first let me say I love howard dean, now with that said just

[okieinpain]

think what the repugs would have done to him, if they can do this to kerry. and to the early kerry supporters that were screaming that there was no way they could attack kerry! well what's up.

[mzmolly]

1. I think they'd have had less to work with? But, they'd find a way to

smear anyone. I knew they'd smear Kerry, Clark, Dean or ?

[Nicholas_J]

78. First of all

Dean dodged the draft, by deferment, for a rather dogdy health condition, went major skiing and did rather heavy labor as well in construction after the deferment, which is one step below what even what Bush did, because, even though he is reputed to have skipped out on the last two years, and possibly only the last years of his National Guard Service, he at least served part of it.

Dean got out entirely, by deferment, which, and his own explanation for it did not hold up well as reported in the exit polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. His reasons for deferment wer cited by many Iowans as a reason for not viting for Dean.

If you think that Republicans would not have made this a target for massive attacks on Dean's qualifications to act as commander in chief, when they are attacking Kerry's qualfications, even when the arguments of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are rapidly beginning to be torn apart, even by Fox News, you are kidding yourself.

Deans draft dodging, and particularly, his explanation of it cost him dearly in the first two state selections for the nomination.

They have attacked Kerry, but noone of it is sticking, and the major media are all beginning to come out heavily against Kerry's attackers, pointing out that all but one of the members of this group were not present during the events they are criticising, the leader of the organizations criticisms of Kerry has in the past claimed that Kerry's performance was exemplary, and is not trying to reverse himself.

Swift Boat Veterans have lost all credibility. What they would have done to Dean would have cost the election overwhemingly, and we would have been looking at polls right now with Bush running in the high fifties with Dean pulling in the low 40's.

[quaker bill]

81. First of all

Dean would not have run on his "Viet Nam Experience". Thus we would not have a campaign focused on whether our candidate was wounded badly enough 35 years ago to deserve a fupping combat decoration. Since AWOL Bush has nothing in his war record to brag about, it is highly doubtful the entire subject would have come up with Dean as the nominee. Dean would not have run Kerry's campaign, so your assessment is completely off in this regard.

Of course they would have attacked Dean or for that matter anyone else we ran. Nothing about Kerry's record as "war hero" has prevented the attack because it was never going to. Republicans run against Democrats as "weak on defense" and no one we could have put up was ever going to change that.

They have attacked Kerry, and I am sorry to say, that as stupid and irrelevant as it is, some of it is sticking. Polling shows his numbers with veterans have fallen off markedly since the convention. Worse yet, the time taken to argue this irrelevancy detracts from the more important message.

Kerry may yet pull this one out, and I will be glad if he does. But I am sorry to say the whole "electability" paradigm is right out of the window. There never was an unassailable position. At least with Dean we would have been more likely to be arguing relevant issues at this time.

[Nicholas_J]

85. Dean would not have run on his experience

But the first thing that Bush and Rove would have pointed out is his lack of any sort of experience, even in the National Guard, which is some sort of military experience.

Deans own rather, sketchy and easily attackable description of his deferrment and his wonderful summer of skiing and construction work after being deferred for a condition which essentially prevents any activities of that nature (anyone with even a slight disc problem will let you know that lifting 50 pound bacgs of sakrete with an unfused disc is something that is not only uncomfortable, but close to impossible to sustain. One bag maybe. Working all day at it no way.

Bush's own draft situation has not prevented him from arranging for Kerry to be attacked on his own military record, which is far moresubstantial than Dean's.

The argument that could be made against Dean being president during war time base on his own avoidance of the draft would be a very powerful tool for the Bush Administration, far more than the attacks on Kerry, which are rapidly dissolving as all the major media is beginning to point out that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have absolutely no records on which they can base there position.

As I noted a few days ago, when you recive your Bronze Star, you recieve a citation that tells you why you got it, and the circumstances under which you recieved it. THurlows statement that he would not have accepted his Bronze Star had he know the situation under which it was given, that they were under heavy fire, has just fallen apart. The citation contains the full report under which the medal was given. His arguments are now being contested. This weekends Washinton Post has proven that there was no way that the reports off the day that Kerry recieved his Bronze Star could have been done by Kerry alone, as there are elements of the report that Kerry would have been completely unable to have known at all.

