I can't believe Dean just said that!

[kerryistheanswer]

SO gross - he criticizes Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards by name for being washington insiders for voting for the war and no child left behind AND THEN congratulates Tom Harkin for taking on special interests and being a true Washington outsider.

HELLOOOOOOO. Harkin voted for the war and NO Child LEft behind. This is GROSS>

[Catch22Dem]

1. HEHEHE

Good catch. Pretty funny.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Dean is a disgusting little man.

Tom Harkin should be ashamed of himself, standing behind him. Please, Iowa voters, have the courage that these big name politicians didn't. Give Dean the boot.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[polpilot]

35. Tom Harkin is a true patriot.

Dean '04...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[chimpymustgo]

9. They should keep an iso camera on Harkin. He had a really simple looking

smile when the camera showed a wide shot.

"Cockroaches for Dean". AP, you are good.

Heh.

[kerryistheanswer]

3. Sometimes I can't stand Dean

especially during his stump speech. All anger, no solutions. and such arrogance.

I want a leader that's humble. It's called humility.

[Zynx]

5. Kerry humble? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's a good one.

[sfecap]

8. Yeah, me too..I like humble leadership.

Guys like Tom Daschle. Gee, it doesn't get better than that.

See..when Dems get a bit of humility, the republicans treat them nicer.

I wish our Dem leaders would get more humble.

[BootinUp]

20. I don't have a problem with humble

its stupid that bothers me.

[Clark Can WIN]

32. I get leary when every time I see someone

they have 5 to 10 toes sticking out of their mouth.:wow:

[BootinUp]

36. heh

I was trying to put a neutral post in there, you have completely destroyed the illusion!

:hi:

[mouse7]

18. Name a Dean "angry outburst" documented by ANYONE.

Links please.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. According to Dean

"When people get in my face, I tend to get in theirs," Dr. Dean said in the interview at The Times. "Al Sharpton was in my face last night and I was not going to step one step, half a step, backwards, and I don't care who's in my face.

"I tend to be reflective rather later than sooner," he added. "Now, unfortunately, we all know that nobody's personality is perfect. So the things that make me a strong candidate are also my Achille's heel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/campaigns/06DEAN.html?hp

"When people get in my face, I tend to get in theirs"

[Clark Can WIN]

44. I'm afraid that's not going to be good enough

nothing you provide will be good enough. :eyes:

[mouse7]

68. No... I'm talking about a clear documented loss of temper

Links please.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. Dean says in the New York TImes he lost his temper.. that's not clear?

:eyes:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

63. Why don't we dig up all of the DU threads where all the Dean people were

waxing eloquent about how wonderful it was that he was so angry. That it was great becasue they were angry too. Anybody remember this?

[mouse7]

74. It's not "anger," it's "moral outrage."

There a big article I saw the end of last week about this.

There's all these reports of people saying that Dean is angry, yet nobody has any evidence. Where's all of Dean's angry tantrums?

Find me some links to Dean actually losing his temper.

[w4rma]

85. Dean's temper is a myth, IMHO. It just hasn't happened, no matter how much

he is goaded. :P

[funky_bug]

6. If this is true

I only hope the average voter is as good at sorting through the statements to reach the truth as you are.

[Clark4VotingRights]

10. I sure hope so too.

The growing percentage that gets its news from the internet
and The Daily Show should be in the know.

[MoonRiver]

7. Does he have a clue?

Or is he another ADHD version of *, plus 30 or 40 IQ points?

[ramapo]

11. Politicians say the darndest things

It happens to them all...the best and the brightest to the dimmer son.

[kerryistheanswer]

12. I was beginning to like Dean

and he goes on the attack again. He's such a divisive liar who needs to run on people's anger to win. I thought we were over this phase of the campaign - he's desperate.

[AP]

13. Dean is running on what he thought got him this far: anger. Problem is...

...it wasn't anger that got him this far. It was the fact that nobody was paying attention accept people who respond to anger, and that all the media payed attention only to him.

Now that more people are paying attention, what REALLY works (best ideas, best package, most energetic, etc.) is going to get the votes.

Dean's making a mistake by exaggerating his worst qualities.

[rumguy]

15. Dean is the macho candidate

[AP]

58. Rather than out-macho Bush, Dems would be wiser to put

forward a candidate who stands as a symbol of men and women, husbands and wives, the old and the young, black and white and brown working TOGETHER for a better tomorrow.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Is that crowd on CRACK? They all seem spacey, delirious.

