am I the only one who thinks...

[OhioStateProgressive]

Gore endorsing Dean will help the Green Party

millions didn't like Gore the first time

it's a good way to get Green votes away from Dean

way to go Al!


I wouldn't vote for Howard Dean if I was promised a million dollars, AND a pack of cigarettes

[Catch22Dem]

1. No offense intended, but....

If you don't vote for the Dem in 04, you might as well be pulling the lever for Bush. Same effect!

[izzie]

6. Yes right on, and Greens do not want Bush

I have yet to meet any one that wants Bush but do have a son that keeps telling me he may be right about the war.But then this son had to take a second job as he lost his over time. I did tell him to thank the GOP for that. Did they get that into law yet?

[Think Globally]

62. They don't want Bush Lite either.

The way to win this election isn't to nominate somebody who is so similar to Bush that people can't see the difference.

Greens refused to vote for Gore because they thought Gore was exactly such a candidate. Candidate Gore made Joe Lieberman his running mate in 2000. Vice President Gore spent 8 years in an administration that was just as beholden to business and the rich as is the current one, including debating in favor of sending American jobs to Mexico on national television. Senator Gore voted in favor of turning the Bush war machine loose on Iraq in 1990. Gore=Bush Lite.

If someone with this record endorses a candidate, it implies that the candidate entertains some alarmingly Bushlike positions. It does not make that candidate more appealing to the Democratic Party base. It makes them more likely to stay home or vote Green because they can't tell the Democrats from the Republicans.

For Dean's sake I hope Gore is simply picking the person he thinks will win for ego gratification. If Gore sincerely approves of Dean's positions, it does not make me any more likely to vote for Dean in the primary. In fact, it makes me more hesitant to do so in the general because Bush Lite isn't any more acceptable than Bush, and it shouldn't be to any of us! WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR PARTY!!!

[xJlM]

2. With a loser of a campaign like Gore ran in 2000...

Distancing himself from Clinton, the poor job he did in the debates; I'd definitely be looking this "gift horse" in the mouth pretty thoroughly.

[deutsey]

15. And he still won by a half a million votes

Those that were counted, anyway.

[LuminousX]

32. Is Gore taking over Dean's campaign? I didn't hear that.

I just heard the policy wonk, the man who is Mr. Environment, is saying he supports Dean for President. If you've heard something different, perhaps you should share it.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[OhioStateProgressive]

4. .....

but it's besides the point

I will not sit around quietly while people try and take away my voting choices

I will continue working to get some other Democrat nominated...those of us who care must need to work harder


it is not childish for wanting America to move forward, instead of standing still

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. if it were truly for the good of the nation

you would be for Dennis Kucinich

[LWolf]

7. Voting for candidates that support

the issues and direction you believe in is not"aiding and abetting the enemy."

There are plenty of us who don't plan to vote for Dean. I'm a democrat; I'll vote for Dean in the general election if I have to. But I sure won't attack those who choose not to.

Howard Dean is not our only choice. Third party voters are those who feel betrayed by the democrats' shift to the right. They are looking to cast their votes for candidates who will work for their issues. Many of them used to be democrats. Many of them are returning to vote for democrats in the primaries, and will stick around to vote for a democrat in '04. If democrats want the support and votes of all of those 3rd party people, and of the left wing of the party, they'll nominate someone who will include us once he/she gets to the WH. I don't think Dean is that man. I think he's a fine moderate; I think he actually matches the party's shift to the right pretty well. If a majority of democrats are shifting with the party, he may well win. The democrats may have decided to court the middle rather than the left. That's the party's choice.

That doesn't mean that those who choose not to shift along with the dems are "aiding and abetting the enemy." If the democratic party does not want to represent them, they are free to choose a party that will. I think that's called "freedom." The party is free to shift to the right; they ought to respect the rights of those who choose not to go with them. Accusing dissenters of "aiding and abetting the enemy" is graceless. I guess that means all of us who've chosen to be dissenters about Iraq, etc., are also aiding and abetting the enemy?

