Paging Will Pitt - and other Kerry supporters!

[calimary]

I need your counsel and guidance. Another post here, earlier, REALLY got me thinking.

Let me say at the outset, I remain firmly in the Dean camp. Even so, I also remain firmly committed to my vow made here earlier at DU (and elsewhere) that I will ABSOLUTELY support whomever, or whoever, is our nominee. Yes, even Lieberman.

Okay, not that I've made my declaration...

I have a huge question about Kerry. I have doubts about him and while I found him appealing early-on, I have had grave difficulties with his continued cave-ins to the bushies on more matters than I'll bore you with, here. It's all been said and written and griped about before.

My Question Is This:

Since Kerry has at his side, and firmly in his camp, the likes of former intelligence insider Rand Beers AND Joseph Wilson (Mr. Valerie Plame of the Flame Plame Affair), surely surely surely he MUST know stuff about what the bushies have been up to and how they've twisted so much of this and lied and misrepresented and ruined Plame's career and endangered her life and did the same to all of her spy network connections built painstakingly and at great danger to herself over a factor of maybe two decades. Surely surely surely Kerry has to have some absolutely sumptuous ammo to use on this particular battle front. And we have heard precisely NOTHING from him about it. Nothing at all. If he has these major resources at his disposal, why is he not making use of them? Why do we not hear more? Why, especially when he's perceived more and more to be sinking fast, and basically at this point he has NOTHING to lose and everything to gain from this (as do we Americans), WHY is he sitting on his hands about this?

Is he REALLY not a fighter? If I were in his position, I'd go balls-out at this point, realizing I have little left to lose, and knowing I have a patriotic duty not only to rectify the impression people have that I was an appeaser and an enabler too timid of those who'd question my patriotism if I disagreed, but to do something that's truly good for this country in addressing a very likely TREASONOUS act (outing Valerie Plame, in clear violation of law).

WHY is he not taking this ball and running like hell with it?

PLEASE, somebody, one of you Kerry supporters. Explain this to me. You have faith in this man. You think he's our best hope. Does it distress you, as it does me, that he's got this golden opportunity that he appears to be sleeping on, and allowing to slip through his fingers? He has the chance to go for the jugular and really score some decisive hits, and draw some blood, and he chooses not to. WHY? Do you not feel at least confused and a bit put off by this? Discouraged? If I were a Kerry supporter, and I wanted justice on this issue (and as a Deanie, I DEFINITELY DO! Hell, as an AMERICAN, I DEFINITELY DO!!), this would cut me to the heart.

I need your wisdom and perspective on this. At least it would help me understand Kerry - and a lot of things - better. At the moment, it remains a truly grave issue for me, and were I waffling between Kerry and somebody else, this would be enough to push me over into the other candidate's column. The earlier thread about this REALLY got me thinking, and made me realize that this is a critical issue that needs to be confronted. And if nothing else, to light a fire under Kerry's butt so he can salvage his campaign - for those of you so deeply and dearly and movingly committed to him. YOU guys would be the ones who'd know, and who could speak with most credibility about this.

Please help me out here.

on edit - manners!

Forgot to say Thank You!

[frustrated_lefty]

1. This is a very good question

and could shake a lot of people's faith. I avidly await an informative reply....

[Eloriel]

3. Nah, they've pretty much innoculated themselves about such

failings (and others). But I'd like to see them prove me wrong. (And by them I mean the hardcore Kerryites who we all know and love, not every Kerry supporter.)

[LuminousX]

2. Speculation...

Why attack Bush when the enemy of the moment is Dean?

[rucky]

4. BLM:

Is this a media shut-out? If so, can we find anything in the alternative press?

[SahaleArm]

5. "Paging Will Pitt - and other Kerry supporters!" - So far...

3 Deanites and counting:).

[calimary]

10. Uh - I noticed that, but then again, my posts don't usually attract hoards

And I am NOT trying to start a flame war, or just gratuitously jump all over Kerry. That is NOT what this is about. I really, genuinely want to know. This question is eating at me, more and more through the day. And for Kerry's sake and those who truly believe in him, I think it needs to be answered. Or at least faced.

He's got World-Class Ammo here. Why on earth doesn't he use it? THIS is NO time to be a gentleman.

[frustrated_lefty]

11. I meant what I said

It's a good question, and I am very interested in a reply to it. Not for a flamewar, it is a REALLY good question. I LIKE Kerry, please don't think I'm looking for a way to slam on him.

[littlejoe]

77. Will should really take up writing fiction.

It's what he's good at.

[stevedeshazer]

84. Cheap shot

What are YOU good at?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[blm]

92. Using Dean's own words will label you a liar? Interesting.

.

[littlejoe]

94. I find it interesting that you are willing to

believe a partial transcript, taken out of context, over a fully published transcript that proves Pitt's capability to twist words for his own agenda, while pretending to be partial. But then again, I have found time and again that people believe what they want to believe, no matter what.

[blm]

96. No. Dean has made more statements than that one appearance.

That was the whole point of Will's post. Dean has made conflicting statements over the past year on his Iraq position selling himself as antiwar when his position was closer to Kerry's and Gephardt's than he revealed to his audiences even as he attacked Kerry and the others for theirs.

To use ONE appearance to explain Dean's definitive position on Iraq isn't going to cut it. His record doesn't match his rhetoric on Iraq.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/rauch2003-12-09.htm
Howard Dean Is No George McGovern. He Might Be Bill Clinton.
Even on Iraq, Dean has planted himself subtly but distinctly to the right of his supporters
by Jonathan Rauch

<edit>
Don't bet on it. I spent several days recently poring over Dean's speeches and other public comments. The conclusion was not as expected. The Dean campaign may be set to the music of firebrand liberalism, but its words belie the notion that Dean has painted himself into a far-left corner. Even on Iraq—his signature issue—Dean has planted himself subtly but distinctly to the right of his supporters.

Dean's faithful believe the war was wrong, wrong, wrong. Dean seems to agree. "Had I been a member of the Senate," he said in a speech in February, "I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the president to use unilateral force against Iraq—unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency." In late November, he ran an ad saying, "I opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

High-octane stuff; but Dean has been more cautious on Iraq than his enthusiasts realize. For example, in that same February speech, he went on to say, "I do not believe the president should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict ... without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations." That sentence contains some artful phrasing.

