How is Howard Dean unelectable?

[Michigander4Dean]

Not a single one of his rivals said the other night that they thought Dean could beat Bush. Why?

Do they really think he would get clobbered by President Deficits-JobLosses-AntiEnvironment-WhateverElseYouCanThinkOf in 2004?

Is it his liberalism? Is it his anger?

Do they think deep down that he can win, but they're just saying he can't to win themselves votes?

I personally think any one of the candidates can win, even Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich. Why? Because who's the Republican nominee?

[killbotfactory]

1. Rove will attack him! We are doomed!

He'll only lay kid gloves on others... cause.. uh... I dunno...

People need to stop playing defense here. If this were a poker game, We'd have four aces, while Bush would have a pair of 2's and be betting like he had a royal flush. Don't fall for it.

[maxr4clark]

4. Dean IS doomed

So by your logic, to win all we have to do is show up? That's all Dean will do, show up.

Dean has no credibility on foreign policy, has vulnerable character issues, and Democrats are still trying to figure out whether he is a liberal or a conservative on domestic issues.

The question is, why does anyone think Dean can _win_ against B*sh/Rove? National polls show that most people don't. "He generates a lot of money" and "he was the first to object to B*sh on Iraq" don't cut it. I got a Dean pamphlet the other day, which attacked B*sh on Iraq. It didn't, however, give any constructive suggestion what to do instead. That doesn't cut it. Dean has to be BETTER than B*sh, not anti-B*sh.

Clark presents a unique problem for the Rovian machine. They can't attack him on foreign policy or national security, the Republican stock in trade. They can't attack him on character. They'll have to win on domestic issues, and I don't think even Republicans think they can do that.

[killbotfactory]

5. That's bullcrap

They can and will attack anybody on anything. If you can't see that... you're in for a horrible surprise.

Here's a preview:
"Clark is opposed to tax cuts and wants to raise your taxes..."
"Clark supports gay marriage, and he's a radical..."
"Clark is soft on terrorism and opposed Bush's war against a terrorist supporting brutal dictator who tortured and raped his own people..."
"As SAC, Clark almost started WWIII, and was kicked out of the position early, is that the kind of man you want running our defense?"

Etc...

[maxr4clark]

10. ...and more

B*sh will use all but the last of those against Dean, too. B*sh will win the soft on terrorism issue against Dean, but not against Clark; Clark got Milosevic. That one issue will sink Dean.

The last one will be belied by Clark's demeanor; he doesn't look like someone who would start WWIII, and doesn't talk like one either. Clark retired 3 months early. BFHD. He was retired early for pushing to attack Milosevic more aggressively. Feather in his cap.

[killbotfactory]

15. Bush sucks on terrorism

The Iraq war did nothing to improve the lives or security of the USA.

Clark says it.
Dean says it.
Everyone should say it, it's true.

Bush will claim the contrary, but the facts speak for themselves.

[maxr4clark]

18. D Yes, R No

I agree with you; my Republican brother and our two Republican sisters and my Republican father don't. Clark has a far better chance of convincing my Republican brother than Dean does.

[killbotfactory]

32. Will Clark go into hiding if he's not elected?

We're not going to win unless we're united as a party and are willing to work our asses off to boot shrub out of the white house, no matter who wins the nomination. I would hope Clark would be a part of that.

[maxr4clark]

38. Probably back to industry

I think Clark felt he was doing good (not well, Good) before he chose to run, and might choose to go back to that career.

I've heard Deanies propose Clark for VP. Personally, I don't think Clark would make a good VP, because of what the VP does. Clark probably wouldn't be very useful running the Senate, and he has said that he not vying for VP.

If Kerry doesn't get the nom, I think he would be very effective as VP. If Clark doesn't get the nom, IMO he might be persuaded to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, but I'm an outsider.

[madison]

22. Just whom did Bush catch?

Clark got Milosevic. That one issue will sink Dean.

But you forget Dean would be running against Bush…. Just whom did Bush catch?

Bush has not caught Osama bin Laden; Bush has not caught Saddam Hussein.

Presidents don't do the catching in any event; the military does, at the behest of the president.

[maxr4clark]

28. Not the point

"That one issue" refers to foreign policy, not that Clark got Milosevic. B*sh will sink Dean on foreign policy, but B*sh can't sink Clark because Clark got Milosevic without getting Americans killed, and B*sh didn't get anyone but got lots of Americans killed.

[polpilot]

53. ...and more...Dean has too much support and too many supporters and

too much money and he's too smart..He can't possibly win.

Dean '04...

[maxr4clark]

54. money and supporters

Oh, you are talking about beating other Dems. Dean has lots of support and lots of money compared to Dems. He looks good for the nomination.

[lastliberalintexas]

8. You think so, huh?

"Clark presents a unique problem for the Rovian machine. They can't attack him on foreign policy or national security, the Republican stock in trade. They can't attack him on character. They'll have to win on domestic issues, and I don't think even Republicans think they can do that."