They scare me, I tell ya.

[pasadenaboy]

25. It sure doesn't sound like you were beginning to like him

[liberalmuse]

14. Thanks again.

I was almost getting my hopes up that the Dems/liberals were going to unite and kick Bush's ass, but I have now been brought back down to earth.

If we think this attitude about ANY of our candidates is going to help us unite and beat Bush, then ladies and gentlemen, we're FUCKED. You know what's gross? Threads like these.

[chimpymustgo]

17. Nope, it's Dean attitude that has us screwed. But I think we'll survive.

We've got to stay positive. Keep hope alive.

[mouse7]

26. Name an "angry outbust of temper" of Dean's documented by anyone

Links please.

[bitchkitty]

46. I'd be interested in seeing that too.

A link, just one link that documents this. And not an article from the Clark blog, no "pretty sures" or "I heard in a coffee shop". No Drudge, no unnamed Democrats, just one, single, reliable link.

We'll wait forever, because there is no sch link. It's a goddamned lie and they know it. They're busy, busy, busy spreading lie after lie after lie.

[Mairead]

82. Nope, you're right -- Dean is completely cold and calculating

All the 'emotion' he displays is as faked as his rolled-up sleeves (which he rolls down again and buttons up when out of the public eye).

He's a fraud and We The People are going to lose unless we nominate someone else.

[Clark Can WIN]

40. Exactly. I don't think any of the other viable candidates have alienated

other supporters the way Dean has. The best alternative will shape up, emerge and unite easily. Dean nas burned too many bridges. He is a dividing influence in our own party. How could we possibly expect to unite and beat the Republicans with a Democratic candidate that openly and repeatedly expresses contempt for over half of his own partry?

[goobergunch]

19. I concur.

They make me want to
.

(Hey, massive ortillery can release anger sometimes! ;))

[jmaier]

22. I agree that the insulting

tone of many of the posts on this thread are beyond the pale in my opinion; however, under the adolescent hostility is a valid point:

Gov Dean has been running against Washington 'insiders' and bashing them, the DLC, the DNC, etc. constantly all year but he toadies up to one fast enough when an endorsement is at stake. It's politics as usual -- which is what some of us have been less stridently saying undercuts Gov Dean's self-labeled title as 'outsider' or populist or whatever.

I've got no major grievance with Gov Dean's approach but let's recognize the moralistic campaigning for what it is: election year posturing.

[Lefta Dissenter]

23. Hey, Lib

have a little faith! Of course the Dems are going to knock each other around a bit during the primaries. I wish that people wouldn't LIE as they're at it, but beyond that, it's the way our system works.

Have no fear, however, we WILL all pull together behind the nominee, whoever that ends up being.

I think that one of the problems we've seen in the party is that the Dem BigWigs were SO hoping for an early nominee to unite the party behind that they simply forgot about the primary process! Visions of pooling all resources in the party in order to beat bush blinded them to the fact that we, as Democrats, have the right and responsibility to nominate the person we feel best represents us and who will be the greatest president for our country.

They'll all just have to take a breath and sit back and let the process take place - just a few more months - until we actually NOMINATE our candidate, and then you'll see a strength and unity that will astound you.

[rhino47]

30. I`m rather sure after the primaries you will see a very united front

[lurk_no_more]

21. The man is delusional

He's going to crash and crash hard, he's been angry for so long he can't stop, if he does get the nod he'll never make it to November, this guy is a disaster waiting to happen. He's a small angry little man with no hope of being anything more, if I didn't loath him so much, I would feel sorry for him, it really isn't a pretty sight.



And then there were none!
� JAFO�

[mouse7]

29. name an "angry outburst of temper" of Dean's documented by anyone

Links please.

[Zynx]

33. There was that one Republican guy, but that doesn't count.

[mouse7]

71. "You've had your say. It's my turn" isn't an an angry outburst.

The guy spouted freeper rubbish for three minutes and then Dean acted calmly to shut down a freakish rambler.

Next.

[blm]

47. I think his outbursts are based on deception

more than anger. I think any anger he does show is part of the dog and pony show he's selling to anyone who will respond.

