Take ball, go home -- so what?

[Mechatanketra]

Some free associating after reading recent Dean bitchfests from Will Pitt et al.

Practically since the day I logged in, I've read posts defending disappointing Democrats, invariably built on the supposition that winning is everything, stubborn idealism will destroy the party's chances, and people need to look at elections pragmatically.

And practically since the day I logged in, I've tried to point out that there are two swing votes. There are people in the notional middle of the road who, for whatever reasons, can flop between voting Democrat or Republican like a ray of light shifting from wave to particle and back; and there are the people who have stopped voting at all, because they've become convinced there's no point, that the parties are too much alike. And in all probability that second group is the larger one.

Dean's vaunted grassroots support seems to include a big chunk of that second group. These aren't yellowdog Democrats who've happened to align themselves to this candidate, but people this candidate has made -- for the moment -- into Democrats. In other words, they are people who have no automatic sentiment for the donkey. You can't guilt them into voting for your pet candidate if Dean gets the nomination, since their intent before discovering Dean was not to vote at all.

Is Dean (or his block of supporters) threatening to hold the party hostage by withholding his support from another candidate? Maybe -- I'm not a mind-reader, and I can see more than one way his comments could have been intended. But if he is -- so what? How is Dean saying "Vote for me, or you'll alienate all these larval Democrats I've stirred up?" any different from the centrist/conservative types saying "Vote for me, or you'll alienate the mushy middle swing voters?" The only difference I see is that now it's the compromise and status quo wing that's getting the gun held to them.

Seems to me, here's a chance to see how 'pragmatic' you really are, or if it's just the specific brand of idealism you've had a problem with all along. If you think the Party is going to need those protocrats at the polls in 2004, than you can grumble all you want about the threat, but it's not going to suddenly give you a choice in the matter -- now it's your turn to hold your nose or 'let Bush win'. If you don't think we need that block, what are you grumbling about? Let 'em throw their tantrum and forget about them.

[ulysses]

1. Woop!

There it is!

:kick:

[Mechatanketra]

2. Uh ...

I think that's a positive comment, right? :)

[ulysses]

13. yup

:)

[mandyky]

3. Thank God!

Someone to voice what I have tried to say all day.

Some "Deaniacs" will never become yellow dog Democrats.

[zeemike]

4. I think you are absolutely right

[Closer]

5. B-I-N-G-O!!

:yourock:

[WilliamPitt]

6. Excuse please

Was that 'bitchfest' comment directed at me.

I asked a legitimate question.

I got an excellent answer.

And then 200 other people freaked out.

Pretty much the timeline.

So...?

[Capn Sunshine]

7. Yeah? So?

You can take it, big fella.

But yeah, that's pretty much how it went. I'm not kidding; I didn't need to read one of 'em.

[WilliamPitt]

8. 'Will Pitt bitchfest'

somehow denotes that I did something wrong, is all.

[Mechatanketra]

11. I guess it does, doesn't it?

First of all, maybe I should have boldfaced 'et al.' or something. At the time I posted the message, there were like 5 "Is Dean gonna screw us?" threads over 100 messages, and two of them were yours, so it stuck in my head. I didn't mean, at the time, to imply that you were the only one saying this, that you were the primary guy saying this, or that you were the most vehement/vitriolic guy saying this.

But, since you brought it up ...

Fuck this. I'm actually furious now. I had no idea this was said, and I need to have it explained to me. I'm an absolute whore on every issue, because I want a Democrat to win. This, if true, is bullshit and dangerous and wrong. Can someone straighten me out here?

OK: you're swearing. You're "furious". You effectively characterize anyone who isn't "a whore on every issue" as "dangerous". But you're complaining because I called it a "bitchfest"? Get over yourself.

You want to know what you did wrong? You didn't just ask a question -- you made an authoritative challenge, a pejorative demand for justification. You were calling people out on the carpet to repent for their crimes. It's not merely a "legitimate question", because you wrote your own answer: "This is bullshit and dangerous and wrong."

Sorry, William, but I don't think it is bullshit, even if it might be dangerous -- in part because the danger, as much as anything, is that people will get self-righteous about it (as you do right there) instead of dealing with it. The world isn't divided neatly into Dems and GOPs, and the vast majority of America isn't wearing a team jersey. And right now, there are people who back Dean who are not sworn Democrats, and don't especially want to be. There are people attracted to the Dean campaign (and his is, I suspect, not the only one) precisely because they don't want to be "whores on every issue", who have felt sick of being offered only that as an ostensible alternative to Republicans. Yelling at these people for feeling that way is dangerous, too, because it'll push them right back to the "disgusted with all things political" wasteland they came in to shelter themselves from.