Tell that to Max Cleland. :-)


ANY of our candidates is electable if we band together as Dems/liberals/progressives and campaign and vote for them. But if you think that the repubs won't attack one of our candidates, then I have a bridge to sell you in New York. They already have the script ready, no matter who our nominee is. S/he will be painted as the pinko, tax and spend, gun grabbing, -insert other insults here- liberal. We just have to be ready to counter their attacks, no matter who our nominee is. The point is not to worry about what the repubs will do and get out and sell our nominee! Play offense for once rather than being backed into the corner. That is how we win- no matter who the nominee is.

[madison]

9. The right-wing assassins are already attacking Clark on his character

They can't attack him on character


Are you kidding?

The right-wing assassins are already attacking Clark on his character. Haven't you been paying any attention?

I don't buy it; I think Clark is a good person - as I think all of the Democratic candidates are good people.

But for you to claim Clark is unassailable on character issues is to stick your head in the sand.

[maxr4clark]

12. won't stick

They'll attack his character, but it won't stick. B*sh has been attacked on character too, but it hasn't stuck.

Clark can make the argument against B*sh's foreign policy far more effectively than Dean can. Clark will win on that issue, Dean will only win among the people he has already convinced at this point. The swing vote will go to Clark instead of B*sh or B*sh instead of Dean on the War in Iraq.

[Hope4]

24. They will have the generals that america loves speak out

Tell how clark was fired. They can't do that with dean. Hey, I served in Nam and I do not hold it against dean that he skied while I was there. I love skiing and wish I was with him. I was in viet nam for several tours and have never held it against those that did not go unless they help the commie's.

None of the Generals that america loves can attack anyone but Clark. Has Clark become a dem yet.

Also the rebel flag and how it is his state flag and he has never done a thing about it.

[maxr4clark]

33. wont fly

Shelton said Clark was fired, has had plenty of opportunities to back it up. He hasn't. He hasn't because he can't. It wasn't a character issue, it was military politics. Clark has addressed this issue well already. There are also Generals who speak very highly of Clark, like McCaffrey.

This issue is minor.

[mikehiggins]

66. Where is General Shelton?

The last I heard he was helping Senator Edwards with his campaign, though not as an official part of his staff, more like a consultant.

Can't the newsmedia find him?

They've had months since that famous quote.

Makes you wonder why we haven't neard more.

[loyalsister]

58. It's the volunteers stupid

What Dean has that the others don't is people on the ground already knocking on doors. This is how to combat the corporat media. His rapid response is known by supporters and they spread the word. The other candidates are underestimating the strength of this kind of communication in a campaign.
A guy running for Senate locally told me he'd rather have 5 volunteers than $1000. Guess what Dean has both. The thing that will win the election is the campain. His has much more potential than the others because he has not only more visible supporters, more dedicated and willing to work supporters. No amount of vitriol coming from supporters from other campaigns can match his numbers. You need people to get it done. Strength in numbers and a enough cash for a serious media blitz is a winning combination.

[mikehiggins]

67. Been there, done that

In the general election it won't help as much as you might think.

Lots of people don't like volunteers showing up at their door anymore than they like the Jehovah's Witnesses (unless its Prince, of course, and he's willing to sing). Handouts get dumped within twenty paces, mostly not read, and phone calls can turn people off more often than not.

Worse yet, the other side has huge numbers of volunteers already, and well established groups like the NRA that are more than willng to send letters to their members pointing out the dangers of supporting the democrat.

You can expect cable and network and radio to be inundated with GOP ads and there are only so many minutes of time available. Ditto for the internet.

The only way to oppose an incumbent in a situation like this is to hit him with a candidate that undermines his strong suit, which in the GOP has always been defense and foriegn policy. If Bush wasn't our leader in times of crisis his shortcomings would have likely already eaten him alive. Once the Democratic Party lost its nerve and didn't fight him tooth and nail from the outset, the die was cast.

We have to fight him tooth and nail now, and we have to do it with a candidate that can trump his hand. As far as I know, no incumbent President has ever been defeated for reelection during a time of war. A regular Democratic politician isn't going to cut it, and despite his press, Dean is a regular Democratic politician.

That's why us Clark supporters support our guy. He's the only one we think can take Bush down, not because we don't like Dean, or Kerry or Gephardt or Edwards or Lieberman (well, maybe we don't like Lieberman all that much) or Kuchinich or Sharpton or Braun. We don't beleive that this is their moment, no matter what their supporters and true beleivers hold to be self evident.

We beleive that this moment calls for something entirely different (with apologies to Monty Python) and in this collection of leaders, only Clark fits the bill.

This is no guarantee he'll win. Only a judgment that he's got the best shot of all of them.