The officer who signed off on all of the reports by which three men received Bronze Stars on that day has refused to answer further questions from reporters, as the flip flops in his statemens from all of his statements from the time the events occured until 1996 indicated that he firmly supported Kerry's heroism during the events. A supporter of the swift boat veterans has been found of have directly lied about his criticisms of Kerry just this weekend. Several Bush campaign people have been caught co-ordinating with "Swift Boat Veterans".

Kerry's position has been consistant, and the records and sttements of Kerrys opponents are being found to have many inconsistancies, and are at complete variancve with the record of the day, a well as their own past statemens.

Now lets look at Dean. No way that Deans record of dodging the draft can be avoided. Plenty of doctors available to tell you that the deferrment was rather unwaranted.

Among other aspects of Deans carreer as governor. While claiming fiscal conservatism, the state Budget of Vermont went from 988 milllion dollars a year the year he took office, to over 3.5 billion the last year he served. The events of Hydro Quebec, and the political relationship between Dean and one of the executives of Hydro Quebec (the head of Republicans for Dean was an executive for a subsidiary of Hydro Quebec) and the massive rip off that the people of Vermont have experienced and are still paying off in a rip off that per citizen is costing Vermonters more than the Enron Rip OFf is costing Californians.

Finally, Deans social agenda while governor of Vermont would have caused inordinate problems.

In essence, of all the candidates, Howard Dean as nominee would have been the Michale Dukakis of this election, Aside from Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, Dean was the candidate that Republicans would have had the most ease marginalizing.

In all areas, Kerry has been wiping the all that they have left is trying to smear his record in Vietnam. And while this has had some marginal effect among veterans, the net effects of that is not in yet. Since the reports on the lack of reliability of the statements of the Swift boat veterans, a considerable number of articles are indicatating that a number of veterans, many in thr South, are beginning to take offense to the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans seem to not have anything to back up their claims, and in fact many who claim to have served with Kerry were not even present during the events.

One of the key factors accoring to exit polls in Iowa, causing people to not vote for Dean, was the his deferment. Not the fact that he was deferred, but that people did not find his explanation plausible.

[bluestateguy]

2. They would call Dean a draft dodger, a coward and a pacifist sissy

Do you really think there is any candidate that they would treat with respect? If Joe Lieberman was nominated they would Jew-bait him and accuse him of being a "liberal".

[ibegurpard]

3. Every candidate had his or her vulnerabilities

which is why it was so infuriating to see some people pimping their choice as if they would be immune.

[okieinpain]

6. and i don't mean to start shit, but that's what happened in the

primaries. kerry was untouchable, and all I could think was bullshit. they (repugs) would rip jesus a new one if he got in the way.

[TheRovingGourmet]

68. I knew someone that said exactly that during the primaries

and was routinely trounced by other posters for it.

[AP]

72. Kerry wasn't untouchable in the primaries. He was counted out.

The Repubs thought they buried him.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

16. All I can say now..................

People did seem to think Kerry was immune and would romp through untouched. I wonder, do they still think that? Is it time for "I told you so"?

[ibegurpard]

34. I don't think so.

So far, Kerry seems to be riding it out pretty well. But those who thought that he would be immune because of his service record need only look at Max Cleland and the swift boat liars. The Republicans will LIE if they don't have a legitimate thing to go on.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. They'd be presenting George W. Bush* as if he were Rambo.

And portraying Dean as a draft dodger.

Imagine how it would be to continually hear Bush* praised for serving his country, standing up when called, etc. They'd make it sound as if he were the only thing standing between the Viet Cong and our cities.

[depakid]

5. A Dean/Clark ticket would be so far out in front by now

that George Bush would be fighting just to keep the deep south.

Dean would have had Bush on the defensive the entire time, rendering the Republican's attacks ineffectual. We'd also have a nationlized campaign with a shot at taking back the House and Senate.

[okieinpain]

7. nope, they would have found something on dean, just like

they are doing kerry. it just use to upset me to hear folks say that kerry was untouchable.

