NY Times liberal columnist says Dean will be defeated in "landslide"

[MIMStigator]

<snip>

It was 1972, and I was antiwar and infatuated with Senator George McGovern. But as I handed out McGovern leaflets in Yamhill County, Ore., I was greeted as if I were the Antichrist. Soon afterward, Mr. McGovern was defeated in a landslide.

As Howard Dean will probably be, if the Democrats nominate him.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/opinion/06KRIS.html

[aquaman]

1. Hate to say it.....

But I agree, I like Dean, and will fight for him, but I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I agree....

and those who don't just ain't really thought about it....they are too busy "changing the Democratic party" and "winning the nomination". I have no doubt at all that Dean will lose to Bush. It's like a "no-brainer".

Oh, but anybody that dares say it is a bad, bad, bad person! so I hear!

[pruner]

8. giddyup Don Quixote…

[FrenchieCat]

18. Honey....

if that how you debate issues, so be it! That's why my priority is beating Bush...yours seem to be calling me names. That what a call a priority crisis!

[pruner]

24. since when does repeatedly posting "Dean can't win" constitute debate?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

80. OK, well here's why.....

My debate to you:
Dean is no liberal but many of his supporters are. He has reniged on Campaign Finance Reform after threatening others not to opt out. Then Dean criticized Clark for his "flip/flop" when Dean actually had the exact same stance as Clark, i.e., they would have both accepted a resolution to go the UN and preferably come back to congress. Dean Allowed his hollywood pal Carl Reiner to criticize Clark on the flag burning amendment, although Dean knows he signed an anti desecration flag law in Vermont in May of 2001. Dean is calling himself a straight shooter but won't unseal his Vermont Governor files. He's saying that he'll do it when Bush does it; that's saying two wrongs make a right. Dean is like a Bush on the other side of the fence, without the likeability factor.

Dean's platform of gutting the entire Bush tax cut is DOA. His health care plan is pie in the sky with a Republican congress (which means none in your plate). That combined with not Foreign policy experience, skiing while many were dying in the only war he could have fought, just makes Bush look good in contrast. Dean is at the losing end of the compare and contrast your candidates. I do not think that Dean can beat Bush in 2004.

Currently, the only thing that's really got Dean over the hump, aside from the money and the Grassrooters, is the media attention. I'm still trying to figure out why Dean gets so much media attention since Clark entered the race. Me thinks it being done on purpose. I noticed that there was a Clark blackout on the cable triplets up until this week, i.e., Inside politics refused to say his name for at least a month! Some say that Dean's poll numbers are generating the media attention. Actually watching quite intensely, I believe that it's the publicity creating name recognition and thereby increasing his poll numbers, a la Arnold. I do believe that the media has an agenda for our primaries. They want some excitement and they are leading the way. We, the people, are following the trend they are setting. Seems like we could be smarter about this.

[JNelson6563]

110. haha more "facts" Frenchie? <snarf>

Your opinions grow tiresome. Your "arguments" are lame and whiney. I always laugh when I see folks who support candidates whose campaign don't seem to achieve newsworthy accomplishments whining about the media.

Wanna be in the news? Make some.

Julie

[Justice]

137. Ahh If It Were Only That Simple

Part of the problem with these discussions is that Dean people and Clark people can't be honest and give any ground on any issue for fear that it means they will be perceived as disloyal to their candidate.

For example, we probably all agree that Bush gets largely favorable media attention, and that the media buries or spins the bad Bush news. Yet somehow that same media, when applied to the primary race becomes completely honorable, no spin, no nothing.

It is not intellectually honest to say the media is treating Clark and Dean in the same way - or Dean and any other Dem. candidate.

Part of that is rightly due to Dean making news. Part of that is due to other forces - good and not so good.

Let's be honest.

[JPace]

120. "I have no doubt at all that Dean will lose to Bush"

Personally I have been a Kerry supporter,
but I have to say I am impressed with Dean
and how he has managed to stay ahead. The
man has energy and force of will. Many things
you have said are true, but one factor that
I have noticed about Dean is his ability to
"Pursuade". I think the common citizen will
be pursuaded by his frank talk and his
ability to reframe issues in such a way as
to make people see that it is in their own
best interests to vote democrat.
Pursuasion has been a democratic weakness
and a republican strong point for a long
time now. Dean might change this.

[sendero]

148. allow me to say

yadda yadda yadda.

I've been hearing about Dean "peaking too early", "he's too angry", "he's not a liberal (duh)", so long now it cracks me up.

How does it feel to be so wrong? Please keep going on record with your brilliant prognostications, just because you don't get it doesn't mean the universe is ready to bend to your predictions.

And as for the "liberal columnist" well if I hade a dime for every time a pundit was flat f*cking wrong, I'd probably be a rich Repub.

I like Clark almost as much as Dean but the difference between me and you is I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to be the end-all and be-all of political prescience. Dean has accomplished something that I guarantee you less than 5% of political know it alls would have predicted a year ago. You think he can't continue doing it, I think he can.

[Eloriel]

36. It's every bit as good as your argument, maybe better

Projections that go against the proven current reality (current facts) don't add up to much without some serious support. All you've got left is wishful thinking.

So if that's the best you can do, a response which is a literary allusion to the endearingly delusional among us is entirely apropos.

Eloriel

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. Dean looks great until the general campaign actually ensues

and the ads begin to hammer away at him for:

1. Suggesting he is a threat to traditional marriage between a man and woman.
2. Dodging the draft (yes he did so legally but nevertheless he loses the "macho man" military image PR battle to AWOL flight boy)
3. Looking weak when it came to confronting Saddam (and in general on defense)
4. Credibly portrayed as wanting to raise taxes.

and then there are the gaffes- Confederate Flags, not being straight about why the records were sealed,...etc.

[Cleita]

81. Excuse me but....

1) I can't imagine even the dumbest freeper thinking a gay couple is going to threaten their marriage.
2) Bush was AWOL. It is something to remind everyone about.
3) Saddam should have been confronted by poppy Bush, but he didn't. Junior had no business making it his business.
4) He wants to raise taxes on the rich, who are not a large voting demographic, so who cares?

[paulk]

91. you "can't imagine even the dumbest freeper thinking

a gay couple is going to threaten their marriage." ?????


There's some pretty dumb freepers in Congress, then. You know, the ones' introducing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Also, Dean wants to raise taxes on the middle class, not just the rich.

[dobak]

111. ummm?

1) I can't imagine even the dumbest freeper thinking a gay couple is going to threaten their marriage. I know many people (friends and family) who are not freepers and are strongly opposed to gay marriage because they feel it threatens "marriage"

2) Bush was AWOL. It is something to remind everyone about. We know that. Most of America knows he was in the National Guard during a time of war, but do not know he was AWOL

3) Saddam should have been confronted by poppy Bush, but he didn't. Junior had no business making it his business. non-issue this campaign

4) He wants to raise taxes on the rich, who are not a large voting demographic, so who cares? Do you know how many middle class Americans oppose taxes on the rich because they consider themselves rich or think they will be rich one day?

[Justice]

143. Can you say Rick Santorum?

Santorum makes it his life's work to freak out about other people's personal stuff.

In MA, we have people pouring into our state from the south to fight the SJC ruling on gay marriage. These people have left their homes and lives to come here and tell us what to do.

We have to acknowledge the challenges ahead people - let's not put our fingers in our ears and say "I am not listening, I don't hear you"

[Justice]

140. in other words....

"I am not listening to anything you say....."

[John_H]

20. I just hope we don't get Dean Quixote next august-november

Thanks for triggering the idea, I'll use it often.

[trogdor]

34. If Dean is Don Quixote, he's got lots of company.

n/c

[Julien Sorel]

94. Quixote had company, too. Gives me an idea.

The Deanites should all name themselves Sancho. Sancho1, Sancho2, and so on. It would be kind of like each Deanite would have their own secret name, that only the other cultists would be allowed to know.

And think of the cachet that would come with having a really low number: "Hey Sancho17,768! STFU! I'm Sancho 59 -- I outrank you! Now go stir the Kool-aid, the sugar's starting to settle."

[Octafish]

41. Don Q was no draft dodger.

Coward Dean is.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[janx]

125. LOL!!!

!

[CalebHayes]

13. Wtih you...

There is this thing called the electoral college!?!?!?!

[Jacobin]

47. We really need to figure out how to make binding bets on DU

Perhaps PayPal could hold the bets in escrow.

Ya wanna take two to one? Hundred bucks.

[Ediacara]

55. so the anti-war Clark WILL win?

how consistant...

[MIMStigator]

58. you can be anti war if you're a war hero but not if draft dodger

you can be a tax raiser but not with a recovering economy.

Dean is a draft dodger and tax raiser. I don't have a problem with either one but 85% of voters will

[Jacobin]

61. That of course is utter bullshit

Clinton was a "draft dodger" and he used force when necessary effectively and he used diplomacy effectively as the preferred method of solving problems.

[MIMStigator]

63. Clinton was pre 9/11

Nobody can win withoutforeign policy experience now and Dean isn't going to be able to make anyone believe he can do diplomacy like Clinton. He's known as a hot head

[Ediacara]

69. Nobody can win without foreign policy experience now?

How many post 9-11 elections have you witnessed? You're just blowing smoke out of your ass!

[MIMStigator]

72. nope, nobody can, not next year.

especially with the iraq mess to clean up. Saying you would't have gone to war won't be enough

[Ediacara]

78. Bullshit!

Do you have a time machine? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you have a coherent reason besides "nope, no one?"