[maxr4clark]

68. its little George, not the Dems

Your argument applies to beating the other Dems, yes. It doesn't apply to beating little George, which was the original question, and here's why. Whether you get 51% of the vote in the northeastern US or 99%, you get the same number of electoral votes. Dean does NOT have the kind of support you describe in the south or the midwest, where this election (the one against little George) will be decided.

Oh, and did I mention--if Dean supporters really are Anyone But Bush as they always claim, the grass-roots Dean supporters should be active on behalf of any of the 9 Dems, wherever they are.

Please don't call me stupid. General Clark doesn't attack other Dems personally, and neither do I. I'd appreciate it if you didn't either.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

51. Nice..

I would state that the talking house plant had a hand of this nature(2,A,K,Q,J) and thought he a sumpremo flush.

[ajacobson]

2. IMHO an inappropriate question

and I think the other candidates reacted to it by doing nothing. Koppel was an ass for asking a question like that.

[eissa]

3. He's not

It's just the media, and sadly some of our own, repeating a much-repeated repuke propaganda line. You know, the more you say something, the more it becomes true ("liberal media, liberal media, liberal media"). The fact is that Dean, and all the other dem candidates, ARE electable. This administration has given us a silverplatter full of issues -- tax cuts for the wealthy, fucked-up foreign policy, hated internationally, corporations writing federal policies, secret meetings with energy companies, not cooperating with 9/11 panel, lying to the public, and an overall stupid, ignorant, and arrogant "president." Remember, shrub "won" running against peace and prosperity mainly because he had an angry (the repukes hated Clinton almost as much as we hate shrub) and committed base out voting for him. We CAN and WILL win next year.

[maxr4clark]

6. Choosing to fight on our terms

Dean lets B*sh keep the discussion on foreign policy and fear, which is what they want to run on.

Clark as an opponent forces B*sh to try to win on domestic policy, which is the Democratic Party's strong suit.

This is what makes Clark _far_ more electable than Dean.

[mikehiggins]

7. Because, man to man, why vote for Dean over Bush?

Okay, calm down now. Take a deep breath. Visualise a pleasant scene, someplace you were happiest at some point in your life. Okay? Good.

Here's my point, and I'm sure you've heard it/seen it before.

Today the market danced around 10,000. Manufacturing is up. Jobs are sorta, kinda, maybe starting to sorta, kinda, maybe edging up (even if most of them mostly require learning how to say "fries with that?"). The drug benefit scam is still two years from becoming obvious to a lot more people. The environment collapse is still some years from producing layers of smog covering our cities. The water is still, largely, possible to drink (except in Florida). Oil prices aren't too bad, and anyway, that's the fault of those arabs anyway.

And so on and so on and so on...

And there has/has not been another terrorist attack on US soil AND it looks like Bush is going to bring the boys (and girls) home for Christmas and there is what looks like a sorta, kinda, government in Iraq and all the papers and columnists and tv shows and radio hosts are proclaiming the anointing of Dubya as a done deal, so we should save our time and go fishing on election day.

And on the Democratic side, Howard Dean yapping, yapping, yapping about how bad Bush is and how he'd replace him with...well, what? Things are going pretty good, after all, for most Americans. Most Americans aren't getting shot in Iraq or Afghanistan; most Americans have jobs; most Americans don't see what is coming down the road towards them after 2004 with Social Security "reform" and more restraints on unions and collective bargaining, and on abortions and the right to choose and so on and so on and so forth.

So the average American says to Howie, hey, we've heard all that before, y'know. And things aren't that bad for me, and even if they aren't all that great, they could be worse and everybody's in the same boat, and so on and so on and so forth.

Without a word from Rove or any of those overrated simpletons that everyone seems so afraid of (how smart can he be? look who signs his checks.)

Why will Joe-sixpack listen to Howard Dean? Because he was a governor? Because he's a doctor? Because he's a whiz with the Internet? Because he is an inspiring leader?

Nah. Because Joe doesn't give a rat's ass about any of that and he's heard it all before.

What has to happen is Joe has to be confronted by someone who is outside of the game in a real way. Someone who plays into all those cliches and stereotypes TV and the movies have created over the last fifty years. Someone who is an actual "hero" in terms Joe can understand and relate to. Someone who has fought the wars, bled for America and has the credentials to stand up, point to the war on terrorism and the need to deal with the rest of the world and say

I can do what has to be done and I can do it better than the chimp in the flight suit.

and be beleived.

Someone at DU once told me that I posted a note that was the most cynical thing he/she had ever seen on DU. Hey, that's just me.

All I want is Bush out and all I can see is that a ham sandwich has a better chance of carrying that banner next year than Governor Dean.

If I'm wrong--and if the primary voters choose Dean--I will work as hard for him as I will for Clark, and I'll be overjoyed if we manage somehow to dump Bush.