[Dookus]

8. I doubt that very much

Dean couldn't even get a sizable portion of his OWN party to vote for him.

[liberalnurse]

9. Typical feedback.....

[Dookus]

12. typical

useless comment.

Do you disagree with me? Did Dean actually get a lot more votes than I was aware of?

The idea that Howard Dean would be doing much better than Kerry is baseless speculation, and doesn't use any of the known facts.

[depakid]

14. The whole point of the original post is speculatory

So calling it that proves nothing one way or the other, either.

I think that Dean/Clark would be way out in front- were they the candidates- because they would have been on the offensive against he Republican record- which is absolutely the worst performance of any president in history. By far.

Bush has given the Dems SO MUCH ammunition and so many moronic video clips to use in holding him accountable for his AND the rest of the republicans sorry record that attacks on Dean would be going nowhere.

It's sometimes said that the best defense is a good offense- and that would indeed by the case here- as I hope the Kerry campaign is belatedly discovering.

[Dookus]

17. The notion

that Dean is a better campaigner than Kerry isn't supported by any of the known facts.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

20. I have a question

How many of the people from the Kerry camp (un-paid volunteers) are now running for public office with the backing of Kerry's organization?

[Dookus]

55. I don't know

what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

[depakid]

67. In fact it does-

Dean was nationalizing the campaign in order to take back Congress- that meant taking on the Republicans and exposing their irrational policies. In other words- giving people damn good reasons NOT to vote Republican.

That approach is fundamentally different to the Kerry campaign, which seems intent on legitimizing them in the search for the meager crossover vote. It involves not simply giving halfhearted resonses to the inevitable Republican attacks- but instead going on a mass offensive, and seeing as how we have the vast majority of the facts and far more popular issues on our side, it's a MUCH better prescription for victory.

[Dookus]

70. Tell ya what...

how about giving Kerry a chance to let the campaign run its course? He's got a long history of doing very well.

Not EVERY attack requires a vicious response immediately. There are things worth saving until later.

Look how Kerry did in the primaries. Dean peaked early and crashed. We don't need a repeat of that in the general. I posit that Kerry knows a lot more about national politics than Dean does.

[depakid]

22. Dean/Clark wouldn't have been running a Dukakis style campaign

and that most assuredly IS supported by the facts.

In my opinion, a more agressive campaign would be more effective- especially considering that the Kerry camp has all but conceded the house & Senate.

[Cat Atomic]

28. Well said. n/t

[KoKo]

66. Dean offered much hope for EMPOWERMENT! He said to us: "You have

the Power! over and over.

Kerry and Edwards say "We have the Power...trust us to use it." It's what it is...we have to hope for the best on this. Hope and not power is what it's about. Who knows what would have been best and the strategy if Dean/Clark/Dean/Edwards/Dean/Kucinich/Dean/anybody were running given the way things are going with our weak DLC Campaign spokespeople. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

18. Most states never got to cast a vote for him. He was out.

FL, NY, CA and others where he was so popular never got to vote for him while he was still in the running. Large states, too.

The argument about the votes does not hold water.

That said, I like what he is doing now as well.

[Dookus]

33. Yes

and most states didn't get to vote for any of the OTHER losing candidates, either.

You keep spouting that talking point as if it actually means something.

[madfloridian]

37. It does.

We should all get to vote for every primary candidate. That way so much money would not have to be spent in one state.

[Dookus]

49. Then

move to Iowa, if voting for the full range of primary choices is so important to you.

There is NO indication that Dean was "improving" by the time the vote got to Florida. I'm sorry you didn't get to vote for your guy, but to complain almost daily that the system is flawed because YOU didn't get to vote for YOUR guy is tiresome.

Dean lost, and lost spectacularly. He wasn't going to "turn it around" by the time he got to Florida.

NOTE: LOL. I just did a little quick googling. You DID have a chance to vote for Howard Dean. He was on the ballot in Florida. He got 2.8%

[madfloridian]

56. So intelligent to tell me to move to Iowa. Those Dean votes did not count

No, they did not. He was not running, but Florida leaves them on the ballot.

