Head dittohead station interviews Howard Dean (Audiofile) 8/20/03

[SilasSoule]

This is WOAI, Clear Channel's flagship station in San Antonio (Dean will be in San Antonio/Austin on Monday) One of the guys interviewing Dean is Chuck Boombs, who on this same show yesterday was advocating the execution of the Guantanamo Prisoners in Retaliation for the Baghdad/U.N. bombing. I was expecting a slanted,stacked interview where the the two co-hosts control the mic and start talking over Dean but :wtf: It alsmost sounds like these guys are propping him up!! A VERY INTERESTING INTERVIEW!!

Howard Dean 8/20/03 Interview MP3 10Mg 16 minutes

[mhr]

1. Amazing

Friendly Freepers For Dean!

What is the World Coming To?

[ComerPerro]

2. I am really impressed with these guys

Very professional. Any contact info?

[SilasSoule]

5. Try Here:

http://www.woai.com/radio/chrisbooms.aspx

[wtmusic]

3. Great interview

You hear something like that and it almost feels like * doesn't have a chance.

[ComerPerro]

4. I know

Lets just hear more of it

[Bombtrack]

6. Just another example of the Bush agenda to have Dean nominated

it's pretty obvious, and it's happened over and over at every level from the Gingriches and Scaifes to the grassroots in the early primary states

[ryharrin]

7. Making our work easier in the primaries.

If that's true, I don't think they have their head around how different this election is going to be from 2000.

[Bombtrack]

8. right, they're hundreds of pro's and millions of dollars in research

are wrong, and the nader-types who populate the Dean campaign are the informed ones

[ryharrin]

9. The "Nader types"?

What a disgusting assumption. And incorrect too. There are some, but they(we?) are vastly outnumber by average, middle of the road voters. There have been moderate republicans at every meetup since April. And they seem pretty damn sincere. Not the kind of people who would go to the trouble to spend hours of their time just to get the right opponent nominated.

[JNelson6563]

17. um, what??

Nader types? I want to see some evidence or a retraction now.

Julie

[AWD]

23. When??

When are we gonna give this disruptor his one-way ticket outta here??

Honestly, I've yet to see ONE post from him that doesn't attack.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Please put forth all the "examples" here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=19813


It would be greatly appreciated.

[SilasSoule]

10. giving this a

:kick:

[flpoljunkie]

11. Dean's trashing of fellow Democrats doesn't go down well...

Dean says,"The way to beat Bush is not be be like him which is what most of the Democrats in Washington are doing." (This is reckless and untrue rhetoric.)

Then he tops it off with this:

"There is a tremendous hunger from the Democratic party for leadership and it's just not gonna happen from the Washington guys. They're good guys, worked hard, but they tried to be on every side of every issue. You cannot do that in politics anymore.
We're not gonna win this election unless we stand for something."


I find Dean's approach offensive and divisive. He came out of the gate attacking fellow Democrats, saying things time and again that were untrue that he later had to apologize for.

You have to hand it to Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi. He has marketed and exploited the situation in Iraq--knowing full well that it is liberal anti-war activists who make up the majority of voters in the primaries--notably New Hampshire and Iowa.

However, I think the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are smart enough to evalute Dean, the man, and his candidacy and will turn to John Kerry to be the standard bearer for the Democratic party Presidential nomination--a liberal with the stature and bona fides to take back the Whitehouse in 2004!

[CWebster]

12. What did he say

that wasn't totally inline with the feelings of a vast majority of the base? It was the very fact that he said it with conviction that resonated with so many and fueled his campaign.

He said what needed to be said to save the Democratic party. And those he addressed, deserved it.

[gratuitous]

14. "They're good guys, worked hard"

Yeah, Dean's clearly just sooooo mean!

"We're not gonna win unless we stand for something."

Yeah, I can see how that sort of a statement would be offensive and divisive to any number of Democrats in Washington, who cherish the trappings and perks of their offices far more than they do the public good.

"The way to beat Bush is not to be like him."