Overjoyed and amazed beyond beleif. I'll even become a beleiver, maybe, and put a picture of President Dean on my wall labeled Savior of American Freedom and Democracy.

I just don't see any reason to think it'll happen. From where I sit, Dean will lost, Clark MIGHT win. I'll go with what my experience tells me--half a shot is better than none.

[lastliberalintexas]

13. Nope

The economy is not improving. I don't care if "Joe or Jane Sixpack" is hit repeatedly by the "liberal" media with information concerning how high the Dow has climbed or that manufacturing is supposedly up (it really isn't, btw). If the average American doesn't see improvement in their own lives, it won't matter what the pundits are saying about the so-called recovery.


And Dean, and all of our candidates, are presenting very detailed visions of what they do to improve America post-Shrub. None of our candidates is running an anti-Shrub campaign alone.

The latest polls in Texas show that Shrub only has a 58% approval rating. In Texas, for goodness sakes! And yet people here are continually spouting defeatist crap in an attempt to bolster their own candidate by knocking another down. Amazing.

[maxr4clark]

16. Nope

We are saying that Dean's positive message is not getting through. From me, that is intended as constructive criticism.

The opponent's record isn't going to change no matter who runs against him. You want us to support Dean as our candidate now, before the primaries? Convince us he matches up better against B*sh than the other candidates. I don't see it yet, so lift the scales from my eyes.

I WILL support Dean if he gets the nom.

[killbotfactory]

17. It seems to be getting through to lots of people

who are actually paying attention to the race...

[maxr4clark]

27. Who?

I'm sorry, but it is an honest question on my part.

I got a Dean pamphlet yesterday outside a book signing by Jimmy Carter. It didn't say ONE THING about Dean's plan for America; all it did was bash B*sh. I've become so curious about Dean's policy ideas, I've started asking around; it's why I took the pamphlet in the first place. Every person I talk to about Dean says he has raised a lot of money and he was against the War in Iraq from the start. As far as I can tell, that is the message Dean has gotten across.

It isn't necessarily Dean's fault. Kerry and Lieberman have been attacking him in every debate, so I never get to hear his positive ideas. Except on healthcare; his plan is the one I like the least among the Dems, followed closely by Clark's (shock and amazement! I said something less than positive about Clark!)

Look, I think there is a better than 50% chance I'll be supporting Dean as the Democratic nom. I _want_ to hear good things about him!

[killbotfactory]

36. The voters of Iowa and NH, among others...

Unless you think holding two commanding leads in the polls is worthless.

[maxr4clark]

41. not the question

I am impressed by Dean's leads in IA and NH, but that isn't my question. My understanding is that Dean has built his campaign on No Iraq War and on impressive campaign organization, both of which are fine as far as they go.

My question is, who has Dean reached with a message about what to do next, in Iraq, in the economy, in health care. The Dean supporters I've asked aren't in that group, and the Dean flyer I picked up didn't talk about it. Is he going to pick up swing voters on those issues?

[lastliberalintexas]

20. I'm not asking you

to support him pre-primary. If you've looked at the candidates, their positions and campaigns (as I'm sure you have) and decided that Clark is your favorite, continue to support him. But why continue to spread right wing BS about the (un)electability of any of our candidates?

As far as matching up best against Shrub, who knows? You don't *know* that Clark matches up best- that's just your opinion and/or gut feeling. It's mine that Dean matches up best, but that any of our candidates would probably fare very well. None of us has a crystal ball, and this is probably the most irritating thing about *some* Clark supporters for me. Some here pronounce that such and such WILL lose against Shrub. How the heck do they KNOW? They don't- it's all opinion. But people continue to post that kind of BS as though it were gospel.

And btw, most people can't name more than 2 or 3 Dem candidates right now. We all have a lot to do to get their positive messages out.

[mikehiggins]

25. You may not care what Joe thinks

or you may think Joe is a minority of voters, or you may beleive in polls that say George Bush's popularity is down.

All I beleive is that Dean, Kerry, Gephardt et al can talk all they want, but in the end its all talk to Joe, all the same yammer, yammer, yammer he's been hearing from the Democrats for years, from the same people with the same issues. And from where he sits, things might not be great but we sure don't want one of them Yankee liberals screwing things up even worse.

A Yankee doctor from a state with a smaller population than Houston? What the hell is that all about? Why should Joe listen to him?

That's my question in a nutshell. Why? Beating an INCUMBENT president is never an easy job, even a nitwit like this one. You have to have a way of presenting something better in terms Joe will accept, which means someone who's done things Joe considers better than he has himself.

Otherwise, we're just marking time for 2008.

[indigo32]

43. Mike...the way you put it we might as well pack in our bags and go home

cuz NONE are gonna beat him then. Thats a very defeatist attitude in my book.

[mikehiggins]

45. One man's defeatism, Indy, is another man's bleak reality.

I've been involved in politics since I was a teenager in high school and I've learned one thing. Actually two things.