[mouse7]

75. More displacement of the Kerry dog and pony show to others n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

62. 125,000 sites in google for "angry howard dean"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=howard+dean+angry&sa=N&tab=nw

42,000 for Clark
82,400 for Kerry
13,300 for john edwards
19,600 for dick gephardt
20,900 for dennia kucinich

[mouse7]

72. All that means is lots of "fact-esqe" reports, yet no evidence.

If there are 125,000 hits, go find one that actually shows Dean losing his temper. It should be easy, right?

[David Dunham]

78. Excellent Description of Dean: You get an A-plus

[patricia92243]

24. Love that man!

[DemBones DemBones]

31. You love Dean for embracing Harkin, who voted for IWR and

No Child Left Behind, while attacking Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman for voting for IWR and No Child Left Behind?

Have you thought much about this?

[adadem]

59. Didn't he

call them Washington insiders and cockroaches? How is Harkin any different? What's that word??? Hypocrite.

[cprise]

27. Harkin from April 2003 (read it and weep)

Washington, D.C. - The relatively quick fall of Baghdad shows that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a "paper tiger" rather than a major threat to world peace, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said Thursday."
What we were told and what you saw in the press last fall and earlier this year is that he had a massive war machine," said Harkin, the most outspoken critic of the war in Iraq among members of the Iowa congressional delegation.
"It looks now like this was just a Third World country - there were people fighting with tennis shoes on, on the Iraqi side," Harkin told reporters. "I don't know what else we're going to find, but they didn't fly even one airplane in the air. They had almost nothing."

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c2229999/20980532.html


What's more, Dean isn't endorsing Harkin for President, it's the other way around. In that situation I'd say "Thank you very much Senator!"

Sheesh.

[BootinUp]

38. why'd he vote for it then? (IWR)

Fact is Dean has bamboozled 30% of the primary voters with his purer than thou BS.

Dean would have voted for it too. Read his wiffle waffle statements and accept the truth.

[Zynx]

39. Clark hasn't exactly been so clear on it either you know.

[BootinUp]

41. As far as war that is correct

Everyone was hoping for proof one way or the other. Clark's statements to congress in sept 2002 were quite clear on one thing:

That the intelligence did not justify a rush to war, but that we did need to stay diligent against WMD and work the issue.

[cprise]

64. "Purer than thou," "Above the fray"

What are we going to do with this bamboozler Clark?

[BootinUp]

66. Do you have any substance to add?

My posts in this little subthread were not empty attacks like that. I am prepared to carry this on if you'd like.

[cprise]

81. Just pointing out how silly "Above the fray" seems in that context

Bush is "above the fray".

[Clark Can WIN]

42. Clark and Dean were both for the same type of resolution

One that would require chimp boy to come back to congress before committing troops. The only thing is: one of them has tried to act like he never was..................

[blm]

45. Examine the Biden-Lugar prowar resolution:

Great analysis I found here:

There are two parts required of the President.

The second part first:
Biden Lugar restricted the authorization of force to UN WMD resolutions against Iraq and the broader concept of self-defense or mutual-defense.
The actually passed resolution (Public Law 107-243) restricted the authorization to use force to - relevant UN resolutions (including repatriation of war detainees and Kuwaiti treasures, the resolution of the fate of our MIA pilot, and the repression of the population), self-defense or mutual-defense, and the nebulously defined war on terror.

Now the first part - the President had to merely inform Congress that there was no other way but to use force against Iraq regarding the above mentioned restrictions.  The only difference between the reporting requirement Biden-Lugar and 107-243 was a time constraint;  Biden-Lugar required notification prior to the use of force, 107-243 allowed up to 48 hours after initiating force to inform Congress.

The actual text in both resolution can be parsed almost exactly like this:
"The President shall make available his determination that...."
Here's the actual 'trigger' for the President to use force:
---------------
Biden-Lugar:   "Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the president shall make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after Sept. 12, 2002, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)." 
-----------------
Public Law 107-243: In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
---------------
Now, Gov. Dean has an opinion piece in CommonDreams.org from April of this year which hints at the problem he has.

www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm
...snip...
Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that "if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides." And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.
...end snip...

This one paragraph shows is Gov. Dean's conflation of the White House resolution, which was not passed and the final resolution which, as I pointed out above is practically and functionally identical to the the Biden-Lugar resolution which he did support.  What this means is that Gov. Dean has based his entire criticism of his opponents and other Democrats on his incorrect understanding of what happened in the negotiation phase in Congress.  It's quite possible he didn't even read the intermediate or final resolutions involved in the debate, otherwise, he would have known that the 'certification' process for the Administration he claimed he supported in the Biden-Lugar resolution was also an explicit requirement in Public Law 107-243.

