Kerry fights back

[Nicholas_J]

DOVER, N.H. - In the early in-fighting between Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Howard Dean over the war in Iraq, the Massachusetts senator has found himself on the defensive over his support before it started and his criticism of its implementation afterward.

Former Vermont Governor Dean has argued that Mr. Kerry's position imposes a special responsibility to explain how he backed President Bush before the shooting began and how he can now be so critical of the way the president turned his back on the United Nations and plunged ahead...

As for Mr. Dean, Mr. Kerry said: "The question is what would Howard have done? He's had six different positions. I voted to make America safe. The obligation of the president is to take that authority and use it properly. I said very clearly how I would do it. I could not have been more clear, and the president chose not to do it the way that I suggested."

Again, obviously referring to Mr. Dean: "Now that's the difference. That's called leadership. I laid out what we had to do to make America safe, and I'm not sure every other candidate in this field did that. I looked at that decision as if I was president. What would I do? I urged Clinton to go to the U.N. to the threat of force in order to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. How could anyone running for president of the United States ... suggest you not hold Saddam Hussein accountable?"


http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.witcover06aug06,0,5468538.column?coll=bal-home-columnists

[billbuckhead]

1. He better start fighting real soon. I like his past, tell me something new

I'm getting impatient about him as well as several other candidates.

[George_Bonanza]

2. I remember reading some posts on DU

That stated that Kerry's campaign will start taking off in September. Is this true? Why would he wait so long? Anyway, I don't really think his campaign has really reached its apex, not nearly. He has such a big reservoir of achievements to tap into, and he has hardly drilled the rich oil of his past. Vietnam, Iran-Contra, BCCI, Oliver North, gay rights bills, environmental laws, etc., have all yet to really receive critical exposition by the Kerry staff. C'mon, John, we're all waiting for the bombshell!

[ModerateMiddle]

9. September is when things normally start

It's only because 4 years seems like an eternity with Shrub as pResident that we all think the primaries should be over and the general election held next Tuesday!

But it's really VERY early. Dean has altered significantly the normal time table with a couple of very innovative moves. I'm not sure how that will play out. But that's why you don't see much from anyone else yet - they're waiting until the country is paying attention.

[whirlygigspin]

3. John Forbes Kerry

Did defend his position well. Howard Brush Dean, should give it a
rest on that issue.

[killbotfactory]

5. John screwed up..

He said he would only support a war that was a last resort, said we must work unilaterally, said we should give the inspectors more time, and then supported a war that wasn't a last resort, that wasn't really unilateral, and which cut short inspections.

[VoteClark]

21. So did Dean, many times, at least Kerry

Is not just whining, he believes in what he does. He is a good man, and deserves credit for actually fighting in a war and not dodging the draft.


J4Clark

[killbotfactory]

23. That's nice...

But he still screwed up by supporting this idiotic war.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

38. Yes it was.

I knew they were lying before the war. The niger documents, the UAV, the terrorists "bio labs" in the area that saddam doesn't even control, which turned out to be a friggin' bombed out bakery. The CIA saying that attacking Iraq would make Saddam more likely to use whatever weapons he had. There was a lot of talk of "secret evidence" that they never even had, and Kerry confrimed that the public knew everything congress knew. The total pipedream of turning a country with many different religious and ethnic groups into a democracy in two years (I think that was the "plan") after decades of rule by a dictator keeping them in line. The lack of any banned weapons found by the inspectors. The refusal of the US to cooperate with inspectors. The total bungling of diplomacy, and the premature cutting short of inspections... The list went on and on, and it wasn't any secret. The information was available for anyone who wanted to look into it.

There were red flags all over the goddamn place, which is why nearly the entire world that wasn't in Bush's pocket opposed this stupid f***ing war.

The problem is that the media, and certain democratic leaders, went along with Bush's nonsense about the UN being irrelevent and all the weapons we were going to find and how Iraq is such a danger to the US, blah blah blah... The French are stupid, blah blah blah...