In reality, Dean favored an alternative war resolution (sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.) that differed little from the one that passed. True, Biden-Lugar called on Bush to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the war, but it did not require Bush to obtain such a resolution, if the Security Council balked. In other words, Dean favored a congressional resolution authorizing exactly the course that Bush took.
more...

[littlejoe]

98. Dean has been consistent on this subject. Why do you

continue to beat a dog that won't hunt?

[blm]

106. Then find me a speech Dean made to audiences

where he honestly discussed the minor differences in his support on Biden-Lugar and Kerry's support for IWR.

If THAT has been discussed many times, then I must have missed it, because the tone of Dean's position has always been 'staunch' antiwar while he painted Kerry and others as prowar. Dean made it sound black and white didn't he?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. No.

But using only part of them will.

[zulchzulu]

81. Answer is below about Kerry calling for Special Counsel on CIA-Aidegate

..or whatever it's called...

[oasis]

6. Kerry would have to stand on a ledge of the Chrysler Bldg. in his BVD's in

order to get press coverage.

[HFishbine]

8. Right

Such a trivial matter would be completely overlooked. Best he wait until the has the nomination, only then would people listen.

[rucky]

9. Truthout is media

This is an earnest question, Kerryites. Absolutely no flames intended.

[dansolo]

52. That is not a good excuse

Dennis Kucinich, even with no coverage whatsoever, probably was the difference in getting Diebold to back off from their intimidation tactics by putting links to their memos on his web site and basically daring them to go after him. I see no reason why Kerry couldn't do the same thing towards Bush and his gang.

[oasis]

56. Kerry need not apologize for "responsible" campaign strategy. See post #50

edit: Responsible for thoughtful

[Alenne]

7. I applaud any Kerry supporter who answers this question

I know if I were a supporter of his I wouldn't.

[calimary]

12. See, I don't get that, either. Why not?

And it's too late to say you'll just wait til you're nominated. This needs to be dealt with NOW! If you wait til you're nominated, the parade will have passed you by LONG before this. If he sits on this til he's nominated, he'll be sitting forever. Because, in my opinion, sitting on this will help ensure that he DOESN'T get nominated. Bringing this out, making it an issue, and KEEPING it out there by constantly banging the drum and making noise about it and forcing coverage and forcing others to react to it, thereby forcing MORE coverage, is possibly the ONLY way he's going to pull himself back up into serious contention. He is WASTING TIME, AND A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY!!!!!!

And I'd venture to guess that other candidates who don't pull so many punches would be out hollering about this, if they had the bench strength he has on this issue. I'd bet Dean would use it. Or Clark. Certainly somebody like Sharpton, who doesn't seem to be afraid to mince words about much of anything. SOMEBODY would be making noise about this. Kerry's perfectly positioned to do it. WHY DOESN'T HE?

edit for punctuation.

[Alenne]

16. You don't care if he gets nominated

Bringing this information out now could hurt Bush but that doesn't mean Kerry will get the nomination. At this point it is not Kerry's job to make sure Dean is elected.

[dansolo]

55. But it may influence people to vote for Kerry

People are attracted to Dean because he is a fighter, and they are convinced that Dean will try and do whatever it takes to get through the GOP spin and expose them for what they really are. Kerry would only be helping his own cause by sticking it to Bush.

[ozone_man]

80. He would win alot of points with me,

and I'm sure countless Democrats. Doesn't guarantee anything, but remember Dean hanging out in the breeze during the Iraq war, a voice in the wilderness?

[calimary]

107. What I DO care about is that we nominate someone who can fight back.

The reason I gravitated toward the Dean camp is because I saw/heard/watched/read about a fighter who doesn't seem to want to cave when the bully comes around. And that's what we need.

If Kerry stepped up, NOW, and gave it his best shot with Wilson and Beers, I'm guessing he'd woo a lot of people back from the "waffle iron" into his camp. It would help GREATLY to blunt the criticism that many of us have - about those who've given in on so much to the bushies without a real fight.

ESPECIALLY NOW! Mark my words, bush will get a nice bump from the Saddam affair. That now takes away one of those great T-shirt ideas that Al Sharpton mentioned in a conversation with Chris Matthews. Okay, he only specified one: the "WHERE'S OSAMA" T-shirt he planned to wear when he sparred with bush in an upcoming presidential debate, but I figured, hey, we've got a BUNCH of "WHERE'S (fill in the blank) to use.

Anyway, finding Saddam is a blow for us out there in Perception-Land. We absolutely have to take bush down. Down in the polls, down in the public's perception and estimation, down everywhere. He MUST be thoroughly softened up in the months leading up to the general election, so that he can be finished off. Kerry's bringing this out, LOUD AND LONG AND OFTEN, and SOONER THAN LATER, will only contribute to that. It will put bush back on the defensive, forcing him to explain, defend, react - which is where we want him! It would pick open up the scab over that nasty sore once again, just when the Rovians assumed it was all healed over and forgotten. It would force more TV/radio/print time to be spent on this yet again, and bring out more reports and more talking heads and more you-name-its, monopolizing more airtime as the clock ticks down toward the election. Believe me, that is NOT what the bushies want or what they're counting on. So, then, it's EXACTLY WHAT WE DO WANT, AND SHOULD BE SCREAMING LIKE CRAZY FOR, AND ABOUT!!!! Sorry to yell.

We really need this now! Or maybe in a few days after the initial luster of the Saddam business has worn off a little. Time to grab the steering wheel and change directions on the coverage, spin, reactions and repercussions, and on the watercooler talk that results from all of that.

It would only help somebody like Kerry, and make him look more like the kind of guy we need to stand up to the bully. And, frankly (yes, I say this as a Dean supporter), if Kerry REALLY is serious about knocking the wind out of Howard Dean's sails, and retaking for himself the mantle of frontrunner, this would be the way to do it. It would make lots of us disenchanted Dems sit up and take notice, and be impressesed. The reason we ARE disenchanted to begin with is because we haven't seen nearly enough of this! I'd practically guarantee Kerry would get converts.

At any rate, ANYTHING that can be done to poke more holes in bush, would only help ANYBODY who winds up being the frontrunner, because a weaker, more PERCEIVED-AS damaged bush is better for our guys and WHOEVER is our standard-bearer. What's bad for bush is good for us.