You eloquently ridiculed Bush's UN trip (in the "Fish. Barrel. Boom." essay), pointing out that 'an ounce of contrition' would have gone a long way towards earning the forgiveness of important allies, and actually gotten Bush the cooperation he wanted, but instead he swaggered in as demanding and insisting as ever. I actually see the same mistake percolating throughout various Democrats (both active politicians and their supporters here on DU).

For instance, rather than apologize for a war vote that they were told repeatedly was dead wrong, and which has turned out to be (amazingly enough) dead wrong, the senate pack wants to 'move on', and their supporters offer increasingly contorted explanations of how a "yes" vote was actually the right thing to do -- while attacking with various degrees of viciousness those still inclined to resent that vote. The bill didn't actually authorize a unilateral war (except it did); Bush didn't legally need the bill to start a war (except he did); nobody could have known Bush was full of it (except they did, up to and including you and Scott Ritter). As it happens, before that vote I was much as you've described yourself: a Kerry supporter with Dean a close second (and Edwards on my short list); an ounce of contrition from Kerry or Edwards would have gone a long way towards returning me to that position ... but I've yet to see a statement from either that recognizes there is a responsiblity to take for having been fooled when so many were not, as much as there is one for doing the deceiving. But I have seen a number of statements from their supporters here that equate those (like my senator, Durbin) who voted against the resolution as somehow ignorant of or downright insensitive towards national defense. Hell -- I can get that from FOX News.

And so it goes. People who want the Democrats to aggressively pursue the truth about 9/11? Conspiracy theorists. People who want the Democrats to aggressively pursue the truth about Florida 2000? Whiners who make us look bad. Atheists who feel insecure about the apparent sanction of discrimination against them? Sorry, we're more scared of the Christian Coalition than we are worried about you. Minority voters who think they're being taken for granted? Sorry, can you wait a moment, we're studying that Nixon Southern Strategy thingie, gotta carry the South. People who want to hear more Democrats reinforcing Kennedy's "fraud" comments? Well, Bush is right, they are uncivil, and Ted's an embarrassment to us all. That's the pattern: ask not what the Democratic politicans can do for you, ask only what you can do for the Democratic politicians, and if you have a problem with it, you must want Bush to win. Even if your complaint is that nobody's fighting him, you want Bush to win.

So here it is. Dean may have supporters with the audacity to not pledge their votes unconditionally to any Democratic candidate. I see only two solutions to that: 1) Move hell and high water to make sure Dean gets the nomination, or 2) Find out why they won't cross over right now -- which is to say, just what issues it is they won't whore for -- and make sure the candidate that does get picked instead of Dean understands if he screws those issues up, it means his ass. In short, find that ounce of contrition -- because getting furious with Dean or his supporters won't accomplish a blessed thing, except maybe convincing a few of them that they were right about staying away from politics after all.

[Spentastic]

12. Bravo, Bravo!

Are you the Anti Pitt?

:evilgrin:

[Mechatanketra]

15. Actually, no.

I'll throw it on the table: William Pitt is very probably one of the 10 DUdes I respect the most around here. If I just figured "Well, he's a Bad Man and we're never going to agree", I wouldn't bother responding to him (unless he said something factually debunkable I can dispense with in a simple citation).

Don't expect to see me chasing William around ragging everything he writes, because the lion's share of it is right on the money.

[Spentastic]

16. Bugger!

Don't get me wrong, I believe Mr Pitt is a talented passionate capable man. However, he's not always right. As with everything, there needs to be a balance. This is the first time I've seen this supplied with the level of eloquence demonstrated by your post.

I liked it. I agree too.

[WilliamPitt]

18. Fair enough

and nicely put.

[KoKo]

21. Mechatanketra, What an excellent summation of how so many of us feel!!!!

I've printed it out.......so I can remind myself that there are still some DU'ers who "Get It!"

Thank YOU!!! I thought there were only a few of of left.....the rest having been so tired of being bashed for being against the Invasion......and having our candidates we thought we might get excited about: Kerry and Edwards in particular forget about us. And, now to see Clark being pushed all over DU as the "Second Coming" has made us feel even more like we are in the wrong place. Especially some of us who have been here for two years......and now see people we thought were with us, suddenly turn....well......into "unquestioning Military Supporters...falling into the Repugs trap that Dems are "weak and soft on defense" and will lose the Election unless we have a General at the helm.