[Dhalgren]

43. Well said!

Hear! Hear! I am sick to death of people telling others what their vote means. As adult, voting, citizens each person has to make his/her own choices, for his/her own reasons. To support a candidate or a party is to support that candidate or party - period. If Democrats want the left/progressive vote, the Democrats should go after it, not question everyone's patriotism. That is a very Republican thing to do.

[liberalmuse]

8. How about 4 more years of Bush?

No one who cares about the environment would want 4 more years of Bush. Anyone who causes Bush to take office again by voting for a third party candidate or not voting will be just as guilty as those casting their votes for him. I thought it was an understanding with most sincere Greens that they will ABB--in other words, they will vote for the candidate opposing Bush who has the most chance of winning.

There is an excellent article in the '500 Greatest Albums of All Time' issue of RollingStone mag., written by Robert Kennedy Jr. about what Bush is doing to the environment. It was too overwhelming for me to read all at once. In a nutshell, we simply will not survive another 4 years of a Bush onslaught.

[OhioStateProgressive]

9. after 4 more years i am sure the Democrats will listen to the Left(nt)

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[OhioStateProgressive]

11. I never attacked you, or called you names(nt)

[Padraig18]

12. I can't believe this!

How in God's name will assuring another term for * be to the nation's benefit? :eyes: I cannot believe that ANY rational person believes that another * term in office is prefereable to voting for whichever candidate the Democrats nominate. It just boggles my mind...

[OhioStateProgressive]

18. thats good, cause I didn't say it did

but there is a whole segment of this voting block called Democrats that haven't felt very well represenented...and this isn't helping

we want to have a say as to the leader picked...matter of fact we want OUR leader chosen

[dpbrown]

13. It's what happened to Vermont under Dean

Whether Gore intended this comparison or not, this is what happened in Dean's Vermont:

Dean's first re-elect in 1992 gave him 74% of the vote. A vote of confidence for a never-elected Governor who ascended to the role only upon the untimely death of Governor Snelling.

One of Dean's first acts was to rescind Snelling's temporary tax increase, incensing Democrats. Dean went on to get no more than 92% of Vermont covered under health insurance. Then when the Vermont Supreme Court gave the legislature an ultimatum on gay rights - let them choose marriage or "union" - Dean took the more conservative route, saying homosexuals made him "uncomfortable, like everyone else."

Dean's re-elects plummeted, as progressives, abandoned by his policies, united and grew strong, and Republicans, confident they could elect a REAL Republican instead of a Democratic pretender, organized. In 1998 (before the "civil unions" flap), Dean was already only getting 54% of the vote. In 2000, Dean barely squeaked in with 50.4% in a state that requires a majority.

In 2002, Dean declined to run, leaving his Lt. Governor to lose to the Republican instead of him. He was on to bigger and better things - running for President! No position Dean ever held in Vermont is held by a Democrat today.

So with Vermont as a guide, it seems obvious that the Democrats are basically DARING the Greens to grow stronger, and the Republicans to organize a focus on better "centrists" than Dean.

While Bush and his gang of Iran-Contra felons, oil barons, and corporate pirates may be either an anomaly or future "business as usual" for the Republicans, the choice of Dean represents for the Democrats an almost obsessive fascination with winning over Republican voters instead of the large number of progressives (and nonvoters) who pegged themselves to the "left" of Gore in 2000.

And that's a shame, because Bush is on the ropes. We can have, literally, any Democratic President we want this time around.

Finger-wagging, blunt talk, fear, and intimidation is only going to work to cow into submission a mere subset of the people who KNOW there is a better choice right now, and there are the numbers of voters out there to make that choice a reality.

More than 53 million made a "progressive" choice in 2000.

If 40 million represents the Democratic "core" then 8 million progressives to the "left" of the core chose Gore or Nader. Only 5 million to the "right" of the core chose Gore.