Somebody PLEASE tell Kerry to get off his ass about this!!! If for no other reason, it's the ultimate public service - slaying a dragon for America. Right now that dragon has us all held hostage down in a big, dark, damp cave, and too many other Americans caught in a sleeping spell.

[zulchzulu]

74. Answer is below...

Check it out.

[blm]

13. Wilson wrote that column outing the intel in July

and he didn't do it without first aligning with Kerry. That column didn't happen in a vacuum. It was published not too long after Kerry called for intel investigations.

When Rand Beers appeared on Nightline and proceeded to go after the Bush administration and the antiterror failings, he did so aligned with the Kerry camp.

Cleland has gone after Bush many times on 9-11 (and his AWOL status.) He does so as part of the Kerry team.

Kerry has gone after Bush on all these issues, but there is no focus from the American people that he can take advantage of at this time. He has the bombshell ammo, but you can't drop it unless the target itself can be hit squarely.

It's Kerry's team who has put the largest dents in Bush's credibility ratings. Dean just gets to take advantage of it thanks to his many supporters feeling that HE is the one who should be rewarded.

Right now if Kerry played his general election cards against Bush what would Dean and his supporters do? Maybe say Kerry's just grandstanding to take attention away from Dean and can't be trusted?

[calimary]

14. Granted those things were done early. And when the iron was hot.

Why was that iron allowed to go cold?

And what if somebody else piles on about it, too? Isn't it an issue worth keeping high up in the headlines and in people's consciousnesses, and repeating again and again and again?

I mean, this is ALL OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, for all of us as Americans, not just Dems or republi-CONS or greens or anybodies. Is there some quota to how many mentions one should make of this story and then you have to let it rest awhile? The right wing has made hay upon hay, and hijacked our national agenda by repeating and repeating and repeating, until enough of it has soaked in that people begin to believe it and give it credibility, no matter what kind of hogwash it is.

I'm glad you weighed in, BLM. But if Kerry played his general election cards now, he'd at least be giving them a test drive. If he holds back, he may not be able to get into the driver's seat at all. I think he's waiting too long, and unwisely holding back. This may be his last shot. And who cares who else picks it up and tries to run with it? If that were to happen, Kerry should stay on top of it and relentlessly remind people that he's the one who first brought it up and here's why, and here are his guys who can back him up and here's why, and here are more guys who can back THEM up and here's why. Like him or not, Howard Dean is making an awful lot of inroads by saying (and now, having OTHER PEOPLE say) how he was FIRST - and back then, ONLY, to denounce the war when everybody else was behind it for whatever reason. Whether or not you believe this (and I believe I've ready that you, BLM, and others, do not), it's a fact.

Repetition can be your friend. It should be Kerry's friend. It certailny has become bosom buddies with Dean. And that's why he's the guy to beat now. Kerry's got a helluva card to play, and he isn't playing it. And I contend that he's pissing away perhaps his last chance to stay in the game to the end, when it counts, and it's really for keeps. He REALLY SHOULD NOT BE HOLDING OFF ON ANY OF THIS!

[blm]

30. Well. if he plays it will ALL of you BACK HIM UP 100%???

Because there is NO WAY that anyone can risk this stuff getting buried in primary battles when the horserace IS the only story that gets play.

Graham got marginalized pretty quickly after he even touched on 9-11, because the media buried it as part of primary politics playing to the base. However, if Graham had talked openly about it in a general election atmosphere he would have reached many millions more people and his charges would have HAD to be given greater weight.

[frustrated_lefty]

36. I would back him

As a Deanie, if he hounded this to the bone, I might well switch to Kerry.

[rucky]

25. Thank You!

As an armchair strategist & self-appointed expert in talking outta my ass, I don't really know when that bombshell opportunity would arise - BUT - it's reassuring to know that it is indeed the focus of Kerry's strategy. If attacking Dean is what it takes to shake up the BFEE in time for the general election, then so be it.

Another big but: What if Kerry doesn't get the nomination? Will he pack up and take Rand & Joe with him? Naw, there's nothing in Kerry's record to indicate he'd be that selfish...nevermind.

Okay. I'm satisified that Kerry knows what he's doing, and I'm willing to take a good hard look at his candidacy.

On a side note: I think the crux of the Kerryite/Deanie controversy is "who do you trust?" And as a fence straddler (currently leaning Dean), I think I'm in a good position to answer that question: You can trust both of them. Now I can look at the issues.

Another note, there's alot of Dean supporters like myself who simply do not trust the beltway insiders. You saw the pink-tutu dem rage way before the primary started to heat up. Kerry cannot take public trust for granted, just because of his stature & record. He needs to sell himself. It may be obvious to you, but there are some voter prejudices that Dean is capatilizing on & Kerry must get past.

Attacking Dean is just one part of that formula.

[blm]

32. Glad you brought that up about trust.

The intel community went to Kerry because they KNOW his longtime record, and they KNOW the battles he took on in BCCI and IranContra and they KNOW that those battles link to what happened on 9-11 and what's going on now in Iraq. They KNOW that THEY can trust him with what they know.

Trust isn't transferrable and the good guys in the intel community aren't partisan. You can't tell them who to trust. THEY decided to trust Kerry. He spent 20 years EARNING that trust.

[JNelson6563]

53. As a Dean supporter I disagree

Right now if Kerry played his general election cards against Bush what would Dean and his supporters do? Maybe say Kerry's just grandstanding to take attention away from Dean and can't be trusted?

If Kerry had chosen to hammer on the BFEE during the IWR debacle I'd have been cheering him. If he's got the goods on the BFEE then he should make that clear. Controversy would get him lots of press as the firing/resignation business proved. To come out with bold statements exposing this "popular" pResident--like with info he has the others don't--I'd sure as heck listen. I'd have been backing him all along if he'd have made different choices when it really mattered.

I would consider such actions on his part, playing his GE cards against Bush, as a smart move that could really give his campaign a boost. As of now we have claims he's the master of BFEE facts and is the only one who can take down the BFEE. Hard to swallow after he stepped down when it came to IWR. I've not seen any evidence from his campaign to make me feel assured to believe these claims.

Julie

[blm]

57. He stepped UP on IWR. Did YOU negotiate for weapons inspections?

Did YOU negotiate to have evidence presented to the UN and Congress?

Did YOU stop extension of use of force to Iran and Syria?

Those negotiations cost Kerry his support. A man of honor sticks to his part of the deal when the other party comes your way on most of what you demand.