Peace....and again, thanks!
koko

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

25. Would you be so upset...

if it wasn't your candidate of choice that thread had been about? If his boy Kerry had made that statement and Will had posted the exact same thing would we even be having this conversatio?

As someone else who was genuinely concerned by that comment I can understand why it upset him. By the end of the thread on the Dean quote everything got explained quite nicely and as far as I was concerned it was a non-issue for me...until others wouldn't let it die. And Will probably didn't help matters by responding so often - neither did I for that matter by getting angry and getting into it with various and sundry Dean supporters.

It seems to me that people have this weird need to build people up so that we can tear them down and I hate to see it happening to Will.

Is he talented - yes.

Is he persuasive - yes.

Is he hysterical and irresponsible - I don't think so. Just passionate. And a little wigged out yesterday. Guess what - he's human - it happens.

[CWebster]

35. I assume you were respnding to my post

since I don't see it there and am rather surprised it was deleted. I meant every word of it-even if it was harsh, but it shouldn't offend Pitt, he has me on ignore.

I think Kerry has earned genuine Democratic party credentials - personally I don't find him to be charismatic, but I do think he has taken some brave and important stands in the past--sometimes alone, and I recognize that. The thing that bothers me tremendously has been his romanticism of military service and war. If that was the argument Pitt advocated I would likely agree, but when he comes out swinging and demanding, at a hysterical pitch, that all Dean suppoters line up and salute--he is way off base. Did he demand it of Kerry supporters, did he demand it of Clark supporters? No. Because underlying all this is the implied message that Dean supporters better not hesitate to back Clark.

Pitt is impressed with military images as symbols of strength and all that is good and holy, and I am from the other end of that spectrum--just as passionately.

[VelmaD]

37. I'm surprise it was deleted too...

I am utterly incapable of comprehending what gets posts deleted on this board sometimes. *rolls eyes*

I don't understand all these people who keep saying Will demanded that Dean supporters take a "pledge" to support the nominee, that they "line up and salute". He never asked anyone to take a pledge...merely asked their position. On his original thread there were several Dean supporters who intimated either that they personally would not support certain Dems if they were nominated or that they knew other Dean supporters who wouldn't. He asked Dean supporters on DU whether they would and it turned into another flame war. (That boy has a gift for starting those things.) :-)

You're right though - he expects Dean supporters to back Clark if nominated. Just like he expects Clark supporters to back Dean if he's nominated. ABB all the way.

[CWebster]

41. Well, it is pretty obvious

that you are the only one who didn't notice. I mean---what the hell was he doing? And your second point isn't based in reality - I was quite surprised by how few said they wouldn't automatically vote ABB. There were maybe, at most 3, including myself.

That should please Pitt's strident demand.

[VelmaD]

46. This is why I hate talking on the net...

there are no body language and facial and tone clues to let us know how a person means the things they say. It's purely a difference in interpretation of his motives I think. Lots of people (who seem to enjoy following Will around to get het up) saw it as a strident demand. I saw it as a question - one I was very interested in the answer to myself at that point after watching the previous thread. All I'm saying is that we're all attributing motives that may or may not be there. I'm willing to take Will at his word in regards to why he does the things he does. But we can agree to disagree on that.

I have to say, I was quite pleased by the ABB responses on that thread. It made me feel much better about Dean's supporters at a point when I was getting a little put off.

[trogdor]

45. May the best man win.

ABB all the way.

[Jacobin]

28. Exceedingly well put.

Needed to be said.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. I see where you missed # 3)....

let them cool off after Dean loses the nomination and then later convince them that helping to elect the actual nominee (and defeating Bush) is the most important thing they will ever do in their adult lives.
IOW: It was their apathy which got us into this mess to begin with.