Even worse for Gov. Dean, what he claimed was a 'certification' process in Biden-Lugar was nothing of the sort.  Gov. Dean claimed that the President had to prove his WMD assertions were false; entirely untrue.  As pointed out above, the President merely had to show to Congress that he didn't believe Iraq would comply with UN resolutions or that he was acting under self-defense and that the invasion of Iraq was truly a part of the war on terror.
The only difference between Gov. Dean's position and what actually happened is that the report issued by the Administration would have simply deleted the references to the war on terror.  Even that's up for debate, since the war on terror would have been a claim used by the Administration regarding the 'self-defense' angle.  Otherwise, the net result would have been the same if Gov. Dean had been involved in the actual debate about the matter.  Ironically, he even has a quote saying that he 'got it right' while he was up in Vermont while the Washington insiders didn't know what they were doing.
 

[BootinUp]

51. Nice post...

you keep doing the hard work around here.

Bookmarked for future ref.

:toast:

[adadem]

60. Thanks for posting n/t

[RetroLounge]

34. Gross?

Well, I see the level of discourse is improving...

[bitchkitty]

48. Like grody, like, like, wow!

She's just, like, really FREAKED OUT! That's soooooooooo gross!

[Printer70]

43. Finding contradictions where there are none

Dean blasted Edwards, Kerry, and Gep for IWR, not No Child Left Behind. He praised Harkin for opposing it. No Child LB was a mistake but I don't expect Dean to bash Harken over it- and no serious, rational person would expect him to do so either. Harken woudl be the first to acknowledge it didn't meet his expectations.

[kayleybeth]

49. If I'm not mistaken

Harkin voted in favor of IWR.

edit: typo

[Renew Deal]

50. So "Washington Democrats" on Deans side

are O.K.? I think that's what the poster is saying. Then again, it's all a big game.

[cprise]

67. ABSOTIVELY!!

If you want black and white thinking, I'm sure Clark could tell you where to find some Republicans.

The generalization of Wasington Democrats still stands... but my, the distinction sure is chipping away. That's politics.

We should be grateful Dean has made such positions deriguer.

[Bucky]

52. I start to like him then he repels me. We've got a Sam-Dianne relationship

He's just so... so... petulant! I like the passion, I like the vision. I can deal with the scrappiness. But he's not acting very presidential. Why is he trying to piss off the hardworking, dedicated supporters of all the other candidates? This is coming damn close to burning bridges. I sure as hell don't want to be taken for granted by my nominee.

Why, doctor, why? Scorched earth policies are effictive when you're in retreat. I thought Dean was supposed to be the guy going on the attack. He's attacked as many Democrats as Joe Lieberman now with tactics just as two-faced. Goddammit, Dean should be making me want to like him more.

ABB, but grow the hell up, Howard.

[janx]

77. Let's examine this:

"He's just so... so... petulant! I like the passion, I like the vision. I can deal with the scrappiness. But he's not acting very presidential. Why is he trying to piss off the hardworking, dedicated supporters of all the other candidates? This is coming damn close to burning bridges. I sure as hell don't want to be taken for granted by my nominee."

I have no intention of making fun of you--I'm serious. Try answering the following questions along with me and others:

1. But he's not acting very presidential.

What is presidential, and how should one act to appear that way?

2. Why is he trying to piss off the hardworking, dedicated supporters of all the other candidates?

Do you really believe he's trying to piss off the supporters of the other candidates--or is he trying to gain their support?

3. This is coming damn close to burning bridges. I sure as hell don't want to be taken for granted by my nominee.

This is far more than burning bridges. This is taking the vote back to the American people. This guy is not taking you for granted; in fact, it's the opposite.

Watch the CSPAN rally from tonight and give it an open mind. It's classic Dean.

[Bucky]

84. Thanks for the input

I appreciate the serious, respectful response. We really aren't in the GD2004 forum, are we? :o)

1. But he's not acting very presidential.
What is presidential, and how should one act to appear that way?

Partly it's the temperament. He complained to Terry McAuliff about unfair attacks against him, but then went just as directly and just as unfairly on the attack against other candidates. He has called nearly every significant opponent of his either Bush-lite or a Republican. That's beyond the pale. In the case of Clark (my candidate) even a brief glance at his platform will show that charge to be ludicrous. Clark is to the left of Dean on most issues.