People supported the fighting because we were at war and will always do that.

[indigo32]

26. Dean believes very much in what he does

he is not "whining"

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[RogueTrooper]

28. REBUTAL

Howard Dean was declared unfit to serve by the US Army. He went for his medical at an army base and was declard unfit to serve. That is a nasty little smear you are quite keen on repeating VC.

Being declared unfit to serve is not the same as dodging the draft nor is it the same as Bush's crime, deserting.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[polpilot]

43. Seems simple to me. Kerry and others voted for war. They got it.

Simple. His disclaimers are very hollow.

Dean '04

[George_Bonanza]

12. Nicely said, whirlygig

If Kerry's such a wishy-wash, then I would expect him to publicly say he regrets his horrible decision to allow Bush to commit murder. At least he's been consistent in his own defense. I'm sure he'd make headlines and boost to the top if he stated he made a mistake. Give the guy some credit, he and Daschle and other senators were working on tightening the bill when Gephardt and Lieberman messed everything up. And who knows how Dean would've voted. Sure he was vocal, but so was Kerry, long before, and even he voted for it. So using this to bash Kerry and promote Dean's righteousness is too shaky.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[blm]

41. He's building a real case.

He has alot to deal with. He has Rand Beers, Gen. William Perry and Gary Hart working together gathering the material information necessary to dropkick Bush all the way back to Crawford. This is important stuff. The way the press is with Bush, you have to bring your best airtight case forward.

What we CAN'T afford is someone reacting too soon to a press that is baiting him with the ProDean coverage and momentum. He's a crafty strategist...on bike, sailboat, swiftboat, the jungles of Vietnam, the campaign trail.

[killbotfactory]

4. I'm sure Kerry will apologize for his mistatement.

Six different positions?

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

[deutsey]

6. Wow. Someone did their homework...

Thanks for these resources!

[killbotfactory]

7. I got tired of people saying Dean was inconsistent..

...so I looked up all the quotes I could find, and what do you know? He was consistent and completely right.

[Nicholas_J]

10. How about:

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

And this was only in a few days. Dean has changed his position as to what he would hav done.

And these positions above are contrary to his earler support of Biden-Lugar.

[killbotfactory]

11. You're quoting the National Review?

What a shining beacon of honest reporting.

[Nicholas_J]

14. Check the entire article from top do, it has at leat ten other sources

In which Dean has changed what he would have DONE under the situation ,from going it alone, to only with the U.N.

Even the National Revue quotes other newspapers correctly before doing so.

ANd I trust William F. Buckleys papers to get the fact straight before they publish them: but to prove partial truth of the staemetns made in the review:



"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.


http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

Thats th one that the review referred to from Salon. Directly from folllowing Dean on the campaign trail. Since they got that one correctly on the money, it is likely that they got the others as well.


How about:

Now Dean is facing questions about his rhetoric surrounding the war.

Early last week, after Dean had been in South Carolina, Lee Bandy, a longtime political reporter for The State newspaper of Columbia, wrote that Dean ''will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.'' Bandy quoted Dean as saying, ''It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field.''

The same day, USA Today reported, ''One of the most outspoken Democratic presidential candidates, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, calls it `the wrong war at the wrong time' and says he will continue criticizing Bush's policies.''

On Friday, Dean sought a correction from the Los Angeles Times after it published an interview that quoted Dean as saying he was ''uncomfortable'' offering his usual criticism of the war because it might be misinterpreted abroad now that the fighting has begun. The Times stood by its story....



Dean's reference to ambivalence the night before is directly contradicted by a first hand account from Lawrence Lessig, an Edwards supporter and chair of the Creative Commons project, who attended one of those events:



Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the “correct” answer is “no”. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go.


http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html


So there is a lot of evidence of Dean having either a continaully changing stance on the real issue, what he would do as president. All of that garbage about him stating he thinks the president didnt make his case was irrelevnat. It was how he would do as president. And his stance was wish washy, changing continually.