And, if Bush being given the power to determine use of force, even if unilateral, is so troubling to you, then why is it OK that Dean supported those same provisions?

[Scott Lee]

113. Did Kerry vote for war? Why, yes...yes he did!

Er, at least last weeks Kerry did. No telling what position he'll take on it this week.

Hmmm, was it that he was misled, or is that he is now unmisled having thought before he'd be led but was mis-misled into thinking he would be led all along?

[CalProf]

15. Kerry has been talking about it

and I've seen him, personally, talk about it at length, in front of an audience of three hundred odd people and the press. The next day I eagerly grabbed my newspaper from the front step, paged through it and found... exactly nothing. Zilch. New York Times: same thing. Lexus Nexus search at work: nothing.

I'm confident if Dean asked a series of questions about this issue from one side of New Hampshire to the other, the press coverage would focus on... how much money did he raise on the Internet that day or whether he was too angry or some such nonsense. Edwards could stand on the floor of the Senate and demand an investigation and it would get perhaps a condemnation from Rush, but that would be about it.

I'm a Kerry supporter. I work on the campaign as a volunteer. I've seen him speak in person five times. I've talked with him for ten minutes one on one. I am committed to him.

But: if Dean's the nominee he gets my time, my money, and my mouth, jabbering at all my friends and family that he has to win the White House for the future of our country.

Whomever we nominate, however, is going to have to continue to use alternate ways of getting the message out, because the mainstream press is going to be even worse this time than they were in 2000. I think we can do it, but it's going to take all the creativity of Joe Trippi AND Mary Beth Cahill AND the people working on all the other campaigns, together. We have some advantages: there are more of us than there are of them, and if we harass the press loudly enough and often enough they're chicken enough to start talking about reality. But it's going to be hard.

In my opinion, anyway...

[calimary]

17. Welcome to DU, CalProf! Thanks for this.

It's just my opinion, y'know. But I FIRMLY believe, as the daughter of a sales guy, that you tell 'em, you tell 'em again, and then you tell 'em why you told 'em. Then you tell 'em again. Otherwise we'd have commercials for aspirin and laundry soap and new movies that aired - ONCE.

Repetition is the key. Look what it did for Clinton's cock. Why isn't he hammering this again and again and again? And, frankly, if Dean picked it up, yes there'd be talk about how much more money he got - because more people would hear him picking this up and send him more! And eventually it'd start making its own noise - if only people heard about this more!

And they don't. So it doesn't.

[WilliamPitt]

18. That is the exact question I put to him in NYC

To wit: "In my opinion, the most important thing to happen in this campaign was the defection of Rand Beers to your camp. When are you going to use him?" Kerry responded that he rolled Beers out at his CFR speech on 12/3, and will be bringing him out more often. I collared a campaign aide and laid out a plan to make better use of him and Wilson, so we'll see where that goes.

In my opinion this is a tactical nuke that the Kerry campaign has inexplicably failed to use. Why? Not sure, but it might have something to do why the whole campaign infrastructure got gutted a little while back. The stupids have been removed, and hopefully wiser heads will put these assets to use, like, yesterday. It's not like time is of the essence or anything. :(

[calimary]

21. I agree - it is a tactical nuke in Kerry's arsenal.

AND HE NEEDS TO USE IT NOW!!!

He won't get a chance later.

It's truly beyond my understanding for someone who purportedly wants to win. Why is he not doing everything he can, with everything he's got, and RIGHT NOW? He is running out of time.

Thanks for responding, Will. You and others have actually had his ear. Mind yelling into it again for me? And if not for me, then for other waffling people who might actually be won over by this! Time is marching on. If he waits til he thinks it's the last hand, he soon will be in a place where the last hand already passed him by, awhile ago.

[sandnsea]

26. He can use it for the whole party

If he can avoid using it now, it would be better to save any anti-Bush ammo until next year.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Rumor has it

I will be interviewing him on Wednesday, but nothing is firmed up. If so, I will get him on the record about what Beers knows etc. and get it the righteous fuck out into the world.

[mzmolly]

40. This is the problem with Kerry, he's too worried about public

perception, and not worried enough about doing what he knows is right. :shrug: That's not leadership material.

[sandnsea]

47. Kerry is a strong international voice

If you went and read a variety of articles going back several years, Kerry is often the Bush opposition quoted. His voice carries further than Dean's at this point. He really does have to be careful what he says because he really can cause difficulties in international relations. And we do have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dean has the luxury of ripping everything apart on his road to the nomination, Kerry just doesn't. If Dean becomes the nominee, he won't have the same luxury of popping off at the mouth either.

[mzmolly]

49. Too bad he 'softened' his voice when we need it the most.

:) I'm all for 'popping off at the mouth' when it matters, and I imagine Dean will continue to pop accordingly.

[sandnsea]

51. Like Israel/Palestine???

Noticeably silent on it. Popped off one too many times and was told to shut up. And he did.

[mzmolly]

54. No like Iraq...

We needed a few "poppers"...I don't respect 'yes' men.

[sandnsea]

58. He was there

All along. I heard him. I understood. I was glad we were getting inspectors back in Iraq. I think he did the exact right thing and I think the recent Newsweek polls on Iraq agree with me.

[blm]

60. Let's see how Dean was backing up Kerry's criticism of Bush in July, 2002

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.


And when Russert noted that Dean proposed curtailing of civil rights shortly after Sept.11, listen to how Mr. Straight talk answers by side-stepping and shuffling. But, again, he "tends to support the president." and on TIPS, no less.


MR. RUSSERT: You heard Mr. Armey’s objection to the president’s TIPS Program, where cable
       installers, utility workers would observe what’s going on and report anything suspicious to the police.
       Do you support the president?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I tend to support the president, although I have some reservations about this one as well.
       All I’ve seen is what’s been on television, and I have something in me that is bothered by the notion that
       Americans are going to be spying on each other. So if the president is simply asking people to be alert,
       I think that’s fine. If the president really is encouraging Americans to spy on each other, I have a
       problem with that.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: You did say after the 11th that the United States may be prepared to have to sacrifice
       some personal liberties and civil liberties in order to fight the war on terrorism.
       
       GOV. DEAN: We already are. I think when I got on the airplane to come down here, it took me about
       25 minutes longer than it would have a year ago. And those are the kinds of liberties that we are going
       to be sacrificing and there may be some other ones.