[Justice]

139. Not Bullshit

Not talking about just any election - we are talking about the election for the leader of the free world.

To act as if it doesn't matter whether you have foreign policy experience or military experience is really ridiculous.

Will it be "the" decisive issue? I don't think any of us knows the answer. But it will matter - it will be material.

Dean may well have more foreign policy experience than Bush does right now = given Bush's poor record. But Dean will have to communicate his experience to people in a way that he is not currently doing - like it or not.

[Ediacara]

70. Taxes were raised in 1993

and look where that got us! And also, I'm not so sure you can stick the "draft dodging" lable on Dean, as has been discussed extensively on DU.

[MIMStigator]

73. Clinton raised them AFTER the election only on wealthy

and he didn't promise to repeal middle class tax cuts like Dean did

[Ediacara]

79. what middle class tax cut?

Oh, that $300 bribe, err... check?

[Yupster]

114. What about creating the

10 % bracket out of the 15 % bracket. That cut everyone's taxes if they pad a dollar of federal tax. You've got to see that as the middle class, don't you.

Also the $ 300 bribe was just a i shot deal as a special catch up. The rate changes from 15-10 and from 28-25 is where the month to month savings come in.

Also raising the childcare credit from 600 per kid to $1,000 per kid hits middle class too.

Saying that taxes were only cut for the wealthy sounds cool, and may actually convince some voters who don't pay attention, but saying it on DU where people know better sounds pretty foolish.

[Yupster]

115. Remember Clinton promised to cut taxes

on the middle class during the campaign.

[Nazgul35]

74. you mean like McGovern...

you know you're right...I never thought of that....hmmmmmm...

[liberalnurse]

31. If it's not Dean as the nominee, then we are really

doomed to suffer another 4 years of *bush.

None of the others can kick out and fight *bush like Dean.

[FrenchieCat]

82. Saying it doesn't make it so....

Dean is not the only kicking Bush's ass...please don't flatter yourself as one of his supporters. They are all kicking Bush's butt, and you know it. But think about how this will affect the congress...Anyhow, I think that Wes Clark is the most qualified for the nomination and hence the job of President, because he is a natural. When one sees how he communicates, the words that he uses, one knows that he's the one. That's why he's got to get as much exposure as possible. Clark is not the Anti-Dean candidate; Clark is the Anti-Bush candidate. It is very clear that if anyone can beat Bush, it's Clark. The likeability that some see in Bush, is doubled in Clark. Any Gravitas that Bush may have inherited from his Trifecta (9/11, 9/11, 9/11), Clark has in double by being the articulate person that he is. The moxie that brims over in Clark is lackluster at best in Bush. Clark is on the winning side as the contrast and compare candidate.

Even with not opting out of the public financing, Clark still would be OK during the March to July period. As was suggested here, the various orgs that can collect and spend as much as they want to can provide the direct attacks ads against Bush, and get voter education running. The ground troups, including the unions could to their part in organizing in the various states. The grassroots can repeal the media via letter writing so that Clark doesn't get Gored. Clark can just advertise himself. It would actually work out really well, because he would not be making the attacks against Bush as directly; running a positive campaign full of hope and vision. I don't think that the not opting out really means "Dead Man Walking"...althought the campaigns of Kerry and Dean are making that case.

Those four Dem senate seats in the south will be lost with a Dean nomination. There's so much on the line to be riding on a "you've got the power" campaign...heck, we are not going to change the way politics are conducted this election season; we just want to get back from the extreme that we are now experiencing. Dean's campaign is like "let's have a revolution"...won't happen.

I hope that Dems jumping on the Dean campaign Bandwagon remember what the goal is. It's not to win a nomination; it's to win a general election. The overarching priority is to get Bush out of office. I hope we don't blow it this time around. That would be the nails on the party coffin for years to come.

[bearfartinthewoods]

136. for all our sakes, i hope that there is no difference in

'can kick out and fight ' and winning. i'm afraid that might not be the case.

[Cocoa]

2. what an original thought

I recall Kristoff being pretty useless during Bush-Gore. Can anyone confirm?

[Scott Lee]

10. Yup. Useless as tits on a boar. Ignore him.

People at one time said humans would never fly, and that Elvis would never make it out of the bars.

[unblock]

3. by this logic, BUSH will be defeated in a landslide!

after all, many people greet pro-bush pamphlets, bumper stickers, etc., with disdain and eye-rolling, as many people consider bush to be the antichrist.

so i guess bush will be defeated in a landslide!

good news!

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Christ! Do you think a few things have happened since 1972 that might

make a big difference? Like maybe the fact that we're not behind the liberal wave of the 60's? In fact, we've been stuck in an undertow of conservativeness and it's time to swim parallel to the shore if we want to get out of it.

And another thing...this Iraq war was started clearly by an inept Republican president. Vietnam, on the other hand, occurred at a time when America was too innocent to believe that their leaders could be wrong about something that caused so many young boys to die. Those of us who lived through it, won't allow one man's stupid pride destroy so many lives again.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Yes, things have changed...

Like 9/11 happened....duh....and countless terror alerts.....and the "War on Terror"....and where is Dean's foreign policy experience? Does it come with a person attached to it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Bob Graham has all the information Dean needs to hit the ground

running.

Oh, oops! I just fell into one of the candidate-bashing threads I kept hearing about? Didn't I? How DOES one disappear a thread?

[FrenchieCat]

29. So why did Bob Graham drop out?

But needless to say, It ain't Bob Graham that voters will comparing and contrasting next to George Bush......

We don't want a nominee that comes with extras in order to that that job right. Why should we? Plus one that wants to "INCREASE" taxes on regular old middle class folks. THe same ones that want a strong leader that will make sure they are protected.

Dean will not win....and that is why. You can close your eyes and wish....but it ain't gonna happen.

[Hep]

113. No way, You're so wrong

This columnist, who wrote the piece, still shows up to work wearing bell bottoms and poet sleeves, I am Woman blaring out of his 8-Track.

[Ksec]

5. as much as I hate to say this hes probably right. nt

[LittleApple81]

6. I don't think he has noticed the enthusiasm of the Democrats and

even some "thinking" republicans for Dean.
I don't think that McGovern had this kind of enthusiasm (or the dislike for the sitting pResident as strong).

[Julien Sorel]

33. I don't think you know what McGovern was about.

I remember the enthusiasm quite well, and remember seeing people cry for days after the election.

I'm amazed that this guy hit on the William Jennings Bryan comparison. Like Dean, Bryan had a 'revolutionary' campaign; he was the first Presidential candidate who went out and met people and spoke directly to them. Bryan used trains; Dean uses the internet. Of course, the Republicans can and do use the internet themselves. Bryan's opponent, William McKinley, didn't bother adapting and crushed Bryan anyway. Bryan's fans still loved the guy though. Who knows, maybe this time the spunky underdog will prove them all wrong.

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. you have to be kidding

no enthusiasm for McGovern? upu must not hhave been paying attention. or aybe you were just a gleam in a bummbl bee's eye,,
not yet born?

[Yupster]

116. All my junior high teachers

openly wore McGovern buttons in class in New York City.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

158. Most Of My Junior High School Teachers In Rural Florida

very quietly supported George McGovern.... -:)

[Pastiche423]

9. GMFAO!

[annagull]

11. with "liberals" like Kristoff, who needs Fox?

He is another of the media whores who fostered the "Gore=Liar" bull during the 2000 election. This is not 1972. With the unhappiness for all that is incumbent in the electorate, Bush* is alot more vulnerable than the media whores want you to know.

[blm]

16. It's more like 84, actually...and

there was alot of discontent with Reagan in 83 and early 84. Guess what?

[Scott Lee]

30. In a pig's eye.

Dukakis was nowhere near the powerhouse that Dean is. Reagan had nowhere near carried on the size of outrage that this little Hitler is. Your sense of historical analysis is....underwhelming.

[blm]

35. Your historical sense is nil. Dukakis ran in 88.

Duh.

[Scott Lee]

167. Your sense of comprehension is zero. I was bringing up Dukakis.

Double duh.

[blm]

177. Reagan didn't run against Dukakis. HAHAHAHAHA.....

You said this in reference to 1984:

>>>>
Dukakis was nowhere near the powerhouse that Dean is. Reagan had nowhere near carried on the size of outrage that this little Hitler is. Your sense of historical analysis is....underwhelming.
>>>>

You have no shame in attacking me further just because you don't know how to say a simple "oops" when you make a mistake.

[Scott Lee]

202. Who said Reagan ran against Dukakis? Are you making things up?

Or is this another try at refusing to acknowledge the turn of conversation to Kerry's Dukakis-ish antics?

Take your pick.

[Nederland]

180. A little advice

When you're wrong, just admit it. Otherwise you just end up looking more stupid.

[quinnox]

12. Agreed

Dean is the Titanic, let's hope this boat gets turned around while there is still time.

[oasis]

57. The icebergs are mounting for this maiden voyage but full speed ahead.

[kodi]

14. if kristof is a liberal, my left nut is the pope.

.

[Jacobin]

38. Thank you. He's a PNACing asshole and loves the M.E. conquest

agenda.

Dean threatens his wet dream of American domination of the world (and particularly the M.E.).

Accordingly, he disses Dean.

NYT and WP can expected to lead the charge against Dr. Dean who is no likkudnik.

Fork'em. Let them send THEIR sons and daughters to die for their agenda.