Partly it's the cheap shots, misrepresenting Clark on the war, claiming he's the only opponent of the war when four of his opponents clearly opposed it too, that belie his claims of being a "straight shooter" (not that every candidate doesn't also claim to be a straight shooter), comparing members of Congress to cockroaches. He seems to personalize a lot of these conflicts with other Democrats. I don't think this country has had a good history with presidents who take professional conflicts and make them personal (Poppy Bush and Lyndon Johnson come to mind).

Partly I find the incessant repetition of "you have the power" at the close of the speeches of his I've seen to be a bit creepy. Coupled with the petulance and the repeated unsubstantiated charges of party disloyalty, I find that he reminds me of how McCarthyism worked. Dean is clearly no Joseph McCarthy, but the shadow of that style is there.

And partly it's his tendency to think outloud about electoral strategies. His announcements that he's going to talk about God a lot, that he's going to make the "original" economic argument to win over Southern whites (like we haven't been doing that for years and failing).

But I have to say, and maybe this isn't fair, but I have learned to respect my instincts when my gut tells me there's something going wrong. My gut on Dean is that he's too ego-driven, too arrogant, too impulsive to run well or do the job as well as my guy.

2. Why is he trying to piss off the hardworking, dedicated supporters of all the other candidates?
Do you really believe he's trying to piss off the supporters of the other candidates--or is he trying to gain their support?

I think he's certainly trying to gain support, but I don't find that he's accomplishing much. This is what happens when you personalize conflicts. Dean understood the threat to one's presidentialness with you go negative. He poing out long ago that the winner would be someone who rund on a positive message.

I think he's right, but I don't think he's living up to that standard.


3. This is coming damn close to burning bridges. I sure as hell don't want to be taken for granted by my nominee.
This is far more than burning bridges. This is taking the vote back to the American people. This guy is not taking you for granted; in fact, it's the opposite.

I can't disagree more. I thought long and hard and I think chose carefully when I decided to get behind General Clark. He's big government liberal where I'm more of a deficit hawk. He's culturally military where I'm definitely a peacenik. He's a big risk taker and a visionary where I'm more process oriented and a pragmatist.

I don't feel like I've made a bad choice. I don't think I've been fooled by a pachyderm in burro's clothing. When Dean thinks he can peel me away from Clark by name calling, by trying to exploit unspoken stereotypes voters have like "real generals can't be Democrats", then yes, he's insulting my intelligence; he's taking me for granted. He is thinks he can do anything, say anything, to win the nomination--even the on-the-sly push polling in New Hampshire to suppress the moderate independent vote in the primary--and just assume that as a part of the base I'll vote for him, then he is taking me for granted.

What's worse; he's right. I will vote for him no matter what reckless shit he does. He doesn't have to earn my respect to win my vote or my enthusiastic efforts for him in case he's nominated. I don't ask that he give me anything. Anyone who gets Bush out of the White House has earned my vote. But he's not showing me any respect; not as a southerner and not as a Clarkie. If I were a Christian I'd feel pretty slighted by his glib, last minute attempts to toss Jesus and Job references at me. In so many little ways Dr. Dean fails to do what a president must do most of all: speak to the people in the language of respect. I hold a president to that standard. As a Democrat he's my president the moment we nominate him. I want him to live up to that trust. He has not done so and shows no sign of being able or willing to do so in the future.

He plays risky anger games with the single most important election in my lifetime and acts blind to his own faults. His strategy for November is unclear to me, either not thought thru or fraught with faulty thinking. In a word, I do not trust him.

This feeling in me runs deep and I know I share it with many other people. The only thing running counter to this feeling in me is my loyalty to the party and my revulsion at the policies of George Bush. Those cards trump everything. But I know in the general election that will not be enough. It's like I'm watching a train wreck about to happen and the engineer is just saying trust me I'm a doctor. Well, dammit, you're a doctor not an engineer. And I don't trust you.

(edited to disable smilies; Bucky hates smilies)

[Turkw]

53. No Child Left Behind can work for us either way,

if a candidate voted for it or endorsed it- I took the president at his WORD, there are some things that are beyond politics, the education of America's children is one of the most important. Once again the president used an issue that everyone can agree on to further his radical agenda, not the well being of our children and squandered goodwill and an opportunity to benefit the country. This is typical of his lack of vision and leadership.