You can't beat somebody with nobody.

You very rarely beat an incumbent.

Okay, with a tip of the hat to Monty Python, THREE things,

It's even harder to defeat a President when there's a war going on.

Look, Dean is a great guy BUT (and I hope this doesn't shock anyone here) he is a politician. He's been a politician all along, and he has been pretty good in a pragmatic, centrist fashion. He's gotten things done for the people in Vermont without too much smoke and mirrors and he's struck gold with his out-of-left-field appeal to the internet crowd of politically aware voters.

But he's still a politician and no different from Kerry or Edwards or anyone else. He isn't even an ideologue with strong principles like McCarthy or McGovern.

A politician isn't going to beat George Bush, not when he is an incumbent, not when he is President in what people think is a time of war, not when he has absolutely no problem with lying out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Dean will go down, and go down hard.

Our best shot, and maybe our only shot, is Clark.

So that, to me, is not defeatism. That, to me, is reality.

Hey, I may be wrong. I don't think so but its possible. If things go the way they seem to be going, one way or the other we'll know by the end of November.

[loyalsister]

59. How well do you actually know "joe"?

Doesn't sound like very well, because I have talked to several joes who actually like Dean. Joes are, first of all, smarter than you seem to think. Many dislike this war. Many also know that their interests are not being represented and someone who isn't "slick" is standing up for them. Dean appeals to many joes for reasons you may not understand. I know a farmer who likes him. He said "Well, sometimes someone comes along who I may disagree with on some things but when they stand up and tell it like it is, I'll get behind themm 100%"

[mikehiggins]

61. Well, sister, I know Joe pretty well

I worked alongside him for fifty years, I argued politics with him and economics and sports and all that stuff all my adult life. I drove him to voting booths and handed him literature and wore my teeshirts and hats and all that stuff.

I have Joe in my extended family, and among my friends and among the people I meet in the street and in the community I live in.

And he will vote FOR Bush in November unless you can give him a damn good reason to vote FOR someone else. He isn't going to vote AGAINST Bush because some democratic politician gets up and tell him how bad things are. He knows how bad things are. He doesn't beleive that the Democratic politician is going to make anything better because all he hears is the same stuff he's heard before, from people who lost the last election.

So, to recap: it is all but impossible to unseat an incumbent President, especially during a time of perceived war. It is impossible to do it with a "business as usual" campaign AND the beleif that Howard Dean will run a radically new and exciting campaign is best left to the teen-aged interns working for a candidate for the very first time in their lives.

The other night, without criticising Dean in any way, Jimmy Carter pointed out his beleif that Dean was much more conservative than he was portraying himself during the primary campaign. He expects he will move more to the center if he makes it to the General Election.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that politically. That's how the game is played when the people likely to come out to vote in a caucus or a primary are generally to the left of the general population. What is wrong is being taken in by it, and thinking a specific candidate is new and exciting and wonderful and so forth.

In the words of a great philosopher

"don't trust leaders, and watch the parking meters."

Joe remembers that, even if he doesn't realize it. He will vote FOR Bush unless you give him a good reason to vote FOR someone else. He will not vote AGAINST Bush in order to replace him with another guy who has nothing going for him except that he isnt' Bush. It just won't happen.

I support Clark because he is the only Democrat who can stand up next to Clark and have a chance of convincing Joe that not only can he do what Bush does in regard to the war and defense, he can actually do it much better. Then Joe is voting FOR someone who offers him something that is an improvement, not just a change of address.

And thinking Joe is stupid is elitist and self-defeating. Trying to con him is never a good idea.

[loyalsister]

64. Guess you missed my post above

about volunteers. The thing about the Dean campain is it is in full operation non stop. The number of supporters who are actually putting out real effort is phenomenal. Clark may have some Grassroots people who are working to get him elected, but he has nowhere near the same number as Dean.
There's a wider variety of Joes than you seem to recognize. There are a lot of joes who would never vote for anyone but a Democrat. My dad and his brother are joes. One votes straight puke the other Straight Democratic ticket. When you start talking to farmers, you'll notice that there is a lot of division there, too.
You are oversimplifying your argument to an extreme. Can't disturb that formula about it being impossible for anyone other than your candidate to win, though. They've all got strengths and advantages, The front runners have all got a shot.

[mikehiggins]

69. ;^) I guess you missed my reply to your post

Look, if Dean gets the nod I'll be out there pulling for him as hard as I can but I won't be surprised if Bush gets reelected without even having to call on his friends in the Supreme Court.

Bush is an incumbent President fighting a "war".

American need a really good reason to turn their backs on someone like that.

They aren't going to do it for even the most nifty Democratic candidate if it means someone weak on the war is going to be put in charge.

Clark trumps Bush because he can handle the situation better, and has the track record to prove it.