[DemBones DemBones]

194. Aren't you confusing Kristoff with Bill Kristol, of PNAC?

Also, I wouldn't say Dean is a likkudnik but he has gone to Israel and met with Sharon and he did say his views were closer to those of AIPAC, which puts his views regarding Israel close to those of PNAC.

[NNadir]

17. I am enjoying the "liberal" press telling us since the beginning how

Dean can't win, how he's McGovern, how he's Mondale, etc, etc. Remember when they were telling us that opposing their "war against terror" would doom anyone to oblivion?

This is too funny, to find our pundits with no imagination. They think that reading a history book and making crude analogies is thinking. It's not. Let's say it flat out. They're too fucking stupid for words.

Here's a clue: Howard Dean is not George McGovern, neither is he Bill Clinton. He's Howard Dean. This is not 1972, or 1976 or 1980 or 1984 or 1988 or 1992 or 1996 or 2000. It's 2003, going on 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

25. And don't you also

like the conservative pundits telling that Dean's the guy!....you know Matthews, Tucker, Crowley, Woodruff, etc...etc....etc...

Yea...indymedia is trash....
Yea...New York post is great!

[MIMStigator]

26. you don't see the same venom from repukes for Dean as for Clark

They know who to fear

[Sean Reynolds]

68. You don't?

How many times have we heard from the media that Dean is too liberal; too out of touch with the mainstream; from a small state that has NO population and no political power; how he grew up on Park Avenue and was born into money; how Dean 'dodged the draft - even though President Bush WENT AWOL and yet that never gets talked about? How about when they call Dean ANGRY and wait for him to blow his top. How about when they ALL say he's going to RAISE YOUR taxes. Yeah, the media has given Dean a free ride.

And I'm the Pope.

[dreissig]

59. Great Post!

Dean is none of the above. I think Dean may surprise everyone with an easy win.

[depakid]

19. Kristoff is an embassassment to Oregonians

and I'd hardly call him a liberal- any more than I trust his judgment... or yours, for that matter.

[slinkerwink]

22. WAIT-----isn't the CONSERVATIVE media pundits suppose to build up Dean?!

What gives? ;-)

[Scott Lee]

37. They can't keep their conspiracy theories straight. Next week it will be

Dean is a secret leader of a pending extraterrestrial invasion....Dean has 666 under his hairline....Dean is supported by the Bilderburgs, Duponts and Roosevelts....Dean is from the Star Chamber....

coming soon to a theater of the absurd near you.

[Octafish]

46. Dean's not that smart.

Lke his followers, he needs direction.

[Scott Lee]

169. Apparently he's smart enough to be frontrunner. Tee hee.

Need some brie with that?

[DemBones DemBones]

102. A favorite Deanie technique: ridicule when you can't

dispute the facts. I've noticed Dean himself make testy attempts at humor when he's being called out on the facts.

Exactly what conspiracy theory do you see Kristoff espousing? I only see him presenting facts to support his thesis that Dean is unelectable. Can you refute any of the facts he presented?

[Scott Lee]

171. Kristoff is easily refutable. Lets start with the McGovern comparison

McGovern was running at a time that already saw several years of "liberal" government, and there is a case to be made that the public thought it all was too hard too fast. The vietnam war was also much farther past the curve of public concern than the Iraq war is for us now. McGovern, while a good guy with progressive ideas, did not have near the organization or creativity that Dean does.

I will say this, I think they bought their ties from the same store.

Kristoff is so far off base on this one that it's laughable. The men, the times are so different that it makes me wonder when he hit the pipe.

[Eric J in MN]

23. I think John Edwards would win if he were nominated.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

[Pastiche423]

28. I don't

He hasn't a chance in hell.

[Eric J in MN]

43. a populist Southerner like Edwards

A populist Southerner like Edwards is what we need.

He was a succesful trial lawyer because he was good at persuasion.

John Edwards would make a great nominee.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

[pasadenaboy]

32. according to Kristoff,

he also has to be willing to act stupid, so he doesn't turn off midwesterners.

I think Edwards is to intellegent to be the dream candidate Kristoff wants.

I think he's think more along the lines of Gomer Pyle or on of the Beverly Hillbillies as the perfect democratic nominee.

[Donna Zen]

44. Three of them can win

Howard Dean is not one of them.

[pasadenaboy]

27. Shorter Kristoff

Democrats should only nominated southerners. Preferably southerners with low levels of education.

What a stupid column.

[BurtWorm]

39. Kristof has very conventional views in some things.

Like American electoral politics, which is not his area of expertise. I think it's way, way too early to tell how electable Dean is. He sure as hell seems to be gobbling up Democratic delegates in every corner of the country. They say Bush is dangerous because he is so easily underestimated. Dean could very well make Bush's "misunderestimation" advantage look as lame as Bush's misuse of the English language.

[Eloriel]

40. HoHoHo -- LIBERAL columnist?

Not in my book. Moderate, perhaps. Liveral, not in his wildest dreams -- or yours.

Eloriel

[SheilaT]

42. Okay, let me see if I've got this.

Because people in Yamhill County, Oregon in 1972 didn't like George McGovern, that means Howard Dean is unelectable.

What am I missing? I see no logical connection between George McGovern and Yamhill County, Oregon in 1972 and Howard Dean in 2004. There's a missing middle term, as logicians would say.

[MIMStigator]

45. Tax raisers with no foreign policy experience

have no chance in 2004 especially with a recovering economy.

[janx]

49. THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? HA! Sorry.

He is not being honest.

[DemBones DemBones]

103. Another use of the favorite Deanie technique of ridicule,

applied whenever you can't dispute the facts.

What are you suggesting, anyway? That he's not being honest that he supported McGovern when he was thirteen years old? Why do you say "THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? HA! Sorry" ?

[dsc]

119. maybe if people didn't respond to the post you did

and did respond to posts like mine in this thread you would have more people take on issues. But why bother if they won't be responded to?

[janx]

128. Because this initial premise of his experience as a 13-year-old

handing out McGovern leaflets is not only weak--it has nothing to do with the electability of Howard Dean.

By implication that would mean that as a 13-year-old, he surmised the electability of McGovern.

If there is ANY logic in this argument (and I'm forcing myself to find some), it's inherently flawed.

[DemBones DemBones]

193. As a 13-year-old, he probably did surmise that McGovern was

electable. All that I think he's saying with that little vignette is that Dean is not going to have the appeal to the general public that he does to his hard-core supporters, just as McGovern couldn't get the electorate to respond to his message the way that his faithful supporters did.

In the rest of the piece, Kristoff explains why he thinks Dean can't win. If you disagree with him, fine, but some evidence to support your view would be more helpful than accusing Kristoff of not being honest.

[janx]

200. Sorry, but neither you nor Kristoff has convinced me that

he is being honest, let alone logical.

When 13-year-olds can vote, I'll be glad to have another look at the matter, but for now your points are moot.

[Scott Lee]

172. That post made absolutely no sense. Please repost in English.

[DemBones DemBones]

192. No one else has difficulty understanding my posts -- sorry you do.

[Scott Lee]

203. Are you sure about that? Reading is fundamental, you know.

[mot78]

50. I agree with him mostly, but

it's still possible that the economic recovery will falter. Being a Northeasterner myself (from NY), I get upset whenever someone lectures me and tells me that anyone from my region can't be President unless their a DINO or a rw Repug (which ironically enought would cost them their own state).

About the "elitism" Clark actually has a similar personallity (but not as much as Dean or Kerry). He's fairly apolitical, and doesn't come across as a "back country" kind of southerner that pundits swoon over. This "liability" is called being educated. Maybe if these morans stopped bashing anyone with a high vocubulary than them, they'd be more productive.

[otohara]

51. This Will Be Quoted on Every Right-Wing Show in The Land

Love how the so called liberal media types like making Karl Rove's day.

This column will be used on every fucking right-wing show, including Crossfire. Can't you just see it...next week Tucker or Novak will say to a Dean supporter...Mr.______ - last week in the NYT's, liberal columnist Nick Kristoff said.....blah, blah, blah - isn't he correct about Dr. Dean losing in a total landslide.

Screw you Kristoff - Asshole

[dsc]

52. That would be the Kristof

who said Molly Ivins and Ann Coulter are similar.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111403.shtml

KRISTOF: t used to be just the Republicans who were intense in their beliefs, while now both sides are frothing.
The latest Progressive magazine features the article “Call Me a Bush-Hater,” and The New Republic earlier published “The Case for Bush Hatred.”
I see the fury in my e-mail messages…
In short, before he begins to quote his e-mails, Kristof cites two published examples of the Bush-hatred. He cites Chait’s piece in the New Republic. He also cites that other column—the one in the Progressive.
But the Progressive piece ain’t what it seems. In this morning’s Times, Progressive editor Matthew Rothschild quotes what its author, Molly Ivins, really said. “It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he’s a bad President,” Ivins wrote. “Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone’s policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred.” But that’s the column Kristof quotes to prove that Those Liberals Today just hate Bush! “Liberals have now become as intemperate as conservatives?” Incredibly, Kristof offers Ivins’ column as proof!

In fact, an alternate version of Ivins’ piece appeared in papers across the country (including the Washington Post). Here’s a hunk of what she wrote:

IVINS: Over many years of covering politics, I have known and liked a lot of politicians with whom I never agreed about a single thing. Bob Dole and Alan Simpson come to mind as two of my favorite Republicans, and I could list Texas conservatives by the dozens.
As it happens, I have known George W. Bush for a long time—not well, but for a long time. Since we were both in high school. He went to prep school in the East, and I went to prep school in Houston, but he hung around with friends of mine, dated girls I knew. I would never claim we were friends, but he was someone I vaguely knew.