[killbotfactory]

52. Oh, I see the six positions. Too bad they are not mutually exclusive.

1.) Dean wanted Saddam disarmed.
2.) Dean wanted to work through the UN.
3.) If there is proof of WMD, he would try to get the UN to disarm him, otherwise it would be okay to disarm Saddam by force.
4.) If Saddam is an imminent threat (built a nuke, or giving WMD to terrorists) He would support a unilateral invasion.
5.) Since there is no proof of Saddam is an imminent threat, we should work through the UN.
6.) Since there is currently no hard proof of Iraq having WMD's, we have no right to attack him without the UN.

[killbotfactory]

53. Why are you quoting Edwards?

As an example of Dean changing positions?

[sandnsea]

15. Now I'm more confused

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach." December 2002

Isn't this what George Bush did in September 2002? Isn't this what the October Authorization said as well? Why does Dean say he's anti-war when he's suggesting the exact same approach that Congress laid out in the authorization for war?

That's what I don't get. Bush didn't follow the Authorization, why does Dean keep blaming Congress for that?

[JohnKleeb]

16. dunno

:shrug: on your question

[killbotfactory]

17. Not exactly...

At the start of all this Bush said he was going into Iraq without going through the UN. Congress passed the Iraq resolution which encouraged Bush to go through the UN but stated he could go in whenever he wanted. Bush went to the UN while massing troops in the region since he was going to go in regardless. Then he abandoned the UN approach when it was convenient and invaded Iraq.

[sandnsea]

18. I'm done

This isn't against you at all, I just made a personal decision not to respond to anymore Dean posts whatsoever.

[killbotfactory]

31. I hope it wasn't me.

Also, I would like to point out that Kerry criticized Bush's blustering talk of unilateralism on the day he voted for the Iraq resolution and in an op/ed before he voted.

Bush's stated commitment to work throught he UN was a joke, and I suspect the bungling of diplomacy was deliberate in order to undermine the UN as part of one of the neocon goals. Bush was going in with or without the UN, with or without proof from the beginning.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Dean - Oops - Forgets To Mention Disarmament Until February

Whereas that was always the central term for Kerry. Kerry was very clear about that, but Dean evaded the issue to appear more strident in front of anti-war crowds. When he established himself as a contender with the anti-war support, then he switched gears hoping people would stick around for his activist style.

Kerry did not support "the war." He supported disarmament, only he had the guts to say it at the height of the anti-war movement.

On the eve of the vote:

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections."

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."

"As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war."

"If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=statement_iraq_2002_1009

On the eve of war:

"I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight.

The Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6394&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

1997:

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

(Thanks to the GOP for doing my homework!)

[killbotfactory]

29. No, he mentioned it in october...

See my timeline of quotes.

But since Bush wanted to just invade right away, and threw out a bunch of nonsense about how much of a threat Iraq was, all of the debate was on whether he should go to the UN before doing so, not whether or not Saddam should disarm which everyone in the world agreed on (even the French and Russians).

Dean was saying there is was no evidence of an imminent threat, just a lot of innuendo, and so invading would be wrong unless the UN authorized it (in which case it would be because there was clear proof of Saddam in major violations of the UN).

[blm]

42. Selective...

Where's the quote he gave to the editorial board at Roll Call?

There are political and military analysts who have already noted Dean's variations. They have been compiled. You'll soon see. Your days of getting away with this will be over.

Lucky for Dean that Dennis Kucinich is a nice guy.

[killbotfactory]

51. Yeah, and Bush will find WMD and Dean will be really embarrassed!

Getting away with what? Posting quotes and links to the quotes? i've looked for all the quotes from Dean I can find before 2003, and that's what I've come up with.

[polpilot]

44. Kerry's campaign is imploding and hence the exaggerations (that was

a kind word choice) and panicky remarks.

Dean '04

[J B]

8. Uh leadership?

I said here at the time, Kerry cannot vote for a blank cheque and then argue that his commentary to the President after the fact amounted to anything less than a vote for aa blank cheque.