There are lots of Joes who would love to vote ABB if we can get them past paragraph two above. We have to give them that choice. Dean just doesn't cut it in that arena.

[DinkyDem]

19. BULLSHIT!!!

Just admit it, the only reason you like Clark is because you think he can be portrayed as a Republican! And I thought THIS TIME we were going to run as Democrats, not as REPUBLICAN-LITE!!

"Ooooh look at the illustrious GENERAL's resume! Only he can challenge Bush! Why, he can OUT-BUSH George Bush!!"

Clark is a flag-waving military-loving Democrat-come-lately!
If we nominate Clark then we've already lost 2004 no matter who wins the election.

Clark saw that its en vogue to Bush-bash so he's play-acting for applause. But he had a different song and dance when he was PRAISING BUSH, CHENEY, and RUMSFELD at a REPUBLICAN FUNDRAISER not so long ago!

We can do better than that, we can nominate a REAL DEMOCRAT.
Al Sharpton is moving up in the polls. He is the only other candidate besides the Confederate flag-waving gun-toting Medicare-slashing Howard Dean who has gain ground instead of losing it.

Reverend Sharpton is now at 8%, tied with Kerry, and movin' on up.
He has doubled his support while Dean is barely inching up.

Isn't it Time we sent a brotha to the WHITE House?

[maxr4clark]

37. calm down

I am not the enemy. Like Dean, I never supported the resolution that gave B*sh the authority to declare war, I thought from the start that B*sh's interest in Iraq was oil, not terrorism or humanitarianism or building a Democracy. I railed when the Patriot Act was proposed. I haven't ever voted for a Republican.

I like Clark because he has convinced me he is socially liberal, and that he can quickly and effectively repair the damage B*sh has done to our relationship with the world community. And because I see how he can win.

I'm sorry that we don't agree about how tough a road Dean has ahead of him, should he be the Democratic nominee. But that was the question of this thread.

I like Sharpton, and yes I think it's past time for the US to have an African American president--and I don't mean Colin Powell. Unfortunately I think Sharpton's activist past presents even more problems for him as a candidate against B*sh than Dean has--in the court of public opinion, Sharpton has convinced me during the debates that he is sincere in his desire to help our country. I keep hoping he'll get a prominent position in the new administration. Because of his language skills, I'd love to see him as Press Secretary, or maybe better as Ambassador to the UN.

[DinkyDem]

40. Sorry, I guess I did get carried away

but I stand my ground against GENERAL Clark.

We will gain nothing by sending a Republican with a 'D' by his name to the White House.

I only wish I could convince you and your fellow Republican-lite Clark supporters that this is our time to act.

Bush is WEAK. The People HATE him. The World HATES him. ANY Democrat can and WILL beat him in 2004. ANY ONE OF THEM!

We need to seize this opportunity to get 100% of what we want while we have this chance. We may never get this chance again, at least not in our lifetime... especially if we turn over the Party to a bunch of Republicans in Democrat clothing like Clark or Dean and the Big Money Media behind them that are trying to push them on us.

[maxr4clark]

42. I agree to disagree

You see Clark as a D Republican, I don't. We won't make any further progress on that one. I believe in democracy; please support your candidate, I wouldn't respect you unless you did.

B*sh is bad, but he isn't weak and the people don't hate him (the world does, but they don't get to vote). Dems hate B*sh, Republicans hate anyone from the same party as Clinton.

I admire your conviction that we will win, but I am less optimistic that the celebrated "Joe and Jane Sixpack", the ones that don't pay attention to the election until October 2004, are rational voters. I think we need to work hard, so we have the best chance we can. And if that makes it a landslide for us, so much the better; then maybe we can get universal health care!

[mikehiggins]

47. Actually, I'd prefer Carol Mosely Braun

You can nominate anyone you please, for whatever reason turns you on.

That doesn't change reality anymore than watching FAUX makes something real.

In this reality, in this world, in this country, the only candidate we have who has a chance to beat Bush is Clark.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be real happy if someone else is nominated and manages to win, proving me wrong, wrong, wrong.

Four decades in politics tells me different, though. It tells me that you don't beat an incumbent President in wartime unless you give the voters someone better. Convincing the American public at this time that anyone can conduct this "war" on terrorism better than Bush runs directly counter to everything history and precedent have taught us.

The only one with a shot at doing that is Clark.

Thems the facts, jack, and all the cutesy street lingo don't change a thing.

[Hope4]

11. They want a election not a selection

I think they were upset with Gore and the clinton battle to try to select dean or clark.

Let us vote.

[maxr4clark]

14. Not about Gore/Clinton

No, this is what I've thought about the General Election for some time.

Look, the question was why Dean isn't electable. I'm not going out of my way to attack Dean. If Dean finds a way to answer the point of view I have, great! All I want is a Democrat that will win. I prefer Clark 100 to Dean 95 to Bush 0.