This is very reminiscent of last year when Clark entered the campaign. Suddenly we who supported Dean were besieged here. We knew it, and we could do nothing.

The remarks and putdowns are still going on, and I intend to answer each one that I can.

This is time in history that revealed a lot about my party. It is not pretty at all.

It was not very sensible to tell me to move to Iowa. If you want to tell me in a good sensible fashion how one small white state should be so powerful, I will listen. But telling me to move to Iowa is just plain silly.

BTW, many sites showed Dean got 3% in Florida.....but the votes DID NOT COUNT.

[Dookus]

59. It's very simple

You seem to think that this is the first year people dropped out of primaries before every state voted. That is untrue - it has gone on since the beginning of primaries.

You have said a few hundred times here that the process was flawed because YOU didn't get to vote for your candidate (even though you COULD vote for him).

The solution to that problem is to MOVE TO IOWA!!! If you don't like that solution, then you'll have to find SOME way to come to grips with the fact that people you like sometimes lose primaries. Pretending that the nomination was stolen from him is NOT coming to grips with it.

[madfloridian]

62. This is the 1st year for McAuliffe's front-loaded primaries.

Sorry, but that is true. I can trot out my articles or you can back off on this.

I did NOT get to vote when my candidate was still in the running. If it happened before, maybe I did not notice. But it never happened this early before, when a once leading candidate was so early out of the race.

I have a list of all the primaries, which went on forever. Dean dropped out on Feb. 18. Sorry, but that left a whole hell of lot of people out of voting.

Your dislike of me bothers me none at all. This is my America as well as yours. I have a right to have my primary vote counted.

[Dookus]

71. The "front-loaded" primaries

weren't all that different from previous schedules. Really they weren't.

As to my dislike of you, you read the exact opposite of what I said. I said I liked you.

I presume your primary vote was counted. If it wasn't, you should file a complaint. But demanding the right to vote for a candidate that is still in the race is silly. Your complaint should be with Howard Dean for dropping out. To pretend you were disenfranchised somehow is disinengenous.

[napi21]

10. That's because most were looking for the ABB candidate!

I was a very strong Deaniac, and I still think this Party is much better because of Dean! But, I don't think this was the right year for him as our candidate. One of the reasons he did so well early in the primaries is because he said what most people were feeling. But he isn't experienced to all the incoming fire! I still prefer his message, but I've also noticed that I hear quite a few Dean comments in Kerry's speeches. Do you remember "We can do better than that!"? There also seems to be some of Deans health care message in Kerry's speeches.

Kerry is the better candidate this time because he has been badgered, beaten, and tried in the media in the past. He's built up his own body armor to resist most of it. Because most of the accusations made against him were made in the past during his Senate campaigns so he knows most of what to expect.

Don't put Dean down! If he wouldn't have entered the primaries a long time ago, we, nor Kerry would be where they are today!

[SilentHillFanatic]

11. Very interesting

"Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that. I do not recommend drinking urine…but if you drink water straight from the river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine."

- Howard Dean

<http://lllwatch.blogspot.com/>

[Eloriel]

25. I said from early on in my support of Dean

(and I was a fairly early supporter here at DU), that IF the people could get Dean and his message relatively unfiltered, he'd win in a landslide. I still believe that to be true. However, we have the media to screw things up and do the Repugs' dirty work.

I'm no big Kerry fan, but I too knew he had plenty of skeletons in his closet. Besides which, it's true -- if the Repugs don't have something to slander our candidates with, they make shit up. Once upon a time Bush the Elder said (and I wish I'd have bookmarked or copied the cite) something to the effect: so what if something not true (or a lie) gets broadcast on TV (or published)? That's heard by millions, the correction is heard (read) by thousands. It's a very cynical way to do business, but they ARE a cynical, and criminal, bunch. So they'll go with the lie every time. And they alwys get away with it, too. The press never holds them accountable.

[depakid]

27. I'm inclined to think that the fury with which the media

went after Dean is a pretty good indication of how much the right and the DLC types FEARED his candidacy and the movement it represented. Dean represented a fundamental change in the established rules and with Clark by his side- that ticket would have been largely unassailable.