For the six years he was governor of Texas, I watched him closely…Although Bush rather promptly becomes defensive and prickly when questioned, he is by and large perfectly affable. You would have to work at it to dislike him personally. On the occasions when we meet, we would “rib” one another. I personally hope the photo of me sitting on his lap at a Christmas party with him dressed as Santa has disappeared for all time.

Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice their policies are disastrous for people in this country? Quite a thought, isn’t it? Grown-ups can actually do that—can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it…

I honestly don’t think you have to hate someone in politics to think they’re wrong. I would like to remind all the lockstep conservatives that there is a difference between hatred and anger. What you are looking at in this country is not hatred of George W. Bush—a perfectly affable guy—it is growing anger.

In short, Ivins wrote a column to complain when David Brooks called her a Bush-hater in the Times. Amazingly, Kristof cites that very column to show how today’s liberals hate Bush!

He also wrote this

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112603.shtml

Just how odd was the New York Times’ coverage? On May 21, 2000, Nicholas Kristof began an intermittent series of biographical profiles of Bush. Most installments were roughly 3800 words long; on June 10, for example, the Times published a 3700-word Kristof piece about Bush’s days in prep school. And on July 11, the Times published the fourth installment in Kristof’s series—a look at Bush’s service in the Guard. But the story was only 1200 words long—and it didn’t even mention the flap about Bush’s missing year of service. It had been more than six weeks since Robinson’s story appeared in the Boston Globe. And New York Times readers still hadn’t been told that such a gap had been found in Bush’s record.

He also wrote this

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012403.shtml

KRISTOF (5/21/00): It is in the soil of Midland that Mr. Bush has said he would like to be buried when he dies, and it was to Midland that he returned in the 1970’s to marry and start a family. It gave him an anchor in real America.
Mr. Bush has often said that “the biggest difference between me and my father is that he went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High.” That may be an exaggeration of the younger Mr. Bush’s populist credentials, because he is also a product of Andover, Yale and Harvard. But there is still something to it.

“There is still something to it,” Kristof said, finding a way to endorse Bush’s statement. But as Kristof surely knew, there was much less to Bush’s San Jacinto mantra than actually met the eye. In fact, Bush attended San Jacinto for one year only—seventh grade. After that, he moved to the tony Kinkaid School, an elite private school in Houston. After two years at the Kinkaid School, he became an Andover boarder. In short, Bush spent five years at elite private schools, and one year at San Jacinto Junior High. But it was San Jacinto he repeatedly mentioned, for reasons that were perfectly plain.
Was Bush lying when he maintained his middle school mantra? No, he clearly was not. But all through Campaign 2000, Gore was trashed for making accurate statements in which he was said to exaggerate his personal history. Meanwhile, scribes like Kristof looked for ways to say that Bush’s statements had “something to them.” Indeed, two paragraphs later in the May profile, Kristof rattled some pure agit-prop. “Mr. Bizilo” was San Jacinto’s principal:

KRISTOF: The Midland childhood is a striking contrast to that of another boy growing up at the same time, Al Gore, who instead of being paddled in Mr. Bizilo’s office was attending the elite St. Albans School in Washington, swimming in the Senate pool and listening on an extension as his father the senator spoke on the telephone to President John F. Kennedy.
Jim Nicholson could hardly have typed it up better. Bush was being paddled in a dusty school. By contrast, Gore was paddling in the Senate pool, and checking out JFK on the telephone.

end of quotes

All of these are from the Daily Howler and the reporters orgianal pieces can be linked to from there. Care to describe this reporter as liberal some more. Care to explain just why we should care what he thinks. Care to tell us why you chose to bring us this lying liar's view. He thinks Dean is lamer than Bush on VietNam. No wonder he refused to even write about Bush.

[Jacobin]

56. LOL......LMAO....that just about sums up the "liberal" Kristoff

Thanks for destroying the perverted thesis of the original post

[dsc]

60. Don't thank me thank Bob Sommersby

He is doing the Lord's work.

[Woodstock]

160. Whoo Hooo!!! Thanks for that link

To the thread author:

HOWARD DEAN IS HOWARD DEAN.

end of argument

[IndianaGreen]

53. Kristof was one of the advocates of the war in Iraq

and he did his share of WMD stories. In addition to that, the NY Times is NOT a liberal newspaper. It is a newspaper that represents the views of the corporate Establishment, not the American people.

Kristof opposes US withdrawal from Iraq:

Above all, to stave off catastrophe in Iraq, we must keep our troops there and provide security, for that is the glue that keeps Iraq together. I believe that President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, but he's right about staying there.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101603H.shtml

[Karmadillo]

121. Kristof opposed the war in Iraq.

If I remember correctly, he would have supported it if he thought we could have gotten in an out quickly while leaving a democracy behind, but feared we'd be stuck there for some time. Certainly agree with you about the NY Times, though.

[Serenades]

54. Honestly . . .

. . . if you think Dean can beat Bush, you're kidding yourselves. The Republicans have essentially taken over the United States. No one believes anything that Democrats say. Liberal is a bad word. Liberal is often mentioned in the same breath as Nazism and people don't think twice about it. The Republicans have done a masterful job of taking over pretty much everything. I do not think a perceived "liberal" can win. Only someone more moderate. That's just a fact ya'll are gonna have to live with. It will take some serious deaths in Iraq or some serious American defense dabacle to unseat Bush, then again, they'll probably blame Clinton and everyone will believe them.

[Jacobin]

62. PM me to make a hundred dollar bet on that

IndianaGreen to hold the money. I'll take two to one.

It'll help finance Dean's inauguration ceremony. :-)

[Serenades]

66. hmmm

I hope I'm wrong but then again I do live in Bush country (daddy's president library is a couple of miles from my house).

[unfrigginreal]

64. LMAO

Let's see, the only objective evidence cited by Kristof:

Mr. Bush beat Mr. Dean, 52 percent to 41 percent, in a recent Pew poll. Meanwhile, the economy appears to be strengthening in time for the election. Of the 51 economic forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators, all but one expect the economy to grow more rapidly in 2004 than it has in the last 33 months.

And in the same poll, Bush beat Clark 50 percent to 40 percent.

So, it's more of the same bullshit the power brokers are trying to shove down everyones throat with no evidence to back up their ridiculous conclusions.

[Closer]

65. Goshdarnit

I guess we're just fucked then huh?



Better just stop trying now. Or better yet, let's nominate a war hero with four stars to beat the Bush cabal at their own game. Let's let THEM set the parameters and see if we can beat them!


You guys are right. Dean's just a lost cause. A McGovern in the making. It's pointless that we Deaniacs keep trying.

[MIMStigator]

67. We set parameters too

that's why * had to be a compassionate conservative. They accepted they had to play our game to win because most people were turned off by repuke bigotry. We're stupid if we don't understand people are turned off by draft dodging and dean's lack of foreign policy experience when * will spend millions making foreign policy and war the top issue

[DeaconBlues]

71. Dean is a fighter

but his plan to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts will make him look like Mondale in '84. He probably won't get beat as badly as Mondale (he probably pick up the major Democratic-leaning states) but he will still get beat.

Hope I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.

[MIMStigator]

75. combination will kill him

of tax raiser and no foreign policy experience

Hope that becomes obvious to all democrats before the day after election in november 2004

[FrenchieCat]

84. It's not just his tax plan....it's the southern strategy....

Many Dean supporters also say that Dean doesn't need to South to win. Well to give up on the South is not a sound strategy. It means that Bush would not have to spend money, energy nor time there. He would then be free to concentrate on the midwest, which has some of the largest states in it. To give up on an entire portion of the population in order to make Dean acceptable doesn't cut it, IMO. We have 4 Senate seat in the south that are currently Democratic (J. Edwards, NC/Z. Miller,GA/F. Hollings, SC/ B. Graham/FL and Breaux is also thinking of retiring LA). For you to write off the South means no more filibusters! If Dean could even pull this off, which I doubt, he would be unable to affect any changes! The Republican congress would have more power than he. That is a scenario that I don't even want to imagine.

What does Dean have to offer to "Middle America" in terms of national security, the war on terror and dealing with the Iraq war? You are aware, I am sure, that this is what Bushco will make as the issue if Dean is the nominee. What experience does he have, and what makes you think that the 56%-61% giving Bush approval at this time are going to switch to Dean and hand him the Baton to run the war on terror? If you say that Dean has "advisors" that will advise him, or that he "knew" not to go to Iraq so he's policy must be good, or that Clinton and Bush didn't have any of that experience at the time that they won, then you are fooling yourself that this will even be acceptable to most Americans post 9/11 which was a fact, not a fiction. We must get out of Iraq, and it must be done properly.

Dean will not be able to convince the majority of Americans that he can make them safe. Heck, he only is polling 20% in the most recent national poll (after an avalanche of media coverage), which leaves 80% of Democrats that are not convinced, let alone any independents and Republicans. I'm not even convince that he has what it takes for this serious job. I think that he would get beaten so badly that the Democratic party will be out of power for a long, long time. furthermore, if Dean has to attach a whole lot of experts to himself in order to be qualified on the national security/foreign policy front, then he is not qualified to be President at this time.

I think that those who support Dean want to change the face of the Democratic Party. Those who support Clark, want Bush out of the White House. I guess it depends on your priority then. I want Bush out; anything else is extra. I can wait for the reformation of the Democratic party, but I can't wait to get Bush out. Who polls best next to Bush? It is not Howard Dean; it is Wes Clark. If you choose to ignore that bit of information, then your priority is not the same as mine.