[kodi]

34. thanx, U point out the tendency of a few deanies to a cult of personality

one can say either a candidate carries the ball towards one's personal goals, or that a party does. either way is okay with me as long as the ball moves in the direction i want. however, historically, the former is not sustainable over an appreciable period of time, while the latter can be.

the only way placing one's faith in a man works is if what he stands for can be transformed into a self-sustaining movement based upon a set of philosophical principles....in other words, building a new politically based organization or taking over another one which is weak....and i would point out that this is exactly what the religious right has done with the republican party in many places in the US by following the advice of pat "no hurrican zone" robertson.

if what one wants is that streak of the american character of instant gratification, then go with the man and hope he succeeds, yet such an effort pragmatically necessitates that the man's followers do more themselves to express what they want from the political process than merely support for a particular candidate.

what will pitt has pointed out is that some, a few, not even most dean supporters are willing to stop at the man and not move forward towards a real coalescence to the structuring of a sustained political force if dean is not the nominee.

it is amazing to me that some of the most vocal DU deanies do not realize what dean has stirred up that can be effectively utilized for political change that has no-thing to do with dean, the man. it is what will pitt is bemoaning, that some dean supporters are focusing on the man himself and do not realize what strength they can really have in the political process nation-wide if they would use their energy and reach into the lowest places of the political process.

i know damn right well dean himself recognizes it, and i hope eventually the majority his supporters will too, because i do know that some of them do already.

i hope not so much that dean is president, although i would like that, but that what he and gore before him has stimulated, viz., the awakening across the land of the idea in people that they personally can be effective in the political process. this awakening can transform america in th 21st century and make reality this nation as bradford's shining city on a hill.

for each dean meet-up, i sure hope that from these meetings that there will be progressive people who run locally for every thing from dog catcher to school board member to local zoning board to county commissioner, because the things that most affect people come from the decisions that these people make. if so, then dean's ideas can be sustained, if not, the ideas will be overwhelmed in the long run by the jaded view of politics as usual.

and i think that this thread is a cheap shot towards will pitt. i saw him on c-span and i admit he's a pretty ugly dude without his mullet cut, but he's also right in this.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. Great, great, great post! moving beyond the man and into the "movement"

I agree with every damed thing you said! :thumbsup:....
except maybe the "ugly dude" part.... but then again I know you meant that in a "good way". For example, a lot of people think Kerry's ugly, but I'd love to be "ugly like him". :)

[VelmaD]

43. yeah...what's up with "ugly"

Will's a little hottie. ;-)

[kodi]

55. re: the mullet cut. i was only joking

:pals:

[VelmaD]

56. I kinda figured you were

*shudder* Having a hard time picturing Will with a mullet though...eep.

:pals:

[clar]

17. It's How You Framed The Question

Your language was intemperate. Sure the question is legitimate, but
your the-sky-is-falling line, wasn't. And it shouldn't have been difficult for you to predict the 200+ people freaking out. I'm disappointed. Your overreaction, as evidenced by your choice of words, and expression of extreme anger, seems to indicate a predisposition to jump on Dean.

[depakid]

9. I personally know at least 5 people who probably won't vote

or will vote 3rd party if Dean loses and Clark gets the nod. These are basically first time participants in the process and unfortunately they're just not as focused on or as knowledgeable about the bigger picture as we here at DU are. To be fair, I should mention that these are each people from the anti-war capital of the courty, Portland, Oregon, yet even so I suspect that there are a significant number of others around the nation who think this way too. Hopefully, they will change their minds if the potentiality occurs, but I kind of doubt it, because much of what appeals to them about Dean is unique- and as the Dr. said, not transferrable.

Moreover, there are many more people who probably won't donate either their time or their money for certain other candidates. Again this is unfortunate, but it's not blackmail or any of the other mischaracterizations that some people (including many who I'm sure know beter) have been posting about. It's simply a characteristic of Dean's demographic. Nothing more nothing less.

[WilliamPitt]

10. "not as focused on or as knowledgeable about the bigger picture"

Careful now. That's 'insulting.'

[Spentastic]

14. No it isn't

It's just an observation of how political pandering means that voting has become an irrelevance to many voters.

Perhaps the bigger picture is so unappealing that many won't look. The burden is on other candidates to engage these people, not just tell them what to do.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Depends on who you ask

I said something not unlike that, and got reamed by a mob. I guess you're special, though. :)

[Spentastic]

20. Ahhh! I feel all warm and fuzzy now

Dammit! It appears I've pissed myself.

:)

[VelmaD]

23. If they won't look at the bigger picture...

because it's unappealing then I have a serious problem with them. I'm already in a mood about some Dean supporters after yesterday's tirades and this didn't help that at all. Yes the reality is ugly sometimes but it's people burying their heads in the sand and refusing to look that got us into this mess in the first place.