Too bad they couldn't put their egos aside and get it done early on. We wouldn't be sitting here worried about winning the Whitehouse; we'd be pondering what we would do after taking back Congress.

[okieinpain]

31. I don't think so. they were already calling clark a crazy, ego-

maniac. the repugs do one thing very well, and that's slander people. I started this post because I have been watching all of the crap about kerry this week, and remembering how dems were saying that kerry would be untouchable in the cinc area.

but look at what is happening, the repugs are now going around saying that kerry shot himself to get an award, hell they even have U.S. Senators saying the shit on national TV without one shred of evidence, but they are saying the shit anyway. and if they can keep getting away with it, kerry is going to get gored.

[quaker bill]

83. Well said Eloriel

There simply never was and never could have been an unassailable position. This stuff was coming regardless of who we nominated, even if they had to make it up. The question always was who among those running could scrap the best. I would still put my money on Dean in that regard.

[Uzybone]

38. And what is this based on?

sounds like fantasy to me. If Democrats couldnt be convinced to vote for those 2 then why would moderates and cold feet Republicans vote for them?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

40. So....

Kerry is making great progress with the moderates and cold feet Republicans? Yes???

[cidliz2004]

48. I agree

Clark/Dean ticket would have been awesome and they would have redefined campaigning. Dean would have hit Bush so hard on all of his incompetencies and Clark would have wrapped up the National Security, Terror threats and FP in such a way that people would know that he was an expert far beyond the present administration. Dean would have been in this administrations face and the people of this country would have been ecstatic for a showing of straightforwardness, boldness and truth.

Yes, the best would have been a Clark/Dean ticket, the problem is that the DNC, would never have allowed it, two outside Washinton and all

[Dookus]

51. The DNC

didn't pick the ticket. Voters did. They overwhelmingly rejected Dean AND Clark (who happened to be MY candidate).

I got over it. Some day you will, too.

[cidliz2004]

52. Sorry, but you are living in a world that doesn't exist

The primaries never reached the majority of the states. The vote wasn't part of the process. Unless you want to count the votes from a tiny percent of states that were not reflective of the country as a whole.

As far as your statement about getting over it, I did.. well, that sounds like what Bush supporters say about the 2000 election.


I don't get over my vote being thrown away in elections or in primaries.

My vote is supposed to count, at least that is what EVERYBODY says.

So, no, status quo don't go.

[Dookus]

54. Is this your first election?

Dean lost - spectacularly. He spent a year and a fortune in Iowa and came in 3rd. That isn't a sign of a wide conspiracy against him - it's a sign that he wasn't a very good national candidate.

In EVERY widely contested primary, the majority of candidates lose. Is that really a new realization for you? Why did Dean "deserve" the nomination? Why do people act like it was stolen from him?

Tell me how the DNC managed to steal the Iowa caucus from Dean.

[cidliz2004]

64. Yes, Dean lost spectalularly and the media played the "scream" how many

times?????? They purposely left the "backround" noise out so that it looked like Dean was crazy. All of the media did this and this hurt Dean with the.....are you ready for this????...THE VOTERS....Dean was tarnished from that point on. Iowa shouldn't have been the deciding factor.

Clark was basically blackballed and squeezed out by the powers that be. That was OBVIOUS to anyone paying attention, why the media reported Edwards coming ahead in one of the primaries when in fact Clark beat Edwards. Yet it was commonly reported that Edwards came out ahead of Clark, no correction. While Edwards was followed by the press and presented as the 2nd coming, Clark was ridiculed or ignored.

REALITY CHECK: There is a lot of manuvering done by the heads in the DNC and the Washington Insiders and the media that figures into this somewhere. I don't know exactly how much say that us voters have, but I do know that there are many layers to peel back to get to the real decisions before that we get to "possibly" appear to choose.

Common sense, again, MOST STATES DIDN'T HAVE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATE LEFT TO CHOOSE FROM WHEN THE PRIMARY VOTE FINALLY GOT TO US.

Think that "you" choose the candidates all that you want, that is fine with me, but don't try to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about. I know what I am talking about, if you don't see it or know it then so be it.