As for Gore v. Clinton, I care nothing about who is running in 2008, I care who is running in 2004.

[Hope4]

21. How about his wife

She has told people she will not be first lady? That counts with a lot of people and you can think it silly but watch out. Also, his hidden files and what is in them.

His wife told a reporter that Dean did not even tell her he was running. Seems strange to me.

Also all his big money and blue blood family and we forget he is of the deans of dean/witter a super wealthy family.

I still have not totally change from him to one of the others but I am leaning and hope you take this as concerns that have been raised to me and I am still looking at.

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Oh dear Lord

For the umpteen millionth time- Howard Dean is not a relative of Dean Witter. Dean was Witter's FIRST name.

edited for attitude :-)

[Hope4]

26. Thanks - I blew it

Guess I have been looking at too many post on here but saw that he was from the family that own it.

[lastliberalintexas]

30. S'okay

It has been posted here many times, so you probably did pick it up from this site. That's the problem with posters repeating false, right wing talking points about ANY of our candidates. They get picked up and repeated and eventually believed.

Dean's family does have money. but they are not of the uber wealthy. Not that wealth is necessarily anything to hold against a candidate. After all, FDR and LBJ were both very wealthy, and yet implemented programs which help poor people to this day. Kerry is very wealthy but still a good progressive. Wealth alone does not make one evil.

[madison]

29. You are misrepresenting what Dean's wife said.

I will accept what you say ONLY if you can show me a quote by Mrs. Dean stating that she would "not be First Lady." What she has said is that she would continue to work as a doctor and care for her patients. She may have said that back when Dean's chances of getting into the White House seemed to her very remote. I feel confident she would be an excellent role model as First Lady (as would any of the other Democratic candidates' spouses).

I cannot believe that what Laura Bush does as First Lady is more than a pert-time, part-time job. She comes out about once a month; I think Mrs. Dean, who is a very energetic and intelligent woman, could treat her patients and still fit into her life the amount of First Lady duties Laura Bush attends to.

Furthermore, I do not believe Mrs. Dean ever said her husband did not tell her he was going to run for president. Making that decision was, for him, a long process during which he explored not only his chances but also his family's feelings about his making a run for the presidency.

And I will add that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were also wealthy; that did not impair either man's ability to empathize with those who had less.

[eissa]

31. Dean's wife

Click here for info on Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_JSD

[Meshuga]

34. Hum, let's see...

Raising taxes on the middle class, weak on defense, perceived as the anti-Bush with no solution who has a testy temperament.

Swing voters will make up their minds based on these vague impressions. I hope I'm wrong but we might end up with Bush in the White House for 4 more years...

[madison]

35. That's pure Karl Rove rhetoric.

That's pure Karl Rove rhetoric.

Thanks for sharing.

[Meshuga]

49. That's right...

And Rove will have $200 Mil to make sure swing voter keep this crap in mind when they go out to the polls. It sucks but it's a factor.

[killbotfactory]

39. Yeah, like I said, "Rove will attack him"

This is the script for 2004, no matter who the nominee is:

"(Insert your candidate here) wants to raise your taxes!"
"(Insert your candidate here) criticizes Bush for fighting the war on terror!"
"(Insert your candidate here) is for gay marraige!"
"(Insert your candidate here) is all anger!"
"(Insert your candidate here) is an undecisive flip-flopper!"
"(Insert your candidate here) is an extreme liberal!"

And the country is becoming extremely polarized. The swing vote will be less significant than turning out the base of our own party.

[mikehiggins]

48. Rove is way overrated

Our candidates are vacinnated.

[Meshuga]

50. Dean makes it easier for Rove

"The swing vote will be less significant than turning out the base of our own party."

I sure hope you are right!

[Upfront]

44. Lets See

Can't raise money? Na Can't get grass roots support. Na Wears a pink tutu. No way! Can't handle Bush* in a debate. Na Peaked to soon. Don't seem so. I guess I give up, maybe because the neo-cons say so? Hmmm Please spair us Dean backers any more of this dumb crap! Where is my kool aid?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. Over by the snake oil.

[ErasureAcer]

46. he's a moderate

I don't vote for moderates or anything to the right of that.

so he is unelectable in my book.

[no name no slogan]

52. The Waffler

Dean is a man of convictions, no doubt, but I think he has a hard time STICKING to them when they're called into question.

It seems that every time he gives an answer, he answers how he thinks the questioner will want to hear it-- NOT how he stands on the given issue.

It's this kind of "squishiness" that will make him a target for Rove and/or anybody else who wants to take a shot. He says one thing, but then he winges around the edges of his answer in a way that comes off as pandering. Hell, even his position papers on his website are like that. Some call it "pragmatic". I call it being a wuss.

[liberalpragmatist]

56. He's perfectly electable -- and I'm a "Kerry-ite"

Though I think Kerry would make a better president (which is why I'm hoping he'll pull through), I actually Dean could well be the most formidable candidate.