I'm frankly a little tired of people who haven't bothered to care enough to come out and fight with us til now telling me I don't "get it" or I can't "comprehend" what the Dean campaign is all about and that I must be part of "the establishment" because I choose to support someone a little farther to the left.

I've been fighting the long defeat for years and am a little put out with people who couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and help when we needed against Reagan or Bush I or even Bush II 3 years ago acting like they're the first people in the history of elections to care about a candidate passionately or work at the grassroots level.

This is in no way aimed at all Dean supporters or at Dean himself. Hell, my best friend in the whole world, who has been deeply involved in Dem politics for years, has thrown his lot in with Dean. He's been pimping Dean to me for months and frankly having a lot more luck than anyone on this board. But, unlike some people, he's willing to acknowledge the fact that Dean might not be everyone's candidate of choice and that that's ok.

When push comes to shove if Dean gets the nomination I'll get right behind him and work for him and vote for him and nag the hell outta others to do the same. Self-acknowledged ABB "whore" and all. I suppose I'm just a little upset and disappointed at the idea that there are folks out there who claim to be against the junta but who would not do what is necessary to remove it if their candidate isn't in the race.

[CWebster]

24. The question for the politically engaged on the Left

is not so much about supporting Dean if it comes down to the wire, the question is - with all of your political and social consciousness, will you be able to rally around Clark as a life-long player in the MIC?

[VelmaD]

27. From some of his stated positions so far...

I would have to say yes. He's pro-choice and in favor of repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy. That already makes him preferable to chimpy in my book.

I won't be happy about it. I don't believe people should start their political career by running for the highest office in the land. But I'd do it anyway. It's that important to get rid of chimpy and the raving psychopaths he has surrounded himself with.

[CWebster]

39. As much as Bush was a compassionate conservative?

Perhaps it is based on resent, but it surprises me the occasional Kucinich supporter that doesn't have the slightest hesitation, or perhaps a slight one, to back Clark, but, at the same time, expresses hostility about Dean.

I mean, why the hell do you support Kucinich? As Rich pointed out in other threads, how does one support Kucinich, and what he represents, only to turn and vote for what Clark represents? Above all things a Kucinich vote is a principled one, and it surprises me how easily it is all pissed away.

[VelmaD]

42. Let's be clear...

I DO NOT back Clark. Not in the primaries anyway. Which I think I was very clear on in my previous post. Nor do I support Dean in the primaries. But, if either of them is nominated (or Kerry or Graham or Braun or even god-help-me Leiberman) I will support them whole-heartedly to get rid of Bush.

I am not hostile about Dean. I am starting to get hostile about SOME of his supporters who have been hostile to me. However, that in no way effects my decision not to support him this early on. It is based solely on the fact that he is a self-proclaimed centrist and I am not. Same for Clark - he seems centrist at this point and I don't vote for centrists in the primaries because I see the primaries as a place to let my heart rule my head and vote for the candidate that most closely represents what I want my party to be.

I'm from Texas so I may a little bit more in tune with the ABB philosophy. I've had to live with chimpy longer than most. I knew better than to believe the "compassionate conservative" bullshit. I saw what it did to my state.

[CWebster]

47. Well, that explains it

I guess my confusion stems from the fact that I always expect Kucinich supporters to be more politically sophisticated--it surprises me that he has a broader appeal than I imagined. I need to remember that--it has caught me off guard before.

[VelmaD]

51. Please explain to me...

what it is about supporting the candidate you agree with in the primaries but then backing your party's nominee when push comes to shove in the general election that is not politically sophisticated.

Isn't that what the Big Dog just exhorted us all to do?

And btw, I'm not in Kucinich's camp quite yet. Close, but not there.

[Spentastic]

26. But perhaps it's not about removing a junta

and replacing it with a junta wearing a nice hat.

Personally I'd settle for anyone but Bush. I'm British and I'm convinced he's going to get us all killed. But having seen the third way in the U.K ABT (anyone but Tories) we ended up with Tony Blair.

I can see why people just don't bother voting whn people that should know better compromise themselves to death in the name of strategy.

[VelmaD]

29. That's kind of funny...

considering it was a Dean supporter who told me yesterday I was throwing my political activity and primary vote away by supporting Kucinich or any other lefty candidate that didn't have a chance of winning.

