think. Who in the hell would have voted for Kerry in the primaries? Who? Dean rules. People don't want a politician like Kerry, they want someone with a fucking personality.

press in the primaries and ignored Kerry even in the final week of Iowa when they certainly knew from polling that Kerry was closing on the leaders.

if you mean actually beat the rigged game and that it would have looked at the end of the day like dean HAD WON. forget it. they were going to fix the election for bush no matter what. it would have been the same.


we were going to beat bush with virtually anyone. straight talking and parse no words howard was my guy but it wouldnt have made much difference. we were energized to take out bush. period.


if you want to be pissed be pissed at karl rove. that bastard has played us for fools. he let us go through this whole circus knowing the outcome was rigged. he fucked us but good.

I would have had an orgasm. :p

If we are going to look at the running mate factor, the only one who might have made a difference would have been Clark. He could have been the margin of victory in this election. Just like Edwards, I don't think Dean would have added anything strategically to the ticket.

Two New England liberals would have done even worse.

could have won long's they had the right type of vote counting machines. Oh, right, they did win... more or less.
(For now but not for long.)

And I fought his nomination tooth and nail. He would have tried harder than Kerry to get these damn voting machines under control. That should have been Kerry's main priority. Sadly, we now know it was not.
:argh:

We all wasted our time and money voting and gotv and giving money.
People are under the impression we live in a democracy

LOL!!!!

I'll go with the machines unless there's a paper trail.

Club for Growth - quite close to the greater evil - spent a fair amount of money defeating Dean in Iowa. I've always felt that the GOP hand picks its opponents in the national elections- Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton...Clinton got away from them... Dean was who they did not want to face in the general election. Some well placed attack ads, and some help from the Dr. in the form of an ill timed scream, and voila! They get to face Kerry. An intellectual Northeastern Liberal Elite to face in the general election. A game they had already won several times in the past 20 years. Dean suffered the same fate as Muskie in 72. Muskie was telling the truth about Vietnam. Humphrey was on the fence in 72. The GOP elite did not want to face Muskie and hung the shrink visits on him. I think Dean was the real threat to *, and the GOP knew it and took care of business early.

This is what I feel in my heart as well.

Howard Dean is a wild card.

He would have either won or lost in a landslide.

Neither side wanted to take tha chance and as far as the people who really run this country go, a politician who's not totally bought and paid for will never be allowed anywhere near the presidency.

Dean would have lost.

:eyes:

these Howard Dean fantasies are totally irrational. Especially considering he couldn't win a primary outside of Vermont.

Are you suggesting that the anti-war vote went to Bush? Since Dean LOST EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PRIMARY SAVE ONE and wasn't the nominee, do you mean to tell me that voters who oppose the war voted for Bush?

Just show me how Kerry aced Dean on ANY issue...


As long as we let Iowa and New Hampshire decide who our candidate is, we're screwed. That's always been the case. Let's get smart and have a REAL primary...one that lets the states that matter weigh in first...

Dean only won his home state. It isn't as though he lost the nomination by a handfull of votes either. The man was soundly defeated at every turn. All over the country, voters looked at the field and said, "No thanks" to the mayor of Vermont.

How do you suppose the good doctor would have bested Dubya on the national security question? A man with absolutely NO military leadership experience and NO foreign relations experience would have been as useless at tits on a nun against the Republican fear machine.

Fuuhgetaboutit! Dean smells of ass and loser. The sooner he fades away, the better off we'll be.

Looks like the "electable" candidate wasn't so electable, though...

I think we'd have done better with somebody who was clearer and more consistent on the issues.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that fantastic claim, but quite a lot of evidence to refute it.

Your theory that his position on the Iraq War Resolution would have won the election is absurd.

Remember all the bru-ha-ha over his misquoting the Bible? Think of the attack ads that would have generated: "The Almighty God has a pack of wolves waiting to attack if you vote for Howard Dean because he doesn't know his Bible verses. God help us if we elect Howard Dean."

Bottom line: It isn't us, it's them. Seriously.

...at least he would have stood a better chance than Kerry.

