Dean says Gephardt "attacked" him. Deanies say Edwards 'ran his mouth"

[AP]

about Dean's comment about talking about race to white audiences.

That Dean is getting unfairly attacked seems to be a new theme. You know why?

Well, it should sound familiar. It was a Bush strategy in 2000.

First, does this sound like an attack?

"Howard Dean actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans,"
Gephardt told a union audience.

"It was in this period when Gingrich said Republicans wouldn't
immediately kill Medicare. Instead, they would let it wither on the
vine," Gephardt said. "And it was also during this time that Howard
Dean, as chairman of the National Governors Association, was
supporting Republican efforts to scale back Medicare."

When you're on top in the polls, you have to accept the fact that the other canidates are going to have to contrast their positions with yours where those positions are different. It sounds to me that Gephardt is saying to people that Dean's position should sound familiar...it was one the Republicans really pushed for enthusiastically. I think it's a fair comment.

What do you do if you're Dean? Well, you can't argue with the truth, so you argue that bringing up the truth is an attack, and that others should be warry of anyone who attacks. It deflects attention from the point Gephardt is making, and makes Gephardt seem to have some personality flaw.

Hello. That's exactly what Bush did to Gore. This was only three years ago. Remember?

It's also quite amazing that Dean would go around being angry about Bush and his fellow democrats and then act like anyone else who does this has a problem.

So, read this whole article...http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6756342.htm ...and ponder why Mike Glover of the AP is so helpful in recasting people confronting Dean's record and his errors as attacking Dean. Notice how the spin is frontloaded in this article (Dean's campaign's comments are forgrounded, and the reporter establishes that he believes these are 'attacks', and the facts, other than Gephardt's quote, are in the bottom of the article).

I ask again, does anyone think Gephardt is "attacking", or is he comparing and contrasting Dean's philosophy with his own?