If a candidate voted against it or opposed it- Having watched the president time and time again break his promises to be a compassionate conservative and to work with both parties in congress, I felt this issue too important to take his word on it. There are some things that are beyond politics, the education of America's children is one of the most prominent. Bush's lack of vision for the country and his relentless pursuit of a reckless radical agenda has shown that he cannot be trusted with the education and well being of our children.

It spins well either way 'cause Bush is the one who broke his promise on the issue.

[zulchzulu]

54. Trippi: What he meant to say was....

Dean keeps putting pins into his own cushion. Keep it up, Howard.

[cindyw]

55. So if you voted IWR and NVLB, but you support him, you are an outsider,

but if you don't support him, you are an Washington insider and Bush-Lite.

What was Harkin thinking?

If Harkin had supported Kerry, as we all hoped was the case the other day, you can bet he would have said the opposite of Harkin.

[zulchzulu]

57. Sheen and Reiner, both on NRA Blacklist, don't mind Dean's A+ NRA rating

See? It all makes sense...

[maxanne]

70. and Michael Moore

who just endorsed the General is a card carrying member of the NRA.

LOL!!

[zulchzulu]

56. Where did you see this?

A link would be cool. CSPAN?

[John_H]

61. Dean is a consumate insider

Raised monmey for the DNC, DGA and DLC from Boeing, Pfizer, the NRA, and other bis corporate interests iwth relish.

[cprise]

69. Then Clark is moreso

....and much more recently. You know, RNC and all that.

And haven't you noticed in the middle of Clark's radical and ultra-liberal positions (and absurdly wearing the liberal label on his sleeve) he has been nervously and not too loudly reassuring Corporate America that he does not share with Dean the principle of re-regulation or the breakup of media empires.

Clark has not taken a strong position to put liberal Democrats in power in Congress, and he will be counting on conservative majority there to ensure he gets to do no more than sing the praises of whatever liberal laundry list he has pinned to his sleeve (nullify all 3rd world debt? sure! abort a fetus in any trimester? sure! universal healthcare? youbetcha, i'll get the first lady working right on that one!).

What a sick, sick joke. Where actions are concerned, Clark is to the Right of Bill Clinton who busied himself with waging economic war and extortion on the 3rd world while he pretended with us (see last paragraph).

[maxanne]

65. I can't believe

Kerry's wife stood in my town yesterday, and called Dean a liar in her speech. Real class act, she is. :eyes:

He's reaping the rewards of the crappy campaign he's run.

[Maddy McCall]

76. She is classy and this nation would be honored to have her as 1st Lady

She isn't lurking in the shadows, she is OUT THERE, and she would be much better than the one who is in the White House now.

[maxanne]

79. I'm not surprised

you'd defend her behavior. Her nastiness did her husband no favors.

[idlisambar]

73. This is a little silly

He's just throwing the guy who endorsed him a bone (a good senator by the way despite the bad votes you cited). Whoever gets the nomination in this race is sure to get the endorsements of the others, right? They are all at each other's throats right now, but they should be buddy/buddy by then (I hope). Does this mean that they'll all be hypocrites?

If Dean gets the nomination will Kerry still be saying that Dean is not the right candidate on Defense, or will Gephardt still say that Dean "can't be trusted". I hope not.

[cprise]

80. More than a little

Lieberman also called Dean an "extremist" and much other hysteria.

Let see, if Dean doesn't win, what labels might the Democratic President acquired from him?

"A Republican" Wow... never had one of those in the oval office.

"Insider" Gasp!

"Big money" I'm having palpitations...


IMAGINE if Dean dare directly call any one of them, say, an "extremist insider". The media would be beyond palpitation... it would probably blow up!

Despite what anyone might think of the media's relationship with DLC Democrats and their second-class status, to the rich they are very good for business and will be defended fiercely from liberal attacks. Can't let the Repub. vs. RepubLite formula be upset by a bunch of "Dean hippies".

[Mairead]

83. "will Kerry still be saying that Dean is not the right candidate "

I hope so, because the truth doesn't change to support political ambition. Politicians only try to pretend it does.

The older I get, the more I appreciate cats. They never lie, they never cheat, and you can always count on them. Unless they've been abused and betrayed--and often even then--they give as they get in an open, uncalculating way.

Would that we were smart enough to demand that politicians be as honest.