"When I'm pushed I tend to push back" good interview with Dean

[CMT]

Good interview in the next issue of Newsweek with Howard Dean on a variety of issues.

On are we safer with Saddam captured?
"We would be a lot safer if we vastly increased the amunt of money we spent to trackdown know nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union and as I proposed last week--paid attention to North Korea..."

If Iraq stabilizes isn't that bad news for your campaign?
"Of course not. That would be good news for the Iraqi people and the world. My campaign isn't based on the outcome of the war in Iraq but on a hopeful and idealistic alternative to our current political reality--not as a protest against the Iraqi war."

Are you an old democrat or a new democrat?
"Basically, I don't fit into any ideology..."

Do you have a warm, likable bedside manner?
"I can if I have to. I mean with my patients I always did, and with the voters I really do most of the time. The people who don't think I'm warm and fuzzy are the media because I tend, when I'm pushed to push back..."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3763797/

Also good news for democrats in the Newsweek poll. The Bush bounce (about a week later) is not that big. Newsweek gives Bush a 54% approval rating--up only four points.

He is doing better against all of our candidates than he was. Beating Dean by 13-points and Clark by 12-points, but this is expected with all the propaganda news regarding Saddam. The question of whether people want Bush for a second term shows a closely divided electorate--46% say yes and 46% say no. Only 39% of independents want Bush re-elected and only 41% of women (compared to 49% of women who say NO to Bush).

Do we feel safer now that Saddam is captured? 51% NO and 41% yes.

[Renew Deal]

1. Dean dodged the safer after Saddam question.

Does this guy stand up for anything HE says? I think the problem with Dean is that Americans wouldn't feel safer with him as president.

[dorktv]

2. What on earth do you mean?

[CMT]

4. I didn't get that impression at all

He indicates reasons why we are not safer including North Korea and speaks about the vendetta the administration had with Saddam rather than the overriding world view that this country and the world is no safer with Saddam captured. Bush will be running on that issue that we are safer and I think Dean explains why we really aren't.

[madfloridian]

5. This statement has been all over the news.

From his foreign policy speech given last Monday:

SNIP..."As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam's capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday's capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

He has addressed this clearly and distinctly in every interview all week. He has spoken very deliberately on this, and he has said he will not back down from his statement. He urged the other candidates to clarify and stand by their stances as well.

[deutsey]

6. You're focusing on larger truths here, silly

You're not looking at this in terms of the narrower "truths" of partisanship.

(sarcasm off)

[madfloridian]

7. Ha.

:evilgrin:

[caledesi]

8. First of all it's a stupid, baited question.

Saddam Hussein was never a threat to us and the question was a pointed one...as if HD said "no," it would be interpreted as him being "way out there."

HD is too smart for these kinds of questions now. So he answered it by basically saying "why are we focusing on hypothetical events, e.g., Iraq when there are REAL threats out there and * isn't doing anything about them.

I thought it was great that he didn't fall for the bait.

[drfemoe]

10. It's even more ludicrous than that...

Right, it hasn't been proven SH posed a direct 'threat' to Americans (if they stayed out of Iraq).

"SafER" is a quantifier. Safer than what? Safer than before we bombed his palaces? Safer than pre-911?

Since W refuses to cooperate with investigations, no one really knows HOW safe we were before. I sure 'felt' safe on 9/10/2001. Events of the following day proved all of us very wrong about how 'safe' we all are.

Rather than allowing W to make a campaign slogan from his heroic stomp on SH, I would rather make an issue of how we became so vulnerable (UNsafe) as to allow such a strike on US soil. How did THAT happen? Tell me that, and what has changed, and an assessment of increased security can be analyzed.

[caledesi]

14. Excellent points DR!

[Padraig18]

3. Excellent!

Thanks for posting this. :)

[ibegurpard]

9. kick

for anyone actually interested in READING what Dean has to say instead of knee-jerk Deanhaterz talking points.

[TLM]

11. Of course not, they aren't looking for truth or fact in Dean's words...

but rather what they can edit, spin, and lie about in order to prop up their dying campaigns.

[Egnever]

12. The question is why do so many buy into it?

????

:shrug:

[Upfront]

13. Don't care What Dean

Says at this point, he has got my vote. The more they whine and bash the more determined Dean supporters become.

[mzmolly]

15. There it is!

:toast:

I am so thankful for DEAN!

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I think it's good if Dean gets into a shoving match

I hope he doesn't beat the shit out of anyone though, that would be too violent.

[ldoolin]

17. kick

nt