[Dookus]

73. Dean came in a miserable third in Iowa

BEFORE the scream.

The media played the scream because it was a phenomenal performance. You can read the thread here on DU from that night - people IMMEDIATELY here knew Dean had made a colossal blunder BEFORE anybody had ever repeated the video.

Again, blaming the primary process for Dean's failure is silly. Dean knew the schedule, Dean knew what had to be done, Dean failed to do so.

Again... WHY do you feel the nomination was somehow "stolen" from Dean? I don't understand why you feel he deserved it before a single vote was cast.

[cidliz2004]

77. You don't get it

The election wasn't Dean's or Clark's to lose, it was Kerry's to lose.

February 10th Clark was forced to drop. Dean shortly thereafter. February marked the END of the real primaries. Even though the vast majority of states -

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, , Colorado Connecticut,District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Texas, Wyoming, West Virginia weren't able to cast a ballot before most candidates were forced out. How many electoral college votes are represented here?????


Selecting a candidate involves at least the MAJORITY of the states being able to weigh in on who they wanted as their candidate. That was not the case in this past primary season.

How much more plainly can I put it???? Candidates were forced out before the majority of the voters got to the polls. It is commonly known that the Primary season was purposely "front-loaded"

[Nicholas_J]

79. Dean lost Iowa

Before the scream. All Dean supporters forget that. THe exit polls gave a lot of reasons, and they all were given before the scream. Lack of experience in national security and foreign affairs, his health deferment from the military, among many others were all cited in Iowa first, befreo Deans scream, and repeated in New Hampshire.

If you need an excuse, let the scream be it. But Dean lost on his own past, and nothing else.

[lojasmo]

84. DLC Dookus

And the media
And the repugs who were terrified of Dean's honesty and passion

And the shadow group run by former Kerry and Gep staffers who ran that osama attack ad

And the kerry campaign who ran a horrible push poll campaign in iowa prior to the primaries

And the confederate flag quote which got hundreds of mentions in the news prior to the primaries (that story was 7 months old at the time)

And the "caucus" quote story which got hundreds of mentions in the news prior to the IA primaries (that story was 2 years old at the time)

Then when dean came in third in iowa, the "scream" got 600 mentions on national news in the time between the IA and NH primaries.

It was an ambush conspired upon by the DLC, Kerry, Gep, the repugs, and the corporate 7 who dean promised to screw by returning regulation to the media conglomerates.

Dean would be cleaning Bush's clock by now, just like clinton cleaned bush I's clock with rapid response style.

[madfloridian]

58. I agree with you.

And I notice people often ask if we are new voters or novices if we want our vote to count. I am tired of that, too.

[madfloridian]

65. Here is a chart of the primary schedule to show what you and I mean.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2003-07-16-2004-political-calendar.htm

I don't know when others dropped out, but Dean dropped out Feb. 18 and had not been campaigning before then.

I voted March 9 in the Florida primary. My elections supervisor when asked specifically since he was on the ballot...said the vote would not count. Which I knew.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. I never said they couldn't attack Kerry; I said he'd been attacked before

and he could handle it, and that the attack would backfire on Bush.

[madfloridian]

15. Kerry made his Vietnam record the main issue even during the campaigns.

He should have known they would go after him. I have tried to point out here how Google is being skewed on searches for Dean by a right wing site called American Daily OH. I have pointed out that they could do it to Kerry.

I searched earlier, and that site totally dominated the front page of News search at Google. Yet they are not even shown on the Yahoo search or Jeeves.

I wrote Google, and they say they will check into it.

[Dookus]

21. It must be true

that Kerry made his Vietnam service "THE" main issue of the campaign. I've heard dozens of republicans say so.'

I guess Howard Dean was really smart not to make HIS vietnam service an issue.

[madfloridian]

24. You just made my point.

Think about it. Why is the military stuff such a huge issue on both sides? Why until Iowa was Dean doing so well even though he did not go to Vietnam?

Why is a military record so vital? Why it is dominating the hell out of everything until Iraq is not even mentioned?

You put down someone who wasn't there. Why? Why is that? Have we become the military industrial complex? Sounds too obvious, but maybe we have.