Why the Democrats think that they're in a stronger position going for those 5 million and using a belligerent centrist to appeal to enough disappointed former Bush voters to inaugurate a Dean "centrist" Presidency, is a question that literally millions of former, and future, voters are asking themselves right now.

Democrats need to learn that the numbers favor the progressives.

Dean's positions on: the death penalty, NAFTA, universal single-payer health care, UN in US out of Iraq, abrogating Halliburton's war profiteering Iraq contracts, no federal law for gay civil unions/marriages - are anathema to the positions held by millions of progressive voters.

Some of these voters will hold their nose and vote for a belligerent centrist, should he win the nomination (not a sure thing). Many won't.

Plenty of thinking liberals will not choose Dean.

This is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, and progressives should demand better.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[JohnKleeb]

14. I think honestly Dan the best way to beat Dean and the others is to

focus on our message not Dean. :shrug: My opinion.

[dpbrown]

16. I know, John. This is a response to this thread

I'm going to put up a couple posts showing where the votes are.

[JohnKleeb]

19. I understand

Lets mention what our guy is gonna get done, forget about the other candiates, post away the positives. Any good news on DK?

[OhioStateProgressive]

22. I respect your pacificity on this issue

I just think we need to be stronger to beat strong opponents:)

[JohnKleeb]

23. I understand that

I just think we gotta mention our goods not their bads, ya know. It may work, being negative on their candiate wont get us anywhere. Sigh still though, we post something he is doing good, we'll get more, hes great but unelectable. I dont know. I just dont know at times, sigh.

[OhioStateProgressive]

25. it takes all kinds John

i think we need to be comprehensive, allow supporters to use what they do best to garner support...we all reach the ground in a different way, from a different angle

a candidate like Dennis is one who appeals to the emotional side of our conscience, the artistic side of our brain...it is an uphill battle to use the forces of humanity that society as a whole reject...that of emotion and creativity and art

to overturn this tide of rationale and logic, and stay true to that inner truth of emotion, we must show this emotion too...all of us in our own ways...the differences of our techniques only show the diversity of support and supporters Dennis has

:)

[JohnKleeb]

28. I understand

sigh I dont know how to feel though, what is it people want? people want someone to stand up for them yet when its a guy like Kucinich oh hes great and all but hes unelectable. Thats just the most sad thing, they know who he is and what he stands for, but prefer the superficiality to giving him a chance. Thats what saddens me to no end. However I think in the end we will be right. I think people are idealistic and pragmatic, just one will say hes idealistic and the other will say hes pragmatic. Thats my opinion, but I find it valid.

[OhioStateProgressive]

31. it is very valid(nt)

[JohnKleeb]

33. because we all have issues that are important to us

yet others that we dont care so much for. I wish I could explain better but we are all idealists and pragmatists.

[OhioStateProgressive]

35. yes

i think you are very valid to continue on in the manner you do, without myself or anyone else having a say in it:)

I think i am valid to press on as I do...because we support Dennis's cause for different reasons

I am fully a Dennis supporter because of his willingness to allow Socialistic change in America...the fact that he is anti war is important to me, but not the decider

that is not to say, however, that your reasons for supporting Dennis are less valid...you know?:)

[JohnKleeb]

36. of course

I like his ideas for change and his ideas about peace.

[dpbrown]

26. Yes, we just got the author of "A Color Purple"

A new endorsement. Frankly, someone whose politics are probably better than Gore's anyway.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. And who was elected Mayor to clean up the mess Kucinich made?

George Voinovich, a Republican. It isn't often that a big city (with a solid Democratic majority) elects a Republican as Mayor.

[OhioStateProgressive]

24. the Democratic Party abandoned Dennis

he had no support...it is amazing, that in America, a public servant could be ridiculed, and voted out of office for putting the people first

it is callous of you to even mention Geroge Voinovich

[dpbrown]

30. This is misleading - Kucinich saved public power

The Republicans orchestrated his ouster, but the city has since commended Kucinich.