Dean enthuses people -- people are truly excited by him. One of the Democrats' biggest problems is apathy, and generally, people on the left are more cynical of politicians and more independent-minded. Dean can appeal to them like none of the other candidates can. He's also an incredible campaigner and he is the most competitive with Bush from a money standpt. A Dean nomination would also bring a flood of coverage, especially if Dean begins polling well, which could trigger a flood of articles about his "spectacular rise" which'll draw more attention to him.

Honestly, I simply cannot imagine Dean losing any of Al Gore's states. Michigan, and Penn. are competitive, but they're trending Democratic, and they have popular Democratic governors. The NE will stay with Dean, and despite current polls, Dean can probably win NH. His rhetoric on gun-control (really, his positions are the same as the rest, he just speaks from the angle of a gun-lover) will make him palatable to WV, esp. if paired with a running mate like Jay Rockefeller or Clark, who'd make Arkansas competitive. His style will enthuse Democrats in Florida and give us an excellent chance there. His maverick streak will enthuse voters in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, which were dangerously close in '00, but have soft spots for mavericks, independents, and outsiders (witness Wellstone, Feingold, and Eugene McCarthy). He'd be well-positioned in Washington and Oregon and New Mexico too. When you come right down to it, he'd solidify our hold on all the Gore states and allow us to compete effectively in other states, esp. the SW, which politically is a good fit for Dean. Arizona and Nevada, esp. (maybe even Colorado, though a bit more of a stretch) are excellent opportunities.

Throw in the fact that his angry opposition to Bush, plus general fear over the Republicans agenda will push many Green voters in 2000 to vote Dem this time around, and our chances are increased dramatically.

I hope we nominate Kerry, but if Dean IS nominated, he will be competitive w/out a doubt. Don't forget that Dean has been consistently underestimated since he first started running. Expect him to beat expectations again if he's the nominee.

[RetroLounge]

57. "How is Howard Dean unelectable?"

Easy.

He has too many supporters, too many votes, too much money, leading too many polls.

He can't possibly win...

[mikehiggins]

62. How is Howard Dean unelectable?

Easy.

He has nothing to offer the general public that they haven't heard before.

He has nothing to offer the general public that would inspire them to vote FOR him and AGAINST Bush.

He has nothing to offer the general public that would make them turn their backs on an incumbent president who is engaged in a war (of sorts).

There is nothing new or daring about the Dean campaign except for his desire to eliminate all the Bush tax "cuts", his opposition to the war and his signing of a "gay marriage" bill.

Hop on boys, the Titanic is getting up steam.

[eileen_d]

72. All aboard!

Seriously, I think Dean's electable, but I think the struggle is going to be uphill all the way. Your arguments are completely valid although they won't resonate with people who think Dean is all that and a bag of chips. They do resonate with me, because as much as I'd like to like Dean, it hasn't happened yet.

I think Dean's appeal to the general public is a lot less broad that some folks realize. It's going to be an ugly wake-up call.

[HPLeft]

60. He's electable, in the right circumstances

If things go bad in Iraq, Dubya's a goner against most any Democrat. I don't think Dean is a strong candidate nationally, but he can win in 2004.

[mikehiggins]

65. Dien Bien Phu

Do you have any idea just HOW bad things would have to be to force Bush out of office? Look up what happened to the French in Indo China to get an idea.

Reagan lost hundreds of Marines in a terror bombing in Lebanon and slid away from it like a snake covered in oil.

Don't count on military reversals to oust Bush. The only thing that could hurt him would be to pull out our troops with our tails between our legs. Cheney and Rumsfeld would set themselves on fire in front of the Lincoln monument before they let him make a blunder like that.

The reason I support General Clark (besides the growing regard I hold him in as I learn more about him) is that he can say to the American people

"I can do anything Bush can do, but I can do it better"

and convince them he's telling it straight. That's the only way in which I see Bush as being vulnerable, and Clark is the only guy in a position to make that argument and be beleiveable. ERGO: Clark's my guy.

[marialicht]

63. Dean has not got the "religion thing" down

That will be huge in the next election, as shown by the Pew Research Survey, making Democrats look like the party of the unchurched, irreligious. More frequent church attenders vote Republican; the less frequent churchgoers voted Dem in the 2000 election. The Repugs will capitalize on that absence. Dean almost seems to relish it.

[rbnyc]

70. They all should have raised their hands.

Bush will lose to any dem we nominate. I agree with your post 100%

[VT70]

71. Here's why

I just don't think he will play well in the South, that's all. I really think that Gephardt/Clark would be our strongest ticket to win states like Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida.

[Sean Reynolds]

73. Why would Lieberman play well in the south?

Last I checked a Gore-Lieberman ticket did NOTHING in the south, so what makes you think he'd do so well down there?

Lieberman LOST Florida for Gore.