[DeaconBlues]

88. good analysis

I never considered "coattails". If the democratic presedential candidate is beaten badly, it will be nasty for the whole party.

We need Clark.

[tlb]

100. Dean is a train wreck waiting to happen.

When Rove says Dean is the candidate they want, I believe him.

Excellent analysis Frenchie4Clark.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

104. "Dean is a fighter"?

Imagine a class of third graders spending an entire year being
terrorized by a bully from the fifth grade.

Imagine some of them mulling it over during summer vacation.
Imagine the largest among them expressing his anger about giving up
his lunch money each day.
Imagine a large number of these third graders choosing the angry one to defend them next year.

What is this large, angry fourth grader going to do when the sixth
grade bully rolls up on him?

Bet that the summer-time bravado is gone.
Bet that he WILL be giving up his lunch money for another whole year.

Now imagine that the large, angry fourth grader is Dean.

[Nazgul35]

76. Funny...as I hand out leaflets...

I'm greated with smiles and thumbs up.....

Wonder what that means!?

Please...you guys are getting really desperate....

So how can your cnadidate win if they cant win the primary?

[FrenchieCat]

85. It doesn't mean anything....

You are not analyzing the real issues of Dean and his chance at beating Bush...if you are measuring by the smiles and thumbs up you might get as a reaction. The cold hard facts may be harder to face, and maybe that's why you are concentrating on nonsense to make a noncase!

[Nazgul35]

196. Actually...

I'm not as big of an assmunch to think I am able to predict the future when so much can change between now and next Nov.

Of course...you tell all of us you told us so because your guy would've won...which is a total crock of you know what...

See while you are sitting here bitching about the front runner...more concerned about being right in your pick than in getting rid of Bush...i'm out taking my country back...

So you sit on your ass and wait for someone to come along and rescue you from the big bad Bushies....but for myself, i'm going to stand on my two feet and defend my freedoms myself...I don't need a daddy candidate...i'm a grown up...

And my anicdote about people I see handing out flyers is certainly more data then you have based upon your own opinion...

Those who attempt to predict the future are like annoying fans who come up to major league sports figures and attempt to tell the pros how to run the game...if it makes you feel better...ok, but dont pretend that you have all the answers....

All that being said: should Clark win i'll be out there working my ass of for him....will you say the same thing about Dean? Something tells me the answer is no....

and that's why we will loose! Becuase we have Dems who would rather stay at home and sulk about their guy losing than fighting for their country's future...if you think the next election is sooo important...you would work your ass off if the party nominates a piece of cheese....

No one is going to win this for you...you have to get off your ass and fight for yourself....come election day, I know i'll be able to look at myself in the mirror....wil you?

[librechik]

86. 2 words: Die Bold

we can't count on any election results until that problem is addressed. I fully expect Dean to be robbed of the win by a Bush "landslide." After all, the CEO of Diebold promised Bush he would deliver the elction to him. What more do we need to know?

[chaska]

83. argkjf-sd0893

"Angry bluster rouses the party faithful, but it frightens centrists. The last two presidents who were fervently hated, Richard Nixon and Mr. Clinton, both won two terms; today's liberal disgust could do the same for Mr. Bush by leading to a nominee like Mr. Dean, who warms the hearts of the party's core but leaves others cold."

[OneBlueSky]

87. he's right . . . Dean will get creamed . . .

BushCo will paint him into a liberal corner and wrap the tax raiser, gay marriage, and draft dodger millstones around his neck . . . and reinforce the message by outspending the Dems by at least 2 to 1 . . . you think the media or the public will listen when Dean says "Hey, Bush was a draft dodger, too!"? . . . not a chance! . . . all they'll care about is that Bush was in the National Guard . . . whether he fulfilled his duties or not will prove irrelevant in the election because he wore a uniform and Dean didn't . . .

if the Democrats want to win, we're going to have to nominate someone other than Dean . . . I like Dean a lot . . . but I want to win more . . .

[NewYorkerfromMass]

89. and Kristof knows the lay of the land pretty well

Hopefully more commentary like this is coming from other notable commentators.

[Jacobin]

108. Yeah, Crisco prognosticated the Iraqis and their flowers just right

WTF is up with people and their Crisco worshipping?

[Sideways]

144. If He Knows The Lay Of The Land So Well Maybe He Should Take Up Farming

Instead of spouting printed horseshit he would put his shit where it might be just the tiny bit useful. As fertilizer. Hopefully he will just shut the fuck up.

[w4rma]

90. The economy is *not* getting better for Americans, despite what this guy

parrots. Unemployment is up. There are fewer and fewer small buisnesses. Jobs are being shipped overseas. We are occupying a country and the capital city of another country.

This guy quotes how some stocks of some already huge corporations are going up. But there are many buisnesses that aren't on the stock market and many of them are struggling, wages are stagnant and gas prices are extremely high.

And the rest of this guy's editorial is flat out a bunch of unsubstantiated bull.

Oh yeah, and this guy isn't a liberal (see post #52). He's just another Bush apologizing propagandist.

[whirlygigspin]

93. Faulty logic

This McGovern premise is faulty. First, it is based on the assumption that 1 Gov.Dean is anti-war...
WRONG --he's anti this war,not anti war--big difference

2.Dean endorces gay marriage--WRONG --he's pro civil unions not marriage.

furthermore,Dean will not accept mischaracterization of his positions and can defend them well.

that being said I think Dean has a weakness in the middle class tax cuts, he should not touch those and I hope he can modify his position on it accordingly.

[Selwynn]

96. Unemployment is not up

This month - 56,000 new jobs, unempolyment dropped.

Locally, my company is hiring again, and I am a hiring manager, and I can tell you that our comany recruiters are finding the pool of resumes starting to shrink.

It's slow, but it's happening. Is Bush responsible? NO. But I think its silly to deny that there has been some - some - hopeful economic news or wish - be upset about it.

[Selwynn]

95. I don't think anti-war is why Dean would be defeated -

At least not as the only reason. I think Dean is running on the fuel of anger and rhetoric - the kind of "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore" sort of approach. I know it feels really sexy now, but I do not believe that approach can will general elections. I believe Dean makes too many dumb mistakes because of his attitude and disposition. I believe that if it were not for Gore's famous debate "sigh," he would be President today, Florida scandal or not. I believe that people care more about personality and charisma as they do policy and platform, and I think that Dean will alientate as many people as he attracts.

But I could be completely and utterly wrong! It could be that I've totally "misunderestimated" just how pissed off and fed up the general public (that's the general public, not DU) is and how attractive an angry, blunt, agressive, no-nonsense outsider candidate will be.

So I'll tell you what I really think: if dean gets the democratic nomination, I don't think the general election will be close. I predict he will either win huge or lose huge - it won't be close.

[farmbo]

97. Kristof couldn't pour p*ss out of a boot...

...if the instructions were on the heel.

This guy supported the Iraq war...then opposed it...and has yet to issue an origional thought in his column.

Of all the "pundits" in the world...his opinion is the most meaningless.


Just by the way, in 1980 he opined that Ronald Reagan would be easily defeated by Jimmy Carter.

[DemBones DemBones]

99. Perhaps Carter would have defeated Reagan if Ronnie hadn't

chosen a VP who'd been head of CIA , Poppy Bush. Bush took a page from Nixon's playbook (or maybe he wrote the page for Nixon?) and, just as Nixon made a deal with the North Vietnamese in 1968 and convinced them not to make peace until after he was elected, Poppy went to Iran and made a deal so that the American hostages there weren't released until after the 1980 election. Carter lost because people saw him as ineffectual in not being able to get the Iranians to release our hostages. (They were, of course, released on Reagan's Inauguration Day, just to rub salt in Jimmy's wounds.)

I have no opinion on Kristoff one way or the other but if he didn't realize what Bush would do to get himself and Reagan elected in 1980, he wasn't alone. Now he knows what the GOP and BFEE is capable of doing to throw elections, having seen it again in 2000. What will they do in 2004?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. Can I Have A Source

where Kristoff said Carter would easily defeat Reagan?


I'm curious....

[Adjoran]

98. This election is winnable

BUt we have to avoid the mistakes of the past. The Dean/Gephardt plans to repeal ALL of the tax cuts won't sell, because they mean tax INCREASES for too many people. You can play word games about "repealing a cut isn't a tax increase," but if a guy will have to pay more next year than this year, you won't convince him.

Kerry, Clark, and Edwards have the proper approach: repeal some of the tax cuts for the rich, but keep the rest of them.

Running on increasing taxes is suicide. The economy is improving, and Bush will claim his cuts did the job. We can make all the esoteric arguments to the contrary we want to, nobody cares. You tell people you are going to raise their taxes, and they don't want to hear what you would do to create jobs or reform health care.

"Pocketbook issues" have traditionally been the meat and potatoes of Democratic victories. Proclaiming a tax increase tells most voters that you want to take food off the table.

It might be good policy, depending upon circumstances, if elected, but it is the kiss of political death as a campaign issue.

[incapsulated]

101. It doesn't matter who wrote it..

He's right.

:cry:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Without Getting Into The Partisan Thicket

I can see the writing on the wall and refuse to make an emotional investment this election season....


I have done it before and have been disappointed...


It hurts too damn much...


I ain't repeating it.....