And Voinovich didn't "clean up" any messes.

And the company that Kucinich protected Muny Light from went on to become FirstEnergy - causing the biggest blackout in North American history.

Kucinich got elected on the basis of protecting public power, kept his promise, and suffered politically as a result.

Frankly, I'd rather have a politician representing me that would take a hit like that for me, than someone who would push for a "compromise" gay "civil union" bill, saying homosexuals made him, "uncomfortable, like everyone else."

Kucinich was right about CEI/FirstEnergy. He's been vindicated. He's been commended. He saved the people of Cleveland tens of millions of dollars in energy charges.

He beat the Enron of his day and lived to tell about it.

Just try to find that kind of record with any of the other Democratic candidates.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Mairead]

47. "tens of millions of dollars in energy charges."

Another way of saying it would be '$250+ million over the first 12 years'

Public power has been lucrative for Cleveland. At the close of our interview, when I ask Kucinich the effect Muny Light has had on Cleveland's economy, he grabs his cell phone and makes a call. Speaking in Polish, Kucinich asks Muny Light's former general manager to run some numbers. The answer is striking. Between 1985 and 1997, Cleveland customers saved $250.8 million by sticking with public power.

http://www.sfbg.com/37/02/news_kucinich.html

[redqueen]

48. He is so clearly the best candidate

I really don't understand why there's even any question. :shrug:

Oh yeah... forgot... that corporate media...

LESSON:
If you want to get ahead, that you play ball with the corporate interests & banking muscle men. If you play ball and get ahead, people see you as a 'winner', even if the people realize you're betraying them and stop voting for you, and your margins shrink with each passing election... you're still a WINNER!

Because if you don't play ball, and put the interests of corporations ahead of the people, then you'll be crushed. And if you're crushed by powerful monied organizations like newspapers and TV stations, then people will all be fooled, and your career will be OVER! Wait... sometimes the people realize they've been had, and even re-elect candidates who don't play ball. But their own party won't support them! haha! Try to beat THAT, you populist, unrealistic idealists! Wait, he got re-elected anyway? And promoted? huh?

NO! Must not think realistically! Must adhere to programming!

BACK TO THE LESSON:
Because if a candidate doesn't play ball, that must mean they don't care about winning, and ... well that makes you a bad leader... or something... right?

Help!

:eyes:

[dpbrown]

58. Thanks for correcting me...

I try to keep all that stuff in my head, but sometimes it just falls out!

[Mairead]

39. Check your facts.

You're talking nonsense.

[LWolf]

74. Agreed.

I agree that GWB is on the ropes, and that we can elect the democrat that we want. I agree that progressives should demand a candidate that will work for them; which is one reason why I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich.

[deutsey]

17. Waiter,

I don't like this whine...it was made with a lot of sour grapes.

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. call it sour grapes...or 5-7% of your votes...take your pick(nt)

[deutsey]

44. They're not mutually exclusive phrases, I suppose

.

[Mairead]

27. "Gore endorsing Dean will help the Green Party?"

Consider: Gore also endorsed and stumped for Newsom. What does that tell us about Gore?

[JohnKleeb]

29. hi Mairead havent seen you in a while

:hi:

[Mairead]

38. Hi John...yes, I've been busy trying to get something else done

[JohnKleeb]

40. ok

Just wanted to say hi. I got the primary blues as I call it today for some reason :(, plus I got the flu for real.

[Township75]

34. Holy Balls, People! Everyone needs to relax.

The democratic party is having a primary right now to determine its nominee...it will not be determined by the Supreme Court, or Bush's buddies, or anyone else, except those registered democrats that choose to vote.

If a candidate loses, it is because s/he didn't appeal to the largest amount of dems, not becuase s/he was shafted, or that your vote was ignored.