[molly]

62. Why can't Dean supporters admit this line?

"GOV. DEAN: I tend to support the president"
he used it enough

[mzmolly]

69. Ha ha ha ha ha....

Taking quotes out of context means nada.

On Tuesday, Kerry was tricky again. "Re-launching" his candidacy by announcing it at Patriot's Point, South Carolina, he declared: "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations." Kerry's vote, which seemed politically prudent at the time, was to authorize -- not to threaten -- force in Iraq.


...


On "Meet the Press," Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate last October 9 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "is capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."

"That is exactly the point I'm making," Kerry replied to Russert. "We were given this information by our intelligence community." But as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/05/column.novak.opinion.kerry/

[blm]

75. That's not the same clip you know, don't you?

It was Dean's July, 2002 appearance on MTP where they played a clip of Kerry slamming Bush on the disaster at Tora Bora which allowed most of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to escape.

And, of course. when Bob Novak goes after Kerry you can be assured that he is spinning for BushInc. Especially since Joe Wilson is on Kerry's team, Novak absolutely did not want Kerry to win the primary. So, why are you spreading Novak's spin that was meant to bring Kerry down?

[sandnsea]

63. Kerry called it "amateur hour"

How quickly some forget, I guess.

Kerry:

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.

http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm

GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

Then Kerry and the Democrats get Bush to go to the UN and make progress in getting a handle on this war, and they're the bad guys. What does Dean do in February, hamper their efforts by attacking them instead of attacking Bush.

[mzmolly]

67. Too bad Kerry gave the amateurs the blank check they so desired.

Ah well, live and learn.

[blm]

82. Dean conceded that he too supported Bush determining use of force

even if unilateral. Didn't he?

[sandnsea]

100. Kerry pressured them to the UN

When Dean was saying to trust the President and not criticize him.

[mzmolly]

66. Sorry, Kerry's statements appear to be missing from this small portion

of Deans interview on MTP.

[blm]

68. Russert had played a film clip of Kerry's criticism

of Bush on Tora Bora.

You can google and find plenty of instances of it. Tora Bora and Kerry

[mzmolly]

70. Here's one take on Kerrys statements...

On "Meet the Press," Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate last October 9 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "is capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."

"That is exactly the point I'm making," Kerry replied to Russert. "We were given this information by our intelligence community." But as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/05/column.novak.opinion.kerry/

[blm]

72. Of course Novak would say that. So?

What does that have to do with Dean being so suck up to Bush when other Dems were fighting him? If more Dems had worked with Kerry back then when Tora Bora was a disaster, the American people might have had greater doubts about Bush's judgement and plans on Iraq. Instead, remarks like Dean's and other Dems emboldened Bush.

[sandnsea]

99. Cheney was pressuring the CIA

Nobody could have known what Cheney was doing behind the scenes. The Senate couldn't know the intelligence they were getting was being manipulated by Cheney and the rest of them.

[sistersofmercy]

19. I think Kerry announced a few weeks ago he had so info against

bush co that would be very damaging but wanted to take the right opportunity to reveal it. For all the critics, if you don't think the Gore endorsement was in the works for a while and was used when it would be most effective, you really should reconsider. It's the nature of politics.

[calimary]

23. So okay then, WHAT THE HELL is the "right opportunity?"

When is that EVER gonna come? That's bull and somebody needs to tell him that, while there still MAY be time. He has to decide that maybe, like, uh, NOW - would be the right opportunity. He waits? He loses. There just won't BE a "right opportunity."

[sistersofmercy]

28. He'll take it when it comes along same as any of the candidates

would do. I like to think of politics like chess, the right move at the right time, gets a checkmate.

[creativelcro]

59. He's bluffing, he's got nothing...

[blm]

61. Isn't that what Ollie North said?

Didn't Dick Cheney accuse Kerry of being a "conspiracy theory nut" on IranContra?

[Octafish]

20. Not Kerry's fault the media refuse to cover his positions.

As a young man, Kerry was an acquaintance of President Kennedy. So, Kerry's been after the BFEE his entire adult life. He thought he was doing his duty going to Vietnam. After proving his leadership under fire, Kerry came home and helped end what he discovered to be an illegal war. In the process, he earned a spot on Nixon's enemies list. As a Massachusetts state prosecutor, Kerry busted the Mafia's number 2 in New England. As a freshman Senator he busted BCCI. Later he busted Ollie North for running drugs with the Contras. The media have not done a good job of telling that part of John Kerry's story.

Here's a bit on the subject you brought up, from Ambassador Joe Wilson ("Mr. Valerie Plame"):

Former ambassador Wilson endorses Kerry in presidential race

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president on Thursday.

SNIP...

Speaking from Washington, Wilson said Kerry's actions, coming when he was a 23-year-old Vietnam War veteran, makes him stand out in the Democratic presidential field.

"John Kerry did the same thing after he came out of Vietnam, I did it at the age of 53 ... with a long and distinguished career behind me," Wilson said. "John Kerry did it at the very beginning of his career.

"I know how these sorts of things test one's mettle," he said. "To have stood up and said what he did, at the time that he did, in my judgment, sets him apart from the other candidates."

CONTINUED...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-10-23-kerry-endorsement_x.htm

[quaker bill]

22. Sorry, but it is his fault

The nature of successful politics is getting your story out. Blaming the media is pointless.

A successful politician gets this job done.

[Octafish]

44. Suuuure. Like Gore did in Florida, right?

The media lied during Selection 2000, didn't they?

After W was selected, a consortium of media biggies got together to count for themselves. They found that in almost every way, Gore won Florida. What did they report? The headlines and lead paragraphs said "Bush Won Media Recount." TV and radio were worse: "Bush won anyway."

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

How come "Bush Won!" was the story line? Could it be the media are large corporations beholden to some interest other than the truth?

Here's a story you may not know. Bush outspent Gore in the recount by a factor of about 4:1. Was it in the mainstream press? Not much, if at all.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html

Regarding Liberal Democrats (like Sen. Kerry) and the media, here's what Robert Parry has to say:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/111302a.html

Happy reading. Remember: "Readers are Leaders!"

[frustrated_lefty]

71. The point stands

a successful politician gets the job done.