I am WAY to the left of Dean. I would like to see someone really and truly on the left win. When the primary dust has settled and it comes down to it I will not be anywhere near 100% happy with the Dem candidate. And because I am pragmatic I will go out and throw my heart and soul into seeing chimpy go down. And as far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't is complicit in whatever horror he inflicts on the world after that if he wins.

And tell me, do you really think Tony Blair is the worst thing you could have running your country? If so, I have just two words - Maggie Thatcher. Y'all have the power to get rid of Blair if you want him gone.

[Spentastic]

31. We could get rid of Blair

But he's effectively destroyed the left.

I agree with the comments about Maggie, but Tony is acting like Maggie and getting a pass cos he's not as obvious about it.

There is a time for pragmatism. But not yet.

Good luck in your fight.

[VelmaD]

33. We need all the luck we can get...

thanks. I hope y'all manage to dig yourselves out from under your own personal political nightmare soon too. We're all in this mess together and even when we disagree we've all got to remember that. :-)

I find it amusing to see myself arguing for pragmatism sometimes. I'm pretty idealistic most of the time and the primary season is a good chance to let your idealism run rampant. Much more fun than the general election when we relaly do have to think about things like strategy and doing the best thing even if we don't like it.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. The feckless, indolent and self-indulgent are not as important

as the undecided members of society who are committed to vote.

The former is an undependable lot and will only deign to join the party when the party will cater to them.

The point's very important that energizing the non-voters is the great mother lode of support, but to make it an either/or proposition is to be willing to fuck the rest of society for the dicey gamble of the participation of the questionable. Jerry Brown was my guy in the '92 primary season, but he refused to support Clinton (whom I didn't like, and still have MAJOR reservations about) and went on some vanity bender.

If Dean doesn't actively rally his forces with the same zeal, he's a transparent hypocrite, and the joke will be on us all; he will destroy his political future just like Brown did his. To hint at the possibility is sort of like a shakedown artist saying "nice little future here, you wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would you?" It's fair (marginally at best, though) to hold out the possibility for some leverage, but it is, at heart, A THREAT. Were this to be followed up on would show that his fire really wasn't sincere, but just glory seeking.

Having said that, though, the key to our future is to get the marginalized to get in the habit of voting and really mobilize our resources. If they don't, they will feel even less point to voting, and then the fascists will continue winning by default.

[CWebster]

44. Dean will rally his forces if it comes to it.

But it may be to no avail. When is it going to be worth the fight to say no, I won't accept being held hostage anymore? I want something to vote for rather than vote against --at least once before I die, and I will work towards that end.

[VelmaD]

48. Something we can agree on

I would give anything to be able to go into the voting booth and be proud to cast my vote for president. To know it was going to someone who agreed with my political philosophy. I'm happy for you that you have found that feeling this time around. :-)

I remember how good it felt to vote for Ann Richards for governor and even then I wasn't 100% happy because of her stand on the death penalty. Voting for Lloyd Doggett for Congress felt pretty good too. Want that feeling in spades when it comes to the most important election of all. *sigh*

[CWebster]

50. not as much as you think

but, at least, one that i could live with that actually had a chance.

[VelmaD]

53. Keep having faith..

that one day it will happen. *crosses fingers*

One that you can live with that actually has a chance is more than we usually get from politics nowadays. :-) And I'll admit your guy has a real shot at it and I'd certainly prefer him over the new media golden boy/front runner.

[HFishbine]

36. Great Analyis

Two points.

The group you think Dean might be appealing to is about 50% of registered voters.

Also, there is a third group of swing voters. Those who are far left and vacilate between progressive dems and greens -- the margin of difference in Florida and New Hampshire last time around.

[StopTheMorans]

38. one of the best posts I've seen in a long time

you very eloquently stated what a lot of us have been trying to convey for the last few days. Thanks! :)

[IrateCitizen]

49. Mechatanketra, you have become one of my new favorite posters!

I really can find nothing in your posts on this thread that doesn't speak to me. Great analysis!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Excellent.

[JanMichael]

54. Nice analysis. The self-disenfranchised have ran to Dean.

I can see why too.

Personally I wish he'd adopt Kucinich's healthcare plan but that may happen over time anyway.

Nice post.

[nomaco-10]

57. This is probably the single most,

insightful and eloquently written post I've had the pleasure to read since I've been here. I was just about to leave GD for the thousandth time, when I came across your post, now I think I'll settle in and stay awhile. Thanks

[Forkboy]

58. Possibly the single best post I've read on DU ever