[Mairead]

37. "it will be determined by those registered democrats that choose to vote"

And the GOP crossovers, of course. Don't forget them. With no oppo to Smirk, they'll be out in force.

[AP]

41. 90% of Nader preferrers voted for Gore.

[Tinoire]

42. Gore's endorsement doesn't mean squat except to Dean supporters

It's not going to win anyone over and I don't see why non-Dean supporters are getting so excited over it.

Gore has one opinion... and one vote to go with it. Since when does what Gore, or anyone else, think dictate the outcome of an election? Many voted for Gore as the lesser of two evils last election, not because we thought he was perfect- so why all the gloom and doom over his endorsement?

It's not like it's the first time Gore has shown deplorable judgement in selecting people.

Nader has for all practical purposes endorsed Kucinich and no one complains about that. My vote remains with my candidate from now until the bitter end regardless of what Gore, Clinton, Brazile or any other DLC people tell me. The DLC is terrified of one candidate and one candidate only and that's the one with the real grass-roots support that continues to build despite all their smoke and mirrors. Gore and Clinton came to San Francisco and stumped for Newsom, a corporate-friendly type of guy who donated money to Bush, ducked out on voting re the Patriot act, and who wants to put the homeless on a barge; when they did that they both revealed their true non-populist colors.
The only thing that's disappointing is the ungracious timing of the endorsement but, contrary to popular belief, Gore does not crown the next king. This is a nice thing for Dean supporters but in the grand scheme of things- it really doesn't mean much.

[redqueen]

46. This party is doomed

If "Democrats" keep acting like this, then you can count the days, because people will not stay asleep forever. You can herd sheep year in and year out, but people tend to wise up, eventually.

"Gore and Clinton came to San Francisco and stumped for Newsom, a corporate-friendly type of guy who donated money to Bush, ducked out on voting re the Patriot act, and who wants to put the homeless on a barge; when they did that they both revealed their true non-populist colors."

Isn't this exactly why the Greens keep making progress?

Would anyone be so bold as to try to deny it's why Democrats keep losing?

:eyes:

[a_lil_wall_fly]

49. Red... in a nutshell you put it....

and that nutshell(the Democratic party) is going to be crushed by absolute arrogant ignorance. The 3rd party numbers will rise and slowly take key areas away from the Democratic party and bam Democratic Party == Whig Party.... a dinosuar and extinct. End of two party oligarchical system...long live the imperial Republic and it power to squash public, political and personal dissent at well.

[redqueen]

50. The stage has been set before

We could look back and see how it worked under Dean in VT.

Act as a compromising 'centrist'... lose votes for the Dem party... strengthen third parties which under a two party system can't win... recipe for right wing takeover.

Result -- all you have is one party, in two flavors: 'cryptically right-wing fascists', and 'us too, just not as much'

Pardon us 'idealists' if we don't help the rest of you to usher in this new era of DIS-enlightenment.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

71. Yes..but now the true results are more critical than other times...

of the past.
Yes the two flavored party system has to go.
I think that Rev Sharpton idealogy of getting elephants in donkey suits off of office is very critical for the surival of the Democratic process in this country.

[Sean Reynolds]

51. A lot of you need to heed your own words.

First some of you Kucinich supporters state that you have every right to support ANY candidate you choose, whether it be a Democrat, or a Green. Then in the same breath you attack Dean supporters for THEIR support of him. Well if you're free to support Kucinich/Nader, we're free to support Dean - ok?

OhioStateProgressive says:
I will not sit around quietly while people try and take away my voting choices

And then:

OhioStateProgressive says:
if it were truly for the good of the nation you would be for Dennis Kucinich
---

WAIT? So you're not going to sit quietly while people try and take away your voting choices....and then you're going to attack us for support Dean by saying that if it were truly for the good of the nation you would be for Dennis Kucinich - basically saying that our support for Dean is wrong. How about you take your own advice?