[DemBones DemBones]

107. It's a good analysis of the problems Dean would face going up

against Bush. Perception is everything. Most voters don't have the time to follow politics closely and they believe that nothing much ever changes, no matter what politicians promise. They also know that politicians will lie to get their vote. So they choose the guy they like the best, the guy they think they can trust, the guy who seems like he can do the job and not bother them too much for the next four years. They don't want to be the power; they already have a job.

As Kristoff says:


"Moreover, Mr. Dean is smart, but he knows it. America's heartland oozes suspicion of Eastern elitists, and Mr. Dean's cockiness would exacerbate that suspicion. President Clinton oozed charm and was fluent in Southern ("even a blind hog can find an acorn," he'd say scornfully), while Mr. Dean needs a Berlitz course in self-deprecating folksiness.

Mr. Dean's recent remarks about Southern men and Confederate flags showed both his awareness of this problem and his ineptitude in addressing it. He also described the episode as a "huge contretemps," and I seriously doubt that anybody who publicly uses the word "contretemps" can ever be elected president.

You get the feeling that if Mr. Dean and Mr. Bush were stuck together in a small Missouri town, Mr. Dean would lecture farmers about Thomas Paine's writings, while Mr. Bush would have the cafe crowd in stitches by doing impersonations of Mr. Dean."

Kristoff ends the article by reminding us of a quote from Adlai Stevenson, who ran against Eisenhower ("I Like Ike") in 1956. I was a child then and remember Stevenson being disparaged as "that egghead."

Here's the story and quote:

"If the Democrats are serious about governing, they should remember the words of one of their nominees, Adlai Stevenson. After one of his typically brilliant campaign speeches, someone shouted out to Stevenson from the crowd that he had the votes of all thinking Americans.

Stevenson shouted back, saying that wasn't enough: "I need a majority!"  

[RogueTrooper]

109. Bush enabling Quisling

talking out of his second mouth.

[Hep]

112. He must be right

if he's a liberal and writes for the times.

So what's the point here? To once again let us know YOU'RE not a Dean fan? To let us know that SOME other people aren't Dean fans? To let us know you're still alive?

I mean, tell us something we don't know! Opinions are like assholes.

[Rose Siding]

117. Kristoff's not what you'd call "can do", is he?

I bet he spent some time in line waiting to be chosen for the team.

Any Dem will need to fight. Any Dem will need our help. Any Dem will have the weaknesses found in the human gene pool.

Kristoff's haute and piety is useless in this fight. Consider your bet hedged, pal.

[Corgigal]

118. Well another journalist

bashing a Dem candiate. YAWNNNN....well you know what they say about opinions?

I will send Dean more cash because of this bash. That always freaks out the republicans. Easy way to stop this stupidity..they bash us, we send Dean more funds. The only thing Repubs fear is the green.
They will attack anyone but green , that is not going into their pockets, freaks them out.

So again...send Dean some cash for this bash. Let this Journalist know that instead of subscription to the Times you will Dean the money instead.

If they bash Clark or anyone else, throw in 10 bucks their way.

[lancemurdoch]

122. How about Mondale?

Mondale actually had less electoral votes than McGovern. Why do people always talk like McGovern's candidacy was a disaster, but when more recently a moderate Democrat like Mondale got even more trounced, that passes without mention? Being that McGovern had more electoral votes than Mondale, and the Mondale election was more recent, I'd say the onus would be to avoid moderate Mondale type candidates instead of McGovern's.

This does not mean I think Dean will be politically successful versus Bush, I just think this notion that McGovern was too far left and was "the worst" election the Democrats ever had is nutty.

[Ksec]

123. anyone see the attack ad the RNC did on Dean? brutal

and makes me doubt if he can win. I mean this ad makes Dean look like a ineffective bed wetter. Bad news IMO.

[Hep]

130. OK

so you've demonstrated for us that RNC ads work on you. Thanks for letting us know how weak minded some people on our side are.

Dean has raised more money than needed to defend himself so far. He'll be fine.

[JNelson6563]

124. Real Liberal Columnist Calls Dean "Winner"

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2475972,00.html

AUSTIN, Texas -- No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win.

It is the bounden duty of bleeding-heart liberals like myself to make our political choices based on purity of heart, nobility of character, depth of compassion, sterling integrity and generosity of spirit. The concept of actually winning a political race does not, traditionally, influence the bleeding heart liberal one iota -- certainly not in the primaries.

Over the years, I have proudly voted for a list of losers only a lily-pure liberal could love. I am rather surprised not to find myself in the camp of the Noble Dennis Kucinich this year. (And believe me, there are supporters of the Noble Dennis who are plenty upset about it, too.) In fact, I initially passed on Dean precisely because he looked like one of my usual losers -- 2 percent in the polls and the full weight of Vermont behind him ... wow, my kind of guy.

Unlike your "liberal" source, Molly Ivins is the genuine article. Nice try though with the meme work. Also, thanks for the plug. I'm sure Dean appreciates it and I know your business on the board prevents you from doing anything constructive for your candidate. I encourage your efforts here, wholeheartedly. :hi:

Julie

[blm]

126. She's also easily deceived - said Bush was harmless after "election"

and that Dems needn't worry about so much.

Easily deceived.

[Hep]

129. Wow

I guess you'd find some kind of fault with Jesus if He came out and endorsed Dean, too.

"He's still suffering from dementia after being on the cross for so long"

[dsc]

132. I demand a citation

you owe the lady who wrote Shrub, before the election which told us just how bad Bush would be. I am sick and tired of you trashing people with no links. Back this up. I want an artilce authored by Ivins which has "Bush is harmless" in it or an article quoting Ivins saying "Bush is harmless". You owe Molly Ivins that.

[Rose Siding]

135. Bush minus "cabal" equals

impotent failure of a fratboy. No one, from Gore down, imagined the peril in which we'd been placed. What's the list of Senators that marched on the Capitol to prevent his innauguration look like?

[JNelson6563]

141. yeah, especially the "BFEE expert"

Didn't the CBC only need the signature of one Senator? How about someone who knows all there is to know about the evils of the BFEE?

Julie

[Rose Siding]

149. The idea of Ivins being naive is a hoot

and I'd pay to hear her response to the suggestion.

[dsc]

156. Molly deserves an answer

do you or don't you have a link to back this up?

[dsc]

184. Nearly 12 hours later and no link

plenty of time to find Kerry press releases. Plenty of time to slam Dean in threads. But no time at all to back up your smear of Molly Ivins. Are you ever going to back up this smear? Are you going to retract this? This isn't about Dean it is about Molly and she, not Dean and not I, deserves an answer.

[MIMStigator]

150. She voted for Nader n/t

n/t

[dsc]

153. She also said

that if she lived in a close state she would have voted for Gore. And she advocated people do precisely that. She also advocated vote trading. People in states llke hers voting for Nader so that Nader voters in places like Florida would vote for Gore.

[Bridget Burke]

178. As a Texan, her vote "didn't count"

Under the "all or nothing" rules of the Electoral College, more Texans were going to vote for Bush. So she just made the gesture. I wonder whether she also voted early as we can do Texas. You go to a designated voting place in person & cast your vote--more convenient than waiting 'til election day.

A friend of mine voted for Nader early but regretted it later since he was continuing to campaign in states that were close. Even symbolically, she was sorry she'd voted for him.

--proud Gore voter here.

[Karmadillo]

157. "Bush is also a pretty nice guy."

Ivins, as enjoyable as she is to read, is, by her own admission, not the best at picking winners. She may also be off a little in her assessment of George W Bush. Anybody here had to work at it to dislike him?

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1055

<edit>

Bush is also a pretty nice guy. I really think you would have to work at it to dislike the man. His best trait is self-deprecating humor.

more...

[dsc]

162. shameless and unbelievable

There are no other words for your post. You are so determined to get Dean you slandered Ivins. Here is the area around the paragraph you quoted.

If the media want to address Bush’s character, then they should address his character, not his sex life. The main thing about Bush is that there’s not much there there.

This is not a person of great depth or complexity or intelligence; he does not have many ideas. (Actually, aside from tort reform, I’ve never spotted one.) I don’t think he knows or cares a great deal about governance. Nevertheless, he is a perfectly adequate governor of Texas, where we so famously have the weak-governor system. Bush was smart enough to do what Bob Bullock told him to for four years, and it worked fine.

Bush is also a pretty nice guy. I really think you would have to work at it to dislike the man. His best trait is self-deprecating humor.

He’s above average; he’s more than mediocre. He has real political skills. If you separate the political part of public life (i.e., running for office) from the governing part (i.e., what you do after you get there), Bush is much better at the politics. This is true of many people in public life – in fact, a genuine interest in governance is relatively rare among politicians.

As proof of his political shrewdness, I submit two pieces of evidence: first, his careful wooing of the Hispanic community in Texas (such a refreshing contrast to that fool Wilson in California); and second, an extremely difficult balancing act keeping the Christian right, which controls the Texas Republican Party, from being perceived as the face of the party. (Most of Bush’s money comes from precisely the kind of rich Republicans who are horrified by the Christian right; anyone who has covered Texas Republican conventions during the past ten years knows how deep that split is.)

The single worst thing I can say about George W. Bush after five years of watching him is that if you think his daddy had trouble with "the vision thing," wait’ll you meet this one. I don’t think he has any idea why he’s running for the presidency, except that he’s competitive and he can. On the other hand, most Republicans don’t want government to do much anyway, so Bush is perfect for them.

Anyone who thinks Bush’s sound-bite slogan "compassionate conservatism" actually means something programmatic should study the latest reports on poverty in Texas. Hint to national media people (courtesy of the Center for Public Policy Priorities):

• Texas has a much higher percentage of poor working families with small children than other states.