[Octafish]

87. Kerry's a proven leader. Dean's a draft dodger. Which to cover?

The Corporate McPravda want the easiest candidate for Bush to face. Thus, the "mainstream" press will hoist Dean upon us. He's been the poster boy since Trippi answered the want ad.

Now picture this: A TV ad featuring a photo of Dean smiling on the slopes of Vale. The voice over talks about the scene at the draft board...doctor's note, X-rays, then the medical miracle that allows him to ski — bad back and all. Next comes a picture of Smirko the jet pilot and Mr and Mrs Average American will go with the picture of the guy says he's been protecting them from Osama. While most Americans don't like liars, they like draft dodgers even less.

[zulchzulu]

85. Kerry's call for Special Counsel was in a bad news cycle, so no big news

I think at the time that Kerry was calling for Special Counsel into investigating the CIA agent outing, there was a few stories and massive speculative media coverage about who was going to win the World Series and who would fade in the Playoffs as well as who Joe Millionaire might choose. Also add the big hullabaloo about whether Suzie was going to be kicked off the island in the recent Survivor show.

But it was September 28:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0706.html

I think Dean had a bunch of media press because he bought some shoes from an Iowa farmer or something at the time. Should he choose black or brown? People were so confused. What did people think? What polls could Zogby provide on this very important phenomenon...

[Scott Lee]

114. Nothing is ever Martyr John's fault. Thats the pattern.

It's he was "misled" or had trust abused by the White House, or it was mean old Dean's fault, or that ingrown hair, or.....fill in your favorite pin-the-fault-on-the-culprit-of-the-day excuse.

When it gets down to brass tacks, Kerry has run a losing campaign from day one. He is an ordinary politician in extraordinary times.

[blm]

116. Maybe Kerry shouldn't have gone after BCCI and IranContra, then

the BFEE wouldn't have their corporate whores mugging him in the press for so long.


Maybe Kerry shouldn't have proffered a Senate resolution AGAINST the FCC changes last June, then the corporate mediawhores wouldn't have him and all his issues on ignore.

OTHOH, the press DID give Dean a press plane last June. interesting timing.

[sandnsea]

24. Next year would be better

I think Kerry is a tactician. The last thing you want to do is shoot all your guns and run out of ammo. Whatever he has against Bush, and I think it's CONSIDERABLE, would be much better used next year.

Now, let's see what kind of Democrat that makes him. One that puts the election as a whole ahead of his own personal campaign. He'll hold back on Bush ammo as much as he can because it will be more useful next year when we really need it.

[calimary]

27. There won't BE a next year for him if he keeps waiting like this.

He HAS to jump on this soon. He will NOT run out of ammo if he shoots all these particular guns. He will just be getting warmed up.

[sandnsea]

33. There will be for US

The party as a whole. Winning the election, regardless of who the candidate is. He can use whatever knowledge he has for that purpose as well.

[Kat 333]

86. Good article regarding that ...

John Kerry - Is He Running Out of Time ?

He's a good guy

Talks about his effort to "jump start" campaign etc.


http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_9522/

[rucky]

31. Best. Kerry-Dean Thread. Ever.

Thanks Calamary for articulating my concerns on the previous thread!

:yourock:

[calimary]

110. Hey, you're welcome, rucky! I'm amazed it's still up.

And with so many responses - definitely the best thread I ever started.

But back to business. I'm just totally bothered by this. Especially now, today, Monday the 15th, when - thanks to the Saddam capture - we've ALL suffered a setback. At least cosmetically - once again, IN THE PERCEPTION DEPARTMENT. Bank on the spin! How forceful and effective a leader bush is turning out to be and blah-blah-blah. Bank on it. The Saddam thing is a problem. We have MORE lost ground to make up. My first reaction upon hearing it was that - at least it didn't happen as NEXT year's "October Surprise." I mean, a lot can still happen between now and then and there are, as yet, no fat ladies even close to warming up in the wings. But we have to get serious!

Conventional wisdom indicates (and somewhere here on the net I've seen the stats) that an incumbent sufficiently roughed-up, presumably by a primary challenger - like Ted Kennedy with Carter, and Ronnie Raygun with Gerald Ford, for example - is more likely to lose the general. Bush doesn't have this factor going against him. Plus he still has that "popular pResident" crap being spewed far and wide by all the reporters and columnists and pundits and other talking heads (and some entire "news" organizations) who are favorably predisposed toward him for various reasons. Since he is clearly NOT going to run opposed through the primaries, WE have to stir things up as a surrogate to that primary challenger he might otherwise have.

And, dammit, if people are worried here about Kerry shooting his ammo too early, or becoming a "one-trick pony" with "Flame-Plame-gate" or "Traitor-gate" or whatever you call it, honestly, WHAT DO YOU CARE? If he bangs the drum for this, and keeps banging it, others will inevitably start picking it up, too. At that point, he needs to KEEP BANGING. HELLO! JOHN PAGING KERRY!!! You DO NOT put out ONE call for a special prosecutor and then assume - "okay, check. That's done. Next subject." JEEZ!!!!!!!!!! You put out the call and then DO NOT LET IT DIE! Once is NOT ENOUGH!!! You keep hammering at it. I can't hit a nail all the way into a board with one manual hammer strike! And neither could the most strong and able carpenter on earth. That nail does NOT get pounded home without many hits! You don't get lots of people into the movie theater if you run ONE SINGLE AD. You do not get people to buy Dell computers without hammering away with "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell!" until it becomes part of the lexicon.

Face it. Did the PNACers issue their call for invading Iraq back in 1997 or 98 - AND THEN LET IT DIE????????????????

[Old and In the Way]

34. I have no doubts that Kerry would be a great and courageous leader

I believe his character speaks for itself. But I understand Presidential politics too. No one is going to say what they really think with regards to the criminal implications of this administration. But I believe Kerry, Clark, and Dean recognize that to fundementally change the political paradigm in the coming years will mean that all of the ugly business must be confronted and dealt with. That can't happen until they are elected.

Hey, Bush lied about his agenda....I have no problem with our candidates keeping their agenda on ice until after the election.

[imhotep]

35. There is a trend with Kerry

he never does anything unless it helps his career.
The same can be said of many of his supporters.

[XanaDUer]

37. How insightful of you.

"he never does anything unless it helps his career.
The same can be said of many of his supporters..."