[OhioStateProgressive]

52. no, wait a second

i got attacked with being told I wasn't for the good of the nation...i responded...you wouldn't see that, because that same post i replied to was deleted for a nasty attack

so you see my reply, and not the post i replied to...that is inherently unfair for you to make this attack on me without noticing the post i replied to was deleted for attacks

yes, i think support for Howard Dean is wrong...I don't think peopel are evil or ignorant for supporting him

again, you attacked me without knowing the whole story

unfair

[redqueen]

54. Big picture

I was able to look at where you said that and judge for myself by looking at the 'bigger picture' that I couldn't really label your comment as unfair.

I would hope most people can look at the 'big picture', and think for themselves. Judging by how many openly say that they prefer DK but will not vote for him... I'm not so sure. :shrug:

[Sean Reynolds]

56. Well you're new here.

For a while I've been told by Kucinich supporters that I'm not progressive enough because I don't support DK for president. Well, if you'd look at my sig you'd see I actually liked him. BUT I do like Dean more.

I am a socialist, but because I don't support Kucinich as my #1, I've been told I'm not that liberal at all. THAT makes me mad because it's the same people telling US that they have every right to support Nader without being told they're wrong.

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. well, unless i say something like that to you directly

it is unfair for you to attach that label to me

im not questioning your voting...i meann, i do...but only in the sense that I truly feel Dennis is the best choice, and am perplexed when i find peopel who don't agree

it doesn't make you an asshole or anything

[Sean Reynolds]

60. It wasn't to you, it was to ALL Kucinich supporters.

Go read the second to last post in this thread and you'll get where I'm comin'.

[OhioStateProgressive]

61. i did, but you mentioned my name twice

and I felt kinda shit on about it

I am sorry man:)

[redqueen]

53. In the interest of fairness

"if it were truly for the good of the nation you would be for Dennis Kucinich"

That comment was made in response to a deleted comment. Not really fair to single out the response on its own for criticism, is it?

Now I'm curious as to what got deleted. Obviously it wasn't a Kucinich supporter's post... so...

[Mairead]

55. You seem to have missed the 'good of the nation' part

Dean 'angrily' supports the status quo.

He's not planning on making any substantive changes. The guy is a straight tweaks-only, status-quo candidate. Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. You can't. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget, now approaching the size of all other war budgets in the world combined. Jeez, just think of that: all others COMBINED!

He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare. He claims that 10M are people who would opt out. Well, who would opt out? Obviously the very wealthy and the privileged healthy young. Which means that Dean's healthcare will be a multi-tier systems like public education: inadequate for the poor, marginal for the middle, and attacked relentlessly by the wealthy.

He's not going to end the drug war--he now makes no mention of mmj or the drugs war at all. But if by some miracle he were to re-"evolve" and follow through on his meagre earlier claims, all it would amount to is switching some money out of the prison industry only to funnel it into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry.

He says full civil rights for LGB people are a state issue...which is both the status quo and a lie (equal-treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--why doesn't he know about that?).

He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose backs that leaves!

Kucinich, on the other hand, promises to cut the war budget, go for non-profit, universal healthcare coverage, end the drugs war and treat mj like booze, and give full civil rights to LGB people. Plus universal high-quality edu, full international cooperation, and shifting Iraq and its oil into UN control.

That's what's meant by 'good of the nation'. Yes, you have the right to support Dean if you really want a Bush Lite status-quo. But it doesn't speak well of you if you do any more than it speaks well of those who prefer Bush Regular.

[Sean Reynolds]

59. No.

See there you go again questioning my support for Dean - yet you all bitch and moan when someone calls you on voting for Nader in 2004. Please, respect my choice and I will respect yours, ok?

I don't question YOUR support for Kucinich, I don't smear you by saying that voting for Nader in 2004 will give Bush re-election. Yet you have no problem saying Dean is Bush-lite and a Bush Regular. WTF is up with that?