• More poor Texas families have a full-time, year-round worker than similar families in other states.

• Texas’ poor families are more likely to rely on earnings for a majority of their income, and less likely to rely on welfare, than similar families in the nation.

• Poor working families in Texas are much less likely to be covered by health insurance. They are less likely to receive unemployment benefits. More than half the poor families are headed by a married couple. One out of six Texans is below the poverty level. The child poverty rate is 24.2 percent, compared to 20.4 percent nationally.

end of quote. Note on copywrite. One of these paragraphs is already quoted in the post I am responding to. I want that paragraph treated as if it came from him and not that article. Also the last stuff should be treated as one paragraph as it is a series of sentences. Thus I quoted 6 paragraphs not the eleven or so it appears I did. Please pm me before removal if you can't let me do this.

Now to the main response. I honestly don't know what to say about your post. I can't think of any honest reason you did what you did here. It is crystal clear from what I quoted and the rest of this column what her opinion of Bush is. Yet you chose to do what you did. It is nothing short of slander. Shame.

[Hep]

163. Can't discredit the message? Discredit the messenger

no matter who.

[Karmadillo]

186. Some messages and some messengers

simply discredit themselves.

Suggested reply: I know you do, but what am I?

[Karmadillo]

185. You really go places when you get revved up, don't you?

Assuming, that is, spinning in circles is going somewhere. It appears you meant for your post to be taken seriously, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong. It's certainly possible you're just playing at being a seriously overwrought, incredibly mistaken poster just for the fun of it. I hope so, but, sadly, I don't think so. Anyway, to respond:

Obviously, we ALL know that Molly Ivins is critical of Bush. She's critical on a weekly basis. EVERYBODY knows it. My point, and my only point, was that Molly Ivins can be wrong. Look at the context of the thread. There was a post saying a real liberal, Ivins, was saying Dean was a winner. I was simply pointing out she's not infallible. I didn't need to quote the entire article because I wasn't trying to make the point Bush is not her preferred candidate and that she's not saying Bush is a winner. We ALL know Bush isn't her candidate. We all know she's not picking him as her choice to win the next election. Even the right wing idiots who routinely write to the editor of my town's newspaper screaming for her communistic column to be dropped, they know it. But you, you, apparently, were shocked and furious to discover the information contained in the part of the article I didn't quote. You, apparently, thought I was trying to lead people to believe Ivins was a Bush fan, a Bush supporter. DU rules limit my response, but I think it's OK to at least say: Wow. Read. Think. Then respond.

Let me summarize, moving my typing fingers as slowly as I can so as not to confuse anyone:

1. Ivins said Bush is a pretty nice guy. A nice guy. The butcher of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the looter of the treasury on behalf of his scumbag cronies, the thief of the 2000 election, the death penalty maniac, and I could go on and on and on, but some readers are, apparently, easily distracted, so I won't. Events before and after her statement show Bush ISN'T a nice guy. Not even close. Therefore, Ivin's statement that he is is WRONG. Flat out so. Incredibly so. That makes her fallible and means her endorsement of Dean as a winner, therefore, is not necessarily much of a guarantee he'll win, especially because

2. As I also noted, she admits she's not much of a picker of winners when it comes to Democrats, even though she thinks she's picked a winner with Dean, but that's what people who aren't very good at picking winners always think. That's why they're not very good at picking winners.

3. Finally, just to make my point, limited as it was given the context of the thread, just to pile on, so to speak, I noted she also said one has to work at it to dislike Bush. Work at it? Seriously? I don't think so. In fact, I, from personal experience, know so. She's WRONG AGAIN. One doesn't have to work at it to dislike Bush. It requires no effort whatsoever. Even easily confused Democrats dislike Bush without working up a sweat. Therefore, it's just more proof she's fallible and her claim Dean is a winner should be taken for what it is.

Now, was my post an incredibly serious one? Was I making an assessment of Molly Ivin's career, summing up her essence as if it were the Day of Judgment, dismissing her, in a burst of righteous condemnation, as a Bush supporter (or, to use Deanspeak, concluding she was Bushlite)? Nope. Was it written in such a way that one might innocently assume that's what I was trying to do? I don't think so. In fact, I say without hesitation no reasonable person could think so because no reasonable person would ever think anyone posting or lurking at DU would ever believe she was a Bush supporter. Not even the Freepiest of the Freepers lurking out in cyberspace would believe it. Only you (and, as soon as I read his post, probably the always to be expected Hep) didn't, apparently, realize I was making a point that one should not get too excited about her embrace of your candidate. She can be wrong. She has been wrong. Not as wrong as you tend to be (this is at least the third post of mine where you've grossly misrepresented what I've written), but wrong, nonetheless.

Your turn. Try to resist the temptation to claim I'm accusing Dean's wife of cheating on her taxes.

[dsc]

187. You pick one point in an entire, lengthy article

and pretend that is all she said. Oh and BTW several people who now Bush, as it met him, say he is personable and likeable. It is easy to dismiss the publics opinion of him given that it is through a warped prism but the people who have met him also seem to think him to be likeable. It should be noted that Ann Richards has said basicly the same thing. Even Kennedy said he was charming.

Regardless of all of that though. You and I both know what you did. It was both shameless and dispicable. You all but made up an opinion and gave it to Ivins.

[Karmadillo]

188. Wow. Again. You just made another blatant misrepresentation.

Contrary to your attempts to lead us astray with yet another misstatement of the facts, Ivins didn't say that Bush was "personable and likeable". She didn't say that he was "charming". Thanks for proving my point, though, because those traits are characteristics of SOCIOPATHS. Look at trait #1 on the list below and then keep going. Remind you of a certain alcoholic, cocaine snorting, AWOL going, illegal war declaring, nation bankrupting "President"?

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/psychopath.html

Characteristics of Psychopath
Sociopath, Anti-social Personality Disorder)

This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these elements to any politician or talk show host you choose.

Glibness/superficial charm.
Grandiose sense of self-worth.
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Pathological lying
Conning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect
Callous/lack of empathy
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral controls
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Early behavior problems
Lack of realistic, long-term plans
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Many short-term marital relationships
Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)

end

So for once, your misrepresentation actually leads us towards the truth. Molly Ivins said Bush was a NICE guy. She was wrong. He's not a nice guy. He's not even close. Nice guys are good guys. They don't get to marry Julia Roberts (well, Lyle Lovett seems like a nice guy, but looked what happened) and they are fated to root for the Red Sox until they die without ever seeing a World Series championship, but they're defintely OK and they are most definitely NOT sociopaths. Sociopaths, as their many emotionally ruined and often dead and dismembered victims could testify, are not nice guys. Never have been. Never will be. One mistakes charm for niceness at one's peril.

So, once again, you are, just as Molly Ivins was in saying Bush is a nice guy and Dean is a winner, wrong. Flat out wrong. Wrong as wrong can be without turning into right. I know you're sitting there thinking the odds are in your favor and if you keep posting you'll eventually post a good one, but your last two efforts suggest that's not going to happen. Nice guys know when to call it a night.

[dsc]

189. It is clear from the context of the article

that she means personable. She clearly isn't talking about his policies which she clearly doesn't like. She isn't claiming to see into his soul. There is little else she could be talking about. I know you would like to take this one thing she said in a lengthy column and pretend that is all she said. Too bad that isn't the case.

[Karmadillo]

190. Wrong, but since

it's late, I'll have to tell you why tomorrow.

[Karmadillo]

195. Well,

in the light of day with work to do, I can't waste much more time responding to your smears.

Read the article: "nice guy" and "you would have to work at it to dislike him". She was wrong on both counts. You say, incorrectly, she meant something other than what she wrote. If she meant he was a sociopath, calling him a "nice guy" was the wrong way to communicate it to her readers because "nice guy" doesn't mean "sociopath", no matter how much you try to pretend it does. Kind of a futile pursuit, isn't it, kind of like trying to pretend Dean's support of the Biden-Lugar blank check somehow makes him strongly antiwar and somehow different from the Democrats who voted for the IWR. No wonder you feel the need to distract people from the facts by smearing them. Good thing your candidate won't win. You might persuade him to appoint you to head up the House Committee on UnDean Activities.

Smear away, Joe, but unless you can come up with something coherent (not your strong point), I won't respond again.

[Woodstock]

161. Yipeee! Molly Ivins for Dean!!!

She rocks.

[AmericanDem]

127. NY Times is right on this issue!

[TomNickell]

134. It's not the same as '72....

In '72 the country and the Democratic party were deeply divided. Over Vietnam, Civil Rights, Hair length for males, Sexual Revolution, Women's Rights.

And the Democratic party still depended on southern conservative Democrats.

I don't think Dean is the best candidate to beat Bush, but he can do it.

Dems (and many decent Repubs) will unite behind the Dem nominee--whoever he is.

Except maybe Holy Joe Lieberman, but that 's not going to happen.

[maxanne]

131. boy oh boy

we sure have managed to attract a whole new bumper crop of antiDeaners. That tells me that somewhere (probably more than one where) someone(s) are sending people here for this very task.

That tells me that Dean is making people nervous. People who don't want either a Democrat or a non DNC Democrat to win.

[Corgigal]

133. Actually I hope they are

because if they aren't then the Repub operative who is reading this and picking out points is going to turn around and charge Bushie and company a pretty penny for it. While the Unground Dems here gave it away for free.

I never bash anyone running.

[janx]

138. There are already freepers gleefully linking to the Dean bashers on

this site. I saw this today.