Yup, that's really got to get under the skin of candidates like Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman, who got cheek by jowl last year with Lil George, swallowing his line of lies about Iraq hook, line and stinker. I would suggest that if another candidate doesn't care for what Dean is saying, that candidate would be well served to appeal to the Democratic base of the Democratic party. I for one have had enough of the "common man" lies spewed forth by the Dim Son; I don't need to hear them again from Democratic candidates.

[HFishbine]

18. "trashing of fellow Democrats doesn't go down well..."

Sits well with me.

[JNelson6563]

19. How dare he??

To actually infer that the Dems have been too cozy with the fascist regime of the Simian? I mean I have almost stopped the Dem mantra of "I stand shoulder to shoulder with the pResident" from ringing in my ears. I have also managed to blur the image of our loyal opposition "leadership" standing proudly with the Simain in the Rose garden.

So tell me, do you suppose the strong leaders prefer lubricant or no-lubricant when they were doing all that ankle-grabbing?

Julie

[dajabr]

21. Thanks for allowing me to dust this off yet again...

The 'Safety' Trap

Democrats followed the party's center-seeking presidential hopefuls into an ideological no-man's land.

By Rick Perlstein
November 11, 2002

Tuesday's loss gave Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt plenty to ponder.

Early last month, the man many have anointed as the frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination gave the kind of speech liberals have long been waiting to hear from a presidential candidate. Speaking before an audience of defense intellectuals in Washington, North Carolina Senator John Edwards attacked President George W. Bush's foreign policy as a case study in "arrogance without purpose" and "gratuitous unilateralism."

What happened a few days later was enough to make anyone's head spin. Edwards joined 28 other Senate Democrats and voted to approve the resolution granting Bush license to go after Saddam Hussein with all the gratuitous unilateralism he cares to muster. It wasn't even surprising that Edwards voted yes. He was one of the measure's cosponsors.

For liberal observers, watching Edwards in action felt like a time-lapsed version of watching the entire 2002 campaign. Across the country, Democrats in tough reelection fights fell over themselves to appear as centrist as possible (the list of Iraq resolution cosponsors, noted The New Republic, "read like a who's who of vulnerable incumbents"). Moreover, Edwards was joined in his vote by every other Democratic presidential hopeful, although some had delivered pre-vote speeches even more war-shy than his. For the handful of Democrats in Congress with presidential ambitions, the obsessive desire to avoid offending the president's supporters simply proved too compelling -- even if, in their hearts, they clearly believed the president's course was foolish. Two of them, Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton, even made the astonishing claim that passing Bush's resolution would help prevent war in Iraq. Apparently, a safe vote with the President was worth even the risk of non sequitor.

The Iraq vote was, of course, only the latest blush in a veritable Democratic love affair with "safety" this past year. From the administration's proposal to repeal the estate tax, and last year's fat-cat-fattening income tax cut, to this year's underwhelming White House response to the rash of corporate scandals, the reaction from the Democratic leadership has been the same: bold, bold, bold proposals for prescription drug coverage under Medicare a smidge more generous than the Republicans'.


More: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/46/we_192_01.html

More recommended reading - "Failed Midterms": http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=nichols

[phatkatt]

13. I read a story about Dean in 'Time', I think

Some repubs are actually donating to his campaign to get him nominated, thinking * would easily defeat him. KKKarl Rove apparently gave a thumbs up to a Dean rally in Washington.

Careful what you wish for, mouth-breathers!

[el_gato]

15. mouthbreathers? what a moronic statement

calling people names is the best you got?

[Spirochete]

20. I believe

that was referring to the Repubs that want to get Dean nominated, thinking * can beat him. They may be in for a surprise. But the post wasn't calling anyone in this thread mouthbreathers, I'm sure.
Repugs are often referred to as mouthbreathers on DU. Well, freepers are, anyhow.

[SilasSoule]

24. Right...

Many (freeper) callers after this interview were saying that they were hoping that Dean does get the nomination which would result in a landslide for Bush.... They will eat those words!!!

[dajabr]

22. He would have looked stupid cheering on Kerry, Kucinich, Gep...

Or any of the other candidates, since Dean was the only one with supporters in the parade.

[FlashHarry]

25. Punt!

Man, these guys were totally in love with HD!