Plus, I do remember refuting your exact post a few months back. Is that all you've got?

Really Kucinich must be saddened by the hate you're spewing. I hope all his supporters aren't like this and if they are no wonder he's not catching on. It's hard to win people over if you continually bash their opinion.

If you want to win me over, DON'T EVER question my support ok?

[Mairead]

63. "when someone calls you on voting for Nader in 2004"

What have you been smoking? I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich. I even said so!

And no, you didn't refute my post. Handwaving isn't refutation.

And I don't hate Dean, I despise his policies. Can't you tell the difference?

And I don't expect to 'win you over'. If you can't win yourself over, how could I possibly do it? What I'm doing is stating facts. What you do about them is your business. You can accept and work from them, or you can put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA LA, but the facts aren't going to go away simply because you find them unpalatable.

[Sean Reynolds]

64. Uh yes I did...quite a few months ago.

You asked the exact same questions when you questioned my support for Dean.

Anyway, I'm happy you like DK. I'm happy you support him and I wish you the best of luck. BUT why must you continue to question my support for Dean? You state you're giving out facts, yet those aren't facts - they're opinion.

But it's clear, Kucinich supporters see no wrong in attacking other candidates, but they do see wrong when someone attacks their candidate. Makes a lot of sense, right?

[redqueen]

66. Care to link to that earlier refutation?

Nobody's questioning support that I see... what's happening is people are pointing out puzzling facts, and asking why others don't seem to care about them.

So far I've not heard a really substantive answer to that question.

Attacks aren't just attacks. There are personal attacks, baseless attacks, and substantive attacks.

The personal and baseless are just stupid (Dean is a hothead, Kucinich is a kook, etc.) but the substantive ones I don't even consider attacks. They're an attempt to point out weaknesses or faults, and if there is a weakness or a fault we should address that now, not later when in the GE.

Anyway again I'd be very much obliged if you could link to or name the thread you refuted Mairead's criticisms in... thanks.

[Mairead]

67. "those aren't facts - they're opinions"

No, they're facts...unless you're trying to tell us Dean's own website is rubbish. Everything I pointed out comes from Dean's own policy statements. I didn't make them up.

And you didn't refute my earlier post. I simply didn't respond to your handwaving. Please do as RQ asked--provide a link. Let people see.

[genius]

65. I voted for Gore but I wouldn't vote for Dean

If Dean gets the nomination, I'll write in the name of a real Democrat.

Gore doesn't appear to be pulling his own strings: not when he quit in 2000, not when he decided not to run, and not now. THe DLC and Goerge Soros wanted him not to run and I suspect they are the ones who talked him into backing the most conservative of the candidates.

He doesn't shy from conservatives. Lieberman was his pick for running-mate and now his endorsement is of someone who is even more cnservative than Lieberman. Maybe we were wrong about Gore being a liberal.

[Doomsayer13]

68. Gore's posturing has remade his image among progressives

now that he's not weight down by a presidential run, his move on speaches has galvanized his progressive base. I think that his endorsement will help solidify Dean's support.

[EMAN51]

69. We all smoked dope in the '70's, read "Future Shock" and loved Nader's hum

anitarianism. The only shock you will receive now will be if Bush gets the second term with a larger majority Congress. All Greenies and indies need to line up and support the eventual nominee who appears to be Dean at this moment in time. I have not made up my mind as to an individual candidate in the primary, but whoever emerges will have my support. If the general vote splits and Bush is back, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. And if you think his agenda is radical now, wait and see what happens particularly on Supreme Court nominees. That's a scary thought.

[neuvocat]

70. Either that or...

it could hurt Dean. To be honest right now though there's no telling what the real impact of this will be.

[bigendian]

72. Greens need all the help they can get. n/t

:kick:

[bigendian]

73. The Greens need help.

Might as well take what you can get because your party is going nowhere fast.