My theory is NOT that his war position would have won him the election. It's that his position on the war was more coherent and, I believe, more appealing than Kerry's. In addition, he had well-thought-out (and well-stated) positions on other issues.

The "it's not us, it's them) idea is what I think is dangerous. I don't feel that it IS them, at least not entirely. We seem to be unable to field a candidate that does the two necessary things: appeals to the average person and generates enthusiasm. I believe Dean dis both. Kerry did neither.

believe he could have won if he had not been torn apart by his own party. If they had embraced him before and after the so reported scream he could have rose to victory. Bush is covered by his party no matter how bad it gets, he could commit murder in the WH and there would be nothing to see move along attitude by the repubs. Dems will have to be brought to their knees to finally acknowledge that their supposed power elite are repub lite kisser uppers and are now powerless and a new day of stars will and must take the reins.

I think Dean would have been roasted as a northeast liberal. The Republicans would have toasted him for signing civil unions into law in Vermont. It would have just fit into their plan to use homophobia as a divisive tool in the election. The Republicans received no greater gift in this election after John Kerry was chosen as nominee than the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision.

I think John Kerry had a major problem in that his funds were depleted after the primaries so the Bushies had the chance to define him before he could. I think it would have been better had the primaries stretched out a bit longer to give the winner a chance to replenish their war chest. Or alternatively, the DNC should have been raising money to cover the nominee from Republican attacks for the first month or so after the primaries to allow the candidate to bring their own fundraising back up to speed. In reality, I wish no candidate had dropped out prior to the convention.

boooosh is that bad. But I am convinced that Kerry did win, in a landslide. There are mountains of instances of fraud in this election and we still have people here whining that their primary candidate should have been selected. C'mon, that is so... last May!

Here are my reasons:

Dean actually balanced the budget as governor of Vermont. That can
hardly be called a looney-lefty maneuver. Many so called conservatives
dislike Boosh because of his budget deficits.

Dean has actual executive experience where as Kerry has none.
Dean had to make many difficult decisions as chief executive,
Kerry has not made a single executive decision in his entire life.

Dean has first hand knowledge in regards to the most pressing
problem facing the country....health care costs and issues.
Dean is a medical doctor, Kerry has no medical qualifications.

Dean would not have had any attacks from the swift boat people
as Kerry had to put up with.

Dean is younger than Kerry, does not need botax to hide his
wrinkles.

I think we got carried away by Kerry's touting of his Viet-Nam
experience and the post-911 requires a person who can deal with
terrorists.

That's the only explanation I can find for the pile of illogical horse shit you cite as "reasons" why Dean "would have won".

"Kerry has not made a single executive decision in his entire life."

You're not serious, are you? If you are, I have to warn you of the deleterious health effects of Kool-Aid.

he have made executive decisions? Dean was the chief executive of
Vermont, so every decision he made was an executive decision!

Where am I wrong?

Check your definition of "executive". The freaking manager of the local Burger King makes "executive" decisions. It's a meaningless and myopic statement.

Dean has ZERO military or command experience. ZERO foreign policy experience. He won ZERO primaries other than his home state's.

What a disaster we avoided by NOT nominating him!

have you ridden the wave yet?

Aside from a brief period after the debates....that Dean was the only primary candidate who could beat bush.

I have no proof that he would have won when kerry lost, but I strongly believe that he would have.

but the second he railed against mega media consolidations he was toast. The media took him down as a direct threat to their bread and butter.

If Dean's real positions would have come out in the campaign, he would have easily won. But I think the media took particular relish in attacking Dean, the same way they took particular relish in attacking Gore. Most of the attacks were nonsense, but that doesn't seem to matter these days.

Sure, the media isn't always kind to Democrats, but I thought their coverage of Kerry could have been a lot worse. I liked Dean and thought he'd be great, but I don't see all the newspapers flipping to Dean the way they did for Kerry.

I think Clark or Graham would have had the best shot, though Dean was my preference. We also had way too many candidates for way too long. The candidates that appealed to swing voters split the moderate primary vote, leaving it open to a DNC mainstream guy like Kerry to pick up the pieces. And Kerry didn't have an ounce of momentum until the media created Dean scream.