Putting down Howard Dean because he did not go to Vietnam? Come on.

[Dookus]

46. I pointed out

that Kerry did NOT make Vietnam "THE" centerpoint of his campaign. The only people who say so are Republicans and disgruntled Deaniacs.

Where did you see I was putting down Howard Dean? I was pointing out that he didn't go, and therefore didn't make a campaign issue out of it. That was wise.

But the whole idea that Dean would be far out in front if he were the nominee is ludicrous. The best candidate won the primary - and it wasn't MY favorite candidate, either, but I got over it: something others evidently will NEVER do.

[madfloridian]

50. I never said Dean would be out in front. But Kerry did campaign on Nam.

He did make his military service a huge issue. Nothing wrong with that. However, he now has to fight them on it. They are ruthless. Why he did it I don't know, but he did.

This looked like a wee little put down.
"I guess Howard Dean was really smart not to make HIS vietnam service an issue."

I do think it was a little put down. And I am still a Deaniac, not sure whether disgruntled or disgusted best describes me. I think it is disgust at the political system partly. It is anger over the way we suddenly began to be vilified here last year, and we were not before a certain point in time. That was real. No one listened, and it still goes on. Everyone here knew it was happening, and no one did a thing then. Many just left.

Now, I am still a Deaniac, and the group is growing again. Close to 170,000 at DFA meet-ups, mailing list and donor lists quite large. We are going to vote for Kerry and donated to him, but now we are different.

I think what people forget is that Deaniacs are like elephants in a way, we never forget the goals we set at the beginning....to change the country and to change the party. Whether Dean is ever president now has very little to do with it. We saw too much, and the lessons learned this campaign have been eye-opening indeed.

Talking down to disgruntled Deaniacs only makes them more grumpy and
determined.

[Dookus]

53. I don't really care

You pull this "be nice to me or I'll be grumpy" trick day in and day out. I like you MF, but this game gets tiresome. I truly do NOT care if you don't like attacks on Dean. I mostly stay out of all your daily "Dean Eats Bran Muffin For Breakfast" threads, but in THIS thread, others (not you) are passively attacking our nominee by indicating that he COULD be far out in front, if only he were more like Howard Dean.

I am thankful every day that he is NOT more like Howard Dean, because I really sincerely feel, deep down, that if Howard Dean were the nominee, we'd lose in a landslide.

Again, the old "we saw too much... our eyes are opened" nonsense. What you saw was what happens in EVERY primary - most people lose. The nomination was not stolen from Dean - he lost it. So did my guy. So what? It's happened to me before, and it'll happen to me again. Your constant refrain that Dean was done in by some conspiracy against him is ridiculous. He had EVERYTHING going for him, and then he collapsed. Spectacularly.

[madfloridian]

57. Then don't respond to my posts at all. Just peacefully leave me alone.

You know it is not nonsense, and that is why you are so upset.

[Dookus]

61. Because

people here in THIS thread are implicitly attacking John Kerry, and I will defend him. Always.

To say that ANY Democratic nominee could be way ahead at this point implies that Kerry is fucking up. He is not. He is running a very good campaign. He's such a good campaigner, in fact, that he won the nomination.

[madfloridian]

63. I did NOT say that, nor do I believe it. Why are you so mad at me?

I did NOT say Dean would be ahead. I most certainly did not. I do NOT attack Kerry.

Go and find the people who said that and go after them.

[Dookus]

74. LOL

I'm NOT mad at you! Why do you personalize everything?

I very specifically said others - NOT YOU - were implying that Kerry was flawed because he's not XXX points ahead of Bush. I didn't say YOU said it.

However, there is an implied insult when people - again, not YOU specifically - assert that another candidate would be doing better than Kerry is.

[madfloridian]

75. Hogwash.

Same song second verse.

[Danger Duck]

19. What exactly are they doing

to Kerry that we need to care about? This a presidential election, and it can be expected that these attacks are going to happen. By getting hysterical and defending a negative proposition, or trying to prove a negative, it weakens the campaign. Here are some cold hard facts.