He apparently disagrees.

But that is not leadership. That is whispering from the rear after waving a white flag.

[tedoll78]

19. BINGO.

The action matters more than the words ever will.

[George_Bonanza]

20. Actions over words?

Dean's the one stirring up frenzies with his, what else, WORDS. Has he done much action? No. Has he had to vote or anything? No. He talks big on foreign policy, but does he have any past ACTIONS in that regard? No. In fact, Dean's popularity is just that, words. He wouldn't be anywhere without his angry rhetorical words.

Kerry's the one in the senate who, along with Daschle, tried to refine the bill before Gephardt and Lieberman cut them down. I'm getting tired to repeating this. And Kerry's the one with the boatloads of experience and ACTION from the senate, along with his words.

What, because Dean tends to be angry a lot, that counts as action instead of words? Criticizing Bush is still words, not action. Action is like Howard Dean passing the civil unions bill, not him railing against Bush or his rivals in the newspaper.

[killbotfactory]

22. What action did Kerry take?

Oh yeah, he voted for a bill which said that Bush can invade Iraq whenever he feels like it. That's it. After that it was all words from Kerry.

[tsipple]

13. John Kerry is certainly welcome to remind primary voters...

...how he voted with President Bush for the Iraq War. And he can certainly remind them over and over and over again.

But I wouldn't recommend it.

[tsipple]

50. More Thoughts on Kerry

I really like John Kerry, and I'm a big fan. He'd make a fine Democratic nominee.

That said, some constructive criticisms. One is to run a smarter campaign, and to learn quick. If Howard Dean can start in January with $150,000 in the bank and pass right by Kerry in the polls by mid-summer, Kerry's going to have far bigger problems with Karl Rove and the vast amounts of Republican cash coming at him as the nominee. That's why we have primaries: to produce better, tougher candidates.

Another is to speak plain English. Kerry is absolutely brilliant, and I think that's wonderful. But those comma-filled clause-ridden stump speeches are hard for me to parse, and a couple fancy universities think I'm reasonably smart. I want John Kerry to speak directly and openly, as I know he can. Some people will say, "Well, the issues are complex." They are, and that's all the more reason why he must be plain spoken. This is not the Senate floor!

Thirdly, it's OK to admit you goofed. (Re: Iraq vote.) It's a sign of strength, not weakness. I know Kerry can do this, because his past experience with Vietnam demonstrates he can. If he genuinely believes he voted correctly on the Iraq Resolution, fine. But I'm having trouble understanding him on this issue, and the longer it drags on the harder it will be for him to discuss other issues.

Lastly, be creative and innovative. Dean has ALL that going on. (Running TV ads in Texas is, well, f*#*ing brilliant.) Tell your campaign staff to start thinking outside the box, and to bring him some good ideas on how to take the fight to Bush, to prove he'll be a powerful candidate.

If he can't make these changes, I think he's doomed to lose New Hampshire, and that's a must-win state for the Kerry campaign. (Yes, Dean is from neighboring Vermont, but lots more New Hampshire voters know Kerry, because lots more work in Massachusetts and tune in to the Boston media market. If New Hampshire doesn't vote for Kerry, who will?) I think there's still time for Kerry to adjust and refocus, but now's the time.

[Vis Numar]

24. I like the way that Kerry fights back with his poll numbers

From second to fourth in a few months, keep that up Kerry, you are going to lose.

[George_Bonanza]

27. Poll numbers?

Hello? Most of the country can hardly name more than one of the Democratic 9, much less have any kind of valuable knowledge or insight in electing their candidate. Is it possible that people see Dean on the cover of Time and on CNN and just answer, "I'll vote for Dean *b/c he's the only candidate I know other than Lieberman*"? This is hardly a critical stage that determines everything. Although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be happier to see Kerry's numbers rising instead of falling, but he has been relatively dormant and low-key for a few weeks. Everybody's expecting him to take it up a notch next month. I still think the country's voting mainly on name recognition. That's why Gephardt (minority leader) and Lieberman (2000 VP nominee) are so high up on lists. And now add Dean (Mr. Time magazine) to that list.