:eyes:

What the heck does it mean, however?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

43. Buddha provide.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[blm]

41. Bull! He had most of DC trying to BURY him for 30 years, not help him.

The Democratic powerstructure and the Dem Senate leaders held Kerry BACK from the hearings on BCCI because they thought he was TOO HOT after his investigations on the Reagan-Bush administration and too dogged in bringing them to justice.So he went after what was happening in the Contra wars and uncovered IranContra. Kerry didn't give up even after the Democrats were ready to end the hearings. Kerry teamed up with Ralph Nader in getting more info made public.

What Kerry did then were almost career "killers" because he went after EVERY powerstructure in DC at the time, Dem and GOP and the FBI and CIA. the press BRUTALIZED Kerry almost every day for years. They even labeled him a "phony" and a "conspiracy theory nut" and a "glamourboy" just because he was exposing more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history. And now people like you are repeating the right wing spin that was used against Kerry for the last 30 years.

[XanaDUer]

45. The RW fears Kerry, as well they should.

The man has made a career out of exposing the dirty little (and big) secrets of the DC power brokers.

[WindRavenX]

39. My answer is probably going to be terrible, so I appoligize in advance

But it is just my observation that, like Gore, whenever Kerry tries to do something "big" to bring Bush down in a speech, he gets destroyed by the media. I know it's probably insignificant, but the Rolling Stone's fisasco shows just how knee-jerk people are when Kerry said something true. Kerry is, despite what people may think, a very angry man about Bush. I've heard him at several speeches and have talked with him- he's pissed. Wicked pissed. But it seems to me that the media is totally against him. The Boston Globe bashes him left and right, which is totally crazy.
Your question is a good one, and I'm not sure I answered it in the way you wanted...but I'm just sayign that Kerry, out of all the canidates, has all the pressure on him and whenever he tries to do something to break out and show everyone that he is THE canidate to beat Bush, he gets bashed for it. I dunno, that's just my thoughts.
Hope that helped! :hi:

[gpandas]

117. not terrible but well done

you took the words right out of my mouth. hmmm... why would the corporate owned media bash Kerry?

[blm]

118. the media attacks ARE all out of proportion

and the fact that they gave Dean a press plane in June signalled that they were gunning for Kerry.

[oasis]

46. Who balked when asked what he said about Bush's pre-9/11 knowledge?

"No, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that.But we don't know and it would be a nice thing to know".

Sound familiar? What straight talking, hard charging candidate for president was that?

It would be "a nice thing to know" indeed. I would like this candidate to roll up his sleeves and press that issue.

[sandnsea]

48. Again, his voice carries internationally

The last thing we need is to fuel the idea that Bush or the Israelies or whoever caused 9/11. Think about how the ME is already playing that up to avoid taking the steps to stop the mullah anti-US teachings and stop the terrorism funding. Think how much more they would fight it if they could blame 9/11 on Bush and the Israelies and use a Presidential candidate's own words to do it.

Kerry is responsible with his words. Howard's words about Bush knowing about 9/11 ahead of time are just one more thing that will come back to bite him if he wins the nomination.

[oasis]

50. "Interesting theory...it can't be proven that he was warned by the Saudis"

To the average American, that would sound like someone's advancing unproven and unprovable allegations against the president. So far the right wing has been playing it up as reckless and irresponsible.

I trust Kerry's judgement of not going down that path.

[molly]

64. Yes, he is a fighter - he is a fighter with brains, cunning

and class. It takes someone with a cool head and courage to be debate champ at Yale and go on to command men in the worst possible situations. He has fought for us and our party for years and years and years. I'm thinking of quite a few strategic battles won - not by rage or force - but by the strength of logcial planning.

When Hannibal crossed the Alps, he had every elephant move planned - he dreamed about it - thought about it and when he actually did it - it worked.

[zulchzulu]

73. From the Kerry web site-He's asked for Special Counsel investigation

Granted an investigation into this is being overshadowed by more important events like who Joe Millionaire might boink or the latest Michael Jackson news, but in case anyone noticed, Kerry has called for an special investigation into this treasonous act. The difference between this special investigation and the one the GOP did against Clinton and his little intern thingie, a special investigation could bring down the whole house of cards of lies that formed the IWR deception in the first place.

Let's just say Kerry doesn't trust Asscraft to do the investigation as it stands now.

And like when he also spearheaded with the Iran-Contra investigation, the BCCI Scandal (with Daddy Bush) and more recently investigations into various Karl Rove activities, Kerry is way ahead of the curve.

If we can find out what happened with Michael Jackson, who Madonna is screwing lately and who might best win the Super Bowl, maybe the media will focus on this issue.

From the Kerry site:

Kerry Calls for Special Counsel in Wilson Investigation

September 29, 2003

For Immediate Release
Boston, MA –

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said, “This is more than another example of politics driving the Bush Administration. The bottom line is that outing a CIA agent endangers lives, threatens national security and breaks faith with those who put their lives on the line to protect this country.

It is outrageous that the President who campaigned with a promise to restore integrity to the White House refuses to get to the bottom of this. No one should shield criminals who compromise national security for political purposes especially if they are on the President’s staff.

“This investigation should be immediately removed from the politics of the Department of Justice. Too many serious questions exist to risk allowing any potential for political intervention. The track record of John Ashcroft and this Justice Department do not adequately assure Americans that legitimate questions will be answered fully without any political bias.

A special counsel should be appointed immediately so that we can find out how George Bush let this happen and hold those responsible accountable.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0929b.html

[blm]

76. And at this point Kerry was ahead on a few polls.

But, the negative press against him reallly ramped up.

[rucky]

78. Cheesesteaks & Harleys

getting to the bottom of the issues we care about.

[zulchzulu]

79. Don't forget Kerry used the dreaded "F" word

Oh my gawd! It must be the f*cking end of the f*cking World. F*ck!

[Octafish]

90. Fearless.

Sen. Kerry's taken on:

The Viet Cong
Nixon
The Mafia
BCCI
Ollie North
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Smirko, the Little Turd from Crawford
and a whole bunch more crooks of the BFEE than anybody in Washington.
And he never quits.
And John Kerry always wins.

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, zulchzulu!

[blm]

83. Exactly. How many people here at DU, even, know that Kerry called for

a Special Counsel on the Plame outing? They just can't see that the press is controlling our primary and doing it by their story selections.

Kerry said he would draft a Senate resolution to overturn the FCC decision last June, soon after Dean was given a press plane by the corporate media. Nothing to see there?