[maxanne]

152. nice of us

to give 'em a hand. :eyes:

Democrats are far too ofen our own worst enemy.

[Nancy Waterman]

146. Yes, Dean makes me nervous because he will lose to Bush

National Security and the Economy are the two issues. People are still nervous about the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism and want someone who can hit the ground running. I think a Clark and Kerry combination will effectively neutralize this issue thereby weakening Bush. They offer a far better alternative for dealing with these issues than Bush. Dean is easily portaryed as the former Governor of a tiny state with virtually no foreign policy, diplomatic, or war experience. That he says what he thinks is appealing in this day of government propaganda, but it is not comforting when we need experts at diplomacy running the show to get us back on track. He will be crucified on the National Security issue. He keeps going back to what we should have done and harps on that. We need someone who knows what to do now.

As for the economy, I agree that the idea of raising taxes for the Middle Class will also doom Dean in a general election. Clark, Kerry, and Edwards have that issue right. I just think Edwards looks too young to be president even if he isn't chronologically.

[Hep]

147. Another Carnac

Damn I wish I could predict the future!

[Myra]

142. Um, 1-The NY Times is the foremost media whore rag...

2-Even so, the NY Times has a few great columninsts, including
the supreme being Krugman, and Frank Rich. Don't think
this guy's one of them.
3-Molly Ivins seems to think Dean can win; I respect her a hell
of a lot more than this guy.

[Capn Sunshine]

145. Its almost humorous

how increasingly desperate the anti-Dean forces have become. Some by intentional republican design, some by percieved threats to their own little fiefdoms within the democratic party.

Here we have a campaign that was first belittled by the punditry as " nutcase" just like those in opposition to the Iraq invasion --millions and millions of people. THAT didn't work ,and the Dean campaign gained strength.

So, next, (worried now) they start with the "unelectable" nonsense, the "Mc Govern" talk. Meanwhile all we do is just set a freaking record for donations in a quarter.

NOW they are really worried. Up by over 40 points in New Hampshire. Able to fund and produce responses to attack ads. The candidate speaks his mind and doesnt back down, and the money keeps coming.Next month will be another artifice , another "meme" about the candidate. We all know Rove by now.

Obviously the punditry has badly missed the movement aspect the empowerment of the individual who have met in a symbiosis of need for change from the usual party structure since they have ignored us for three years now, as have the many posters here who simply believe every single negative spin out there , since they enjoy losing, and those who are actual agitators stirring the shit pot.

Oh, and I forgot the "Mean " meme. The growing strength outside the usual systemic confines of an insurgent candidacy that you guys don't get, well, I asssume the real dems will come to the party eventually.

The rest of you may continue to post in utter amazement about how hopeless it all is , even as we continue in our battle to change the priorities of this great country all around you.

[MIMStigator]

151. No one said Dean couldn't win nomination. He can't win general.

tax raiser and no foreign policy experience. Do the math.

[dsc]

154. am I ever going to get a response to my post

where I site several columns of Kristof's which were anything but liberal?

[slinkerwink]

164. I think she won't respond out of ignorance or embarassment

[Julien Sorel]

165. So a liberal must be liberal on all issues?

Kristof is certainly more liberal than Howard Dean (he is openly in favor of gay marriage, for example), so what does your attack on Kristof's liberalism say about Dean?

Only in this place would someone like Kristof be attacked for not being a liberal.

[dsc]

166. Did you read my post?

Well did you? Did you? My problem with Mr. Kristof is that among other things in a nearly 4000 word article on the part of Bush's life which included the period of time he was in the guard this liberal journalist didn't print one word, not one word, about Bush's troubling record in the guard. Yet in an article which may be 1000 words over 50 are devoted to Dean's "lamer record" in that regard.

Another problem I had was that Kristof had one standard about Gores bio and another on Bush's. Again, in favor of Bush. Try reading my post before you slander me.

[AmericanDem]

155. i agree

100%. Try selling that to the South and Middle America. Dean CAN NOT beat Bush!

[maxanne]

175. congratulations

on 519 Dean bashing posts.

[Capn Sunshine]

168. the Math: He lost by over 500,000 last time

you think that with Howard Dean bringing in all the new voters he is into the mix he'll lose the general?

Perhaps in a fractal string theory world.

Did I hear an echo?

[Scott Lee]

174. More "conventional wisdom", I presume?

Dr Dean has been dining daily on conventional wisdom :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. Wow....

I was handing out Ted Kennedy leaflets in South Daytona, FL in 1980 and I was greeted as the anti-Christ.....

[Snellius]

170. One of Dean's best effects is to weed out fake liberals like Nick

Kristof pretends he's opposing Dean because he can't win but he really is trying to justify -- even if he hasn't admitted it yet to himself -- is his support of Bush. These are the kind of hypocritical liberals who think that just because they carried an antiwar sign at some point when they were hippies that, no matter how cynical and reactionary they get in latter life, they will always be politically correct.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

173. Without Taking Sides Do You Really Expect Nick Kristoff To Pull The

Lever for * in 04...


The only NYT editorialists who will be doing that are Saffire and David Brooks....

I'll eat my modem if there are others...

[Snellius]

179. Don't tell anyone but Brooks may be a closet liberal

I think one of the reasons he took the Times job was to get out of the stulifying intellectual atmosphere and bogus conservatism around the Weekly Standard. His recent column on the Republican power tactics was not filled with proud applause.

Kristof may not vote for Bu**sh** but like a lot of his other fellow hypocritics at the Times (Dowd, Friedman, Keller, even Gail Collins sometimes) they often do more to support the politics they oppose by spending all their outrage and energy beating up on their friends.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

181. As Someone Who's Been Reading The NYT

since I was a kid in the 70's my favorite editorialists are Maureen Dowd, Bob Hebert, Nick Kristoff, and Paul Krugman*...

David Brooks is a "thoughtful" conservative...He's no Coulter or Horowitz....

I don't agree with Saffire on much (understatement) but he's a good advocate for his point of view... I don't think much of Tom Friedman's writing style.... His faux conversations are embarassing....

[Scott Lee]

176. Many old hippies and 70s liberals got scared and became cons

They are divided into two camps: The more honest ones who just admitted their brains and hearts have shriviled and they became republicans, and the greasy little weasels who pretend to hold on to their earlier liberal fire while at heart supporting the neocons.

I have pity for one, a deeply loathing disgust at the other.

[nomaco-10]

182. Well, that's it, it's all over......

time to jump ship. If Kristoff and Dick Morris say Dean will lose by a landslide, it must be so...... Who should I vote for, Lieberman, Ralph Nader, descisions, descisions....

[CMT]

183. oh here we go again

well latest polls show Dean doing about as well as your guy Clark in most match-ups against Bush such as in Florida where both Clark and Dean lose to Bush by 8-points--the best of any of the candidates vs. Bush in that state. Also a recent Quinnipiac poll out of Connecticut has Dean losing that state by four points and Clark by six points. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York both Dean and Clark are running equally well vs. Bush.

[jumptheshadow]

201. Except for this point

Dean has been on the campaign trail for quite a while now. Clark has been in the race for two and a half months.

Dean should be sweeping this thing. Yet newbie Clark is within the MOE and is gaining momentum.

[caledesi]

191. I knew George McGovern and Dean is no George McGovern! LOL!

[HootieMcBoob]

197. With liberal coumnists like Kristof

who needs conservative columnists.

He's really extremely good at echoing the RNC talking points on a pretty weekly basis in the guise of a "liberal columinst".

I've been pissed off at Kristof for some time now. He can not be considered a liberal columnist. He's nothing more than a conservative columnist disguised as a liberal columnist. He does more damage to Democrats and progressive columnist than any conservative could ever do. Don't be fooled.
:puke:

[leesa]

198. Kristof? Liberal?

This is an arguement used by the DINOs to color Dean a loser. Remember DINOs WANT Bush back in power. They make lots of dough when he's in power for the corporations.
Old propaganda they fed us with McGovern and Carter...oh! too weak, why he doesn't even want to be carpet bombing countries every two weeks!!
Dean is looking incredibly strong. They are afraid of him and the other great Dem cadidates. I think the old trick of denigrating Dem candidates as weak (when a look at their records prove them very strong and usually brave, unlike Repubs)through "Dem" mouthpieces is not going to be swallowed as well this time.

[GOPFighter]

199. This is a Disturbing Thread...

...but nobody ever said politics is pretty.

It took me a long time to pick the candidate I favor for President. I finally settled on Howard Dean. The main reason I chose him is because one year ago he was an asterisk. Hardly anyone (outside of websites like this) even mentioned his name when they discussed Democratic nominees. In one short year Howard Dean has battled his way from being an afterthought to being the front runner. How did he do this? He is scrappy, smart, and politicaly astute. I have no reason to believe he will suddenly lose these traits when he faces Bush.

After reading all the posts in this thread, I am unmoved by the arguments that only Clark has what it takes to beat Bush. If Clark is the nominee I will support him enthusiastically. I am, however, greatly turned off by the extreme Dean bashing from some of the Clark supporters here (and the Molly Ivins bashing). No matter who the Democratic nominee is, they will face a huge uphill battle against Bush and his corporate sponsors. Anyone who thinks Clark doesn't have weakneesses that the Republicans will try to exploit is living in LALAland.

GOPFighter

[arewethereyet]

204. looks like you've given this good thought

I agree on the Clark deal, it amazes me that people can fait to see this.

I happen to think that Dean has also opened himself up to the right but I do have to give him credit for being clever.