[RogueTrooper]

30. Trying to deligitimize the polls???

This seems to be the Kerry fan's wheeze dejour.

Of course John Kerry ( Senate - near VP2000 pick ) is dropping like a stone in the polls. If the polls were not moving, and Joe and Geps' numbers were not dropping ( faster than Kerrys, I might add ) I would believe you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Which poll are you looking at?

Which poll are you looking at? I don't see any that back up what you are saying. Could you please provide a link or provide a citation to the poll or polls you are citing? Because as far as I know what you are saying is untrue.

[RogueTrooper]

46. Oh, here you go

These polls have been well reported on DU, which is why I did not include them. And if you don't believe me ( about the DU reporting ) you can do a search. Do you think the Dean supporters would let these pass? I think not :evilgrin:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 4-6, 2003. N=391 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 6.
.
8/4-6/03 7/25-27/03
% %
Joe Lieberman 18 21
Dick Gephardt 15 16
Howard Dean 15 11
John Kerry 12 15
John Edwards 5 6
Carol Moseley Braun 5 6
Bob Graham 5 4
Al Sharpton 4 5
Dennis Kucinich 2 2


You can look at other polls here if that is your desire.

[Nicholas_J]

47. Yup

One recent U.S.A. today poll has Dean Not ahead statistisally, but numberically, withing the Maergin of Error, all 4 candudates are in a deas heat, but Dean supporterd always love to use the numbers in the wrong way.

The only polls in which you can tell who is REALY ahead, are those in whinc a candidates pllling numbers go outside the margins or error. Again inIowa, Dean is not aeahd, but all of the candidates are in a dead hea by the margins of error.

But is has already been decided, to defeat Dean, Kerry will turn ove his delegates to Gephardt in Iowa, and Gephardt will Turn his delegates over to Kerry in New Hampshre in order take Dean out ofvthe race.

Dean has been spoken to by McAuliffe and asked if the party determined that ONE candidate had the best chance to win, would he drop out in order to assure than Bush be beaten and Dean denied the meeting occurred, so the party has decided to do what it must to destroy Deans campaign.

In a few days, when other polls come put with Dean behind again, Dean supporters wil be fighting with me and arguing how these polls are irrelevant. The nost accurate polls so far, is the one in which Dean falls behind Kerry by over 50 percent of the Margin of Erro, at American Research:

Kerry and Dean Continue to Lead Democrats in New Hampshire


Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean continue to lead in ballot preference among likely Democratic primary voters in the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Preference Primary according to the latest New Hampshire Poll. Kerry receives support from 25% of likely Democratic primary voters and is followed by Dean at 19%. Congressman Dick Gephardt, at 10%, is the only other potential Democratic candidate to receive double-digit support in the ballot preference.

These results are based on 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered Democrats and undeclared voters in New Hampshire saying they always vote or vote in most Democratic primary elections. The interviews were conducted July 21 through 24, 2003. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 600 is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Joe Lieberman has lost five percentage points from the June survey and his current 5% ballot preference matches ballot preference for him in January.

Likely Democratic
primary voters July
2003 June
2003 May
2003 April
2003 Mar
2003 Feb
2003 Jan
2003

Joe Biden 1% NI NI 2% 1% 1% 2%
Carol Moseley Braun 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NI
Wesley Clark 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1%
Howard Dean 19% 18% 19% 19% 22% 16% 15%
John Edwards 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4%
Dick Gephardt 10% 10% 12% 15% 15% 15% 5%
Bob Graham 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1%
John Kerry 25% 28% 26% 24% 23% 23% 27%
Dennis Kucinich 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% NI
Joe Lieberman 6% 11% 12% 13% 12% 10% 6%
Al Sharpton 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Undecided 30% 23% 20% 19% 20% 27% 39%


Dean will lose in Iowa, because all of the other cnadidates have agrrred to get rid of Dean. that it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House 2004: Democrats
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older. See also:
Political figures


NOTE: State polling -- including election trial heats, and job ratings for the President, governors and members of Congress -- can be found in the subscriber area of our web site. INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polls listed chronologically.
.