Republicans are better organized, and better campaigners. That is why they win. Democrats get bogged down in the minutia of details and defense. Bush never defends himself on an issue, he ignores it, and it goes away. Kerry is playing defense too much, and it works to the Republicans advantage.

[okieinpain]

23. which is exactly what's happening here. for the life of me I can't

understand why one of the dems doesn't just say "and where was bush during all of this". his service (or non-service) is not even being discussed, just kerry's. where is his rapid response team, Kerry of all people should know the strength's and weakness's of his record. he should have had his people ready to go.

[Eloriel]

29. No, Repugs win primarily

because they have no problem lying, and the press doesn't hold them accountable. It is true that they are better organized, and usually have more money. But the ISSUES are always -- ALWAYS -- on our side. Poll after poll show we win on the issues.

In fact, in a related revelation, Bill Clinton on The Daily Show the other night shared an explanation he got from a Repug friend of his. He told Clinton that if they hadn't attacked him all the time, he'd have "won everything." They couldn't have that, so they did what they could to fix it.

It's also not true that Bush never defends himself on an issue. He has been forced to defend himself many, many times in the last year or so especially. But unlike Democratic leaders of any kind, the press say, "Oh, okay. Well alrighty then," and go away.

[Danger Duck]

60. Right,

the issues our on are side. But it's a sales job, and you have to know your consumer. You can have the best product, but you have to know how to sell it.

Republicans are better at moving their product.

[Julien Sorel]

39. Some excellent points.

But look at the attitude on this message board. You still have people spounting off nonsense about "If X were the candidate..." Totally unproveable, of course, and all it does is tarnish our chosen candidate.

There are, I am coming to the conclusion, a lot of Democrats who want to lose, if only subconsciously. They enjoy whining, enjoy feeling angry as Bush shreds this country. And of course, it's easier to sit on the sidelines and whine than it is to have your party in control and actually responsible for the future.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

42. Yes

Just look at the attitude and brass balls on this board. IF we had more elected Democrats (hell two or three would be a change) like the brass balls people on this board then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be sitting here gritting our teeth pathetically crawling to get the white house back. Never mind the house.

[Cat Atomic]

26. Dean would've hit them back every time.

Right in the mouth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Dean would have been a strong candidate and been able to

attack the boob without having to cover his as and play it safe.

Kerry paraded his medals and made his service an issue. Dean would have been able to focus on Iraq and the economy without the baggage of having to prove he was "tough on defense".

[dorktv]

32. Dean's pointed out that these terror alerts are kind of opportunistic

and he would still be doing so if he was the nominee. He also could be saying: I am not beholden to the corporations! THAT would get him a lot of help.

[lagniappe]

35. They are doing this to Kerry because the Democrats don't know how to

fight back using the same tactics. I think Dean would have answered every single attack with a blistering response. The media are not interested in the truth. They are interested in controvesy. It's about time we started airing ads about Bush's cocaine habits, his DUI's, his AWOL, and pissing his pants after the second plane hit on 9/11. Until the Democrats learn to play hardball, this nonsense will continue.

[Eric J in MN]

41. Howard Dean never broadcast a response to the latte-drinker,

NY Times reader tv ad against him by the Club for Growth.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

43. It ....................

Didn't deserve a response. It was completely laughable at best.

[madfloridian]

44. They posted it on the blog to view, and had folks hit the bat.

They used it as a fund-raising tool.

[CaTeacher]

45. I have to agree--

Dean knows how to play hardball--and he would have done so from day 1.

I just hope that we can win this thing.

[EST]

47. Yess

[seaglass]

36. Anyone who said the rw couldn't attack Kerry was high. Show me the

posts.

[kerryhawk]

69. we already saw

what they (and media) did to howard. he became a caricature of an angry, angry extreme liberal. if he won the primaries it would only get worse. you never know.

[donheld]

76. if Jesus H Christ was running against W

just think what they'd do to discredit him

[eridani]

80. This is all about that 'electability' BS

NO DEM CANDIDATE RUNNING would have been immune to the kind of crap the Rethugs are dishing out, which should be obvious to anyone by now.

[quaker bill]

82. Exactly on target

The best defense is a good offense in these matters. No one gave richeous offense better than Dean.