[Octafish]

88. Kerry is our best shot at bringing down the BFEE...

...in addition to pounding the crap out of The Little Turd from Crawford.

[calimary]

111. And that was at the end of September. We're now in mid December

and I haven't heard squat about his call since he made it.

Does that mean that the media didn't pursue it, or that there just weren't enough tasty tidbits to lure more people in?

If this stuff he has on the BFEE is so damaging, and he has Rand Beers and Joseph Wilson at his side, also full of stuff on the BFEE that's so damaging, he should be going with it - as of The First Of October. Why was this trail allowed to go cold?

Make the accusation. Bring up your bench strength to help buttress it, and let them run with the ball. They run with it enough, and you keep providing backing by running, too, and bring in more of your allies to help. Then you've got them all out there running. There are thus more people generating interest, and heat. More attraction to the media. More media comes in. More dirt comes out. MORE attention. Run with that for a few days - pound, pound, pound. Then more dirt comes out. MORE attention.

Sidle up to MoveOn.org and Progressive Majority and other such sites. People for the American Way and others with muscular websites and media presence. Get a couple of rock stars to do concerts for you. Get a little creative. Start doing more visually interesting and "sexy" stuff for cameras and sound-bite purposes. And pound, pound, pound, and let out a little more dirt.

You can't convince me that Rand Beers and Joseph Wilson, and even John Kerry each have only ONE single fact on the bushies. They don't have just one single card to play, can they? I'd bet, if it's true what's hyped here, that they have MUCH MUCH MUCH stuff on the bfee, enough to fuel a five-year campaign on the strength of ONE topic alone.

[littlejoe]

91. Kerry would make a fine Vice President.

[Octafish]

93. Kerry would make a better President — the best in two generations.

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." — Sen. John Kerry (April 2, 2003).

Kerry's a leader. The guy isn't second to anybody, especially some pipsqueak draft-dodger.

[Sliverofhope]

97. Eh, this isn't really the thread for

A Kerry-Dean War.

There is a simple point. To a certain extent, depending on what you believe, Kerry is on our 'side', our side being the not out-and-out fascists. Kerry may be a secret fascist or a zombie or an alien, but he is nominally aligned with the democrats.

Kerry also has a tactical nuke that he can use against Bush Co.

The question is not is Kerry a good president, or is Kerry a good vice president or is Kerry a vampire or is Kerry a saint.

The point is this: how can we get Kerry to use this tactical nuke to the benefit of all of us? It's really simple as that.

And if neccessary, I can turn my icon to a Dean 04 or Kucinich 04 or Edwards 04 one if it means I'll be taken seriously.

[Lexingtonian]

101. well, not every voter is like you

My sense is pretty much as that of most of the Kerry people posting here that that stuff is useful for the General campaign. Basically, it works well to bust the usual Republican smear-and-nostalgia PR scheme which will be run because Bush has no meaningful accomplishments to tout in return for running up the national debt by 1.3 trillion dollars (or more).

The story with the primary campaign is that the candidates all have pretty much the same ideas and platforms in public. So Democrats have to decide between them on fairly subjective measures which amount to (1) which ones have the clue, the real insightfulness about what needs to be done, (2) who do we trust to do what we actually want/need/expect, and (3) what do we want/need/desire as a payoff for our share of the effort.

The dynamic of the race so far follows pretty easily from this. The Dean campaign is most obviously about (3). Dean folk are about an emotional payoff that is pretty immediate (and gives a drug-like rush, it seems) and gives the sensation of having power. The test of this is that Dean supporters hate all the things that remind them of when they felt most powerless, e.g. Bush's doings in general, especially his condescensions and evasions, and Democratic things like Kerry's IWR vote or Zell Miller's public behavior.

The emphasis among Clark voters seems to me to be on (2). Kerry has been the candidate whose success has been about (1). Neither of them can run a campaign on the basis that Dean has- Kerry's attacks on Bush don't lead people to feel empowered in the way Dean's do. (However, Kerry's and Clark's critiques do get taken rather seriously at the Bush White House, as the acrimonious responses show, which Dean's do not.)

All I can really say is that as Bush's poll numbers and election chances drop below even odds and the evidence against him grows, things look better for Kerry and Clark. The appeal of the 'surplus powerlessness' (M. Lerner's term) approach aka anti-Bush politics will decline as Bush's power declines. (And in a decline it is.) The winner of the nomination probably has to prove himself a credible fulfillment of 2 of the 3 criteria. To win the election he probably has to get to 2.5 or 3.

So the short answer to your query is: charging Bush with crimes is not really Kerry's basis of appeal or credibility among Democrats and he knows it. He's been embarrassed by his supposed strength(s) failing him for a time, that is true, and with Clark floundering too Dean has rallied in that period because Democrats needed a champion who spoke to their sense of powerlessness and supplied a solution (how ever temporary or not). The material and witnesses will be brought in as a strategic counter to Bush's all-out 'cultural' assault when Kerry or some other nominee gets to the General.

[blm]

102. That's a very well-balanced post.

Grazie.

[Uzybone]

103. Awesome post.

n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

104. Interesting point about the Dean "empowerment" factor

Kerry leaves people less enthused than Dean.

[blm]

115. I don't need a motivational speech to hate Bush, I already do.

What makes me enthusiastic is someone who speaks about solutions and has spent his entire career working towards solutions so they KNOW what the hell they're talking about. Dean always seems like he uses volume and soundbites to make up for all the detailed knowledge and solutions he lacks so obviously.

[CWebster]

105. My guess would be because Kerry is the ultimate consumate

Insider who has been inside the beltway for too long.

[blm]

108. Nope. Insiders don't really like Kerry because he exposed govt. corruption

and didn't care which powerstructure he damaged, GOP or Dem. You must not be aware how people in is own party, even, tried to shut Kerry's investigations down.

Sad.

[CWebster]

109. When blm?

What good came of it--All the old gang is still at the highest level of government. It's the same folks from nixon through Bush.

I have to wonder if Kerry really wants it. You know, it seems more like he doesn't want Dean to have it then he wants it himself.

[blm]

112. You want to blame Kerry for doing his part?

My gosh, you support one of the Dems who didn't even care that Reagan and Bush were conducting illegal wars in Central America, and you want to blame KERRY for his years of investigations which opened the door to what we now know about the BFEE today?

That's amazing to me.