.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 4-6, 2003. N=391 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 6.
.

"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ."

8/4-6/03 7/25-27/03
% %
Joe Lieberman 18 21
Dick Gephardt 15 16
Howard Dean 15 11
John Kerry 12 15
John Edwards 5 6
Carol Moseley Braun 5 6
Bob Graham 5 4
Al Sharpton 4 5
Dennis Kucinich 2 2
Other 4 -
No one 5 2
No opinion 10 12

Now this is the pool that Dean supporters say puts Dean in second place, Notice that it has Dean wqual with Gephardt and Liberman in the lead. With A 6 point margin or error. In order for Dean to be ahead of Kerry he would have to be fuerther than 6 ponts ahead of Kerry, or have more tn 18 point in the poll

Does he?

[RogueTrooper]

49. The people decide Nicholas

Maybe your candidate, and some of the others think the world is run like a Republican Oligarchy. Our candidate is people powered.

What contempt for Democray and her choices you have.

Why should the voices of the Party's technocrats weigh more than the people? Especially after they lost the 2002 elections. Politics is a free market, and in this market the technocrats have lost. The market now demands new people and new policies.

However, I don't buy your senario. Take the recent NAACP meeting. All the "insider" candidates decided not to be on the same stage with Dean, unless they had too. I believe the strategy was to deny Dean political oxygen and hope he fades away. So, all the insider candidates decide to give the NAACP the bum's rush. That is, of course, until Kweisi decides it time to lay down the law. Kerry and Edwards, showing true loyalty to their pact, come scuttling to Florida. Partially saving their bacon. My guess would be that Gep and Joe were a little pissed off with those two good ol' boys called John. I am sure that they say they will do this; But self interest will get in the way, as it as before.

[TSIAS]

54. If they did that

It would be hard to hold to my previous ABB philosophy.

[killbotfactory]

40. Kerry is pacing himself...

Hasn't really started running (nevermind he's spent the most money)...

Wait until he REALLY starts running, then we'll all be crapping ourselves from the brilliance of his campaign.

It's a marathon, not a sprint... until Kerry starts running.

[polpilot]

45. Kerry can eliminate Dean at any point. Kerry's not running yet. He's a

long distance sprinter/runner marathon thong type personality who's waiting...waiting...waiting for the right wind to windsurf to an easy victory. He's the ONLY candidate due to extensive military/espionage/CIA operative GI Rambo JOE that can make Americans sleep well at night.

He can motorcycle his tall self to the victory circle at any time. He's real... real...real tall and taller and did I mention he's tall and rides a motorcycle and probably eats at Hooters.

Sure Dean's a lot smarter and smoother and always has better ideas but that will get you only so far.

Kerry's just holding back and waiting...waiting...maybe someone needs to give him a calendar... and an abacus.

Dean '04

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[AfricanDonkey]

48. I think Kerry and Dean need to stand together

and fight back this Joe Lieberman type of Democrat.To me, Dean and Kerry are very much alike and are splitting hairs on these issues. Though I am very perturbed because killbotfactory and several others are very good at this and know a whole lot more than me on these issues, but from what I have read this past hour is that Killbotfactory and popilot can find holes in just about everything but on a hairsplitting issue like Iraq, when faced with pure truth like Kerry's statements at the "SF?" debate, whatever that is, Kerry said he was against the war. I would take him at his word and move onto who is the better candidate to fight George Bush, not split hairs. My concerns is that popilot and and killbotfactory will hate Kerry and support Dean to the end. I have seen this is Zaire, Rwanda, Niger and so many other African countries. Americans should not let their emotions overrule pure logic and fact because that is when real bullets start flying.