Vermont Guardian: Dean and the Dems

[Larkspur]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0126-35.htm>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0126-35.htm

In the shadow of a bruising presidential campaign marked by suspicions of another stolen election and the further erosion of Democrats' power in Congress, party leaders appear to be united as never before against the man they believe is the greatest threat to restoring their prominence on the American political scene--Howard Dean.

Forget issues of an amoral, illegal, war costing tens of thousands of lives and crippling our economy. Forget the proposed dismantling of Social Security, the looming reversal of Roe v. Wade, environmental backsliding and failed and under-funded education policies.

Forget George W. Bush, the artificial architect of all the above.

In his drive to become chairman of the National Democratic Committee, Howard Dean, our hoopin' and hollerin' former governor, strikes more fear in the hearts of the party faithful than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove combined.

Dean's straightforward, progressive ideals include an unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq long before Senate Democrats, with 20-20 hindsight, began hammering Condi Rice at her confirmation hearings. Our former governor also has had the liberal temerity to say that American won¹t always have the strongest military, and--hold on to your hats-- that we shouldn¹t judge Osama bin Laden until he has a trial.

Party old-timers fear such brash statements will run counter to America's new moral code. But what is more moral than wanting to save the lives of U.S. soldiers, and preserve retirement benefits for future generations, and a woman's right to choose?
<SNIP>

perhaps more telling: At a recent Sacramento event, an overflow crowd defied expectations when they jammed the hotel suite where Dean and the other candidates for the DNC leadership were speaking. 'No one is as yet clued in enough to the grass roots to anticipate an overflow and set up a TV monitor,' commented one observer.

Down in the trenches, Dean still resonates. Such support, from the ground up, is proof that he can expand the party and attract and hold the diverse constituency Democrats need to bring this country back from the brink.

[KissMeKate]

1. he resonates with this voter.. eom

[Al-CIAda]

2. DEAN or Green...

Since the DLC/neocon appeasers will not fight every inch of this corporate agenda,indeed are accomplices, the only thing left in the fight is how we fall.

[Debi]

3. I KEEP wondering

What he has that makes the Washington Establishment work so hard to defeat him...oh yeah, he's doing it for us, not himself.

DEAN DNC CHAIR!

[janx]

6. That's the whole point, yes.

It's not about him.

[Tinoire]

11. Precisely!

Dean is owned by the people and that terrifies them.

Go Dean! :bounce:

[DFLforever]

4. Thanks. This is an excellent article.

Their implication is clear..as it's shaping up the DNC race is first and foremost not about policy but about power.

[JNelson6563]

5. Dean is still rockin'

and giving many of us hope!

Julie

[lojasmo]

7. Nice article, thanks Lark. N/T

[janx]

8. This--

Down in the trenches, Dean still resonates. Such support, from the ground up, is proof that he can expand the party and attract and hold the diverse constituency Democrats need to bring this country back from the brink.

is what we're going to have to do!

[Wind Dancer]

9. Great article.

Thanks for posting.

[KittyWampus]

10. Progressive Ideals? He's A Moderate. A Centrist. Like Bill & Hillary

and by the way, Bill Clinton also broached the subject of America going the way of the Roman Empire.

And it seems PLENTY of Insiders are backing Dean... although the last line of whining seems to be Washington vs. Everywheres Else.

The 2 dimensional view so many DU'ers have regarding Dean & Politcs is just getting really worn out.

Why not just discuss what he can bring to the effort of reorganizing the Democratic Party?

Why not discuss how his Centrism and DLC past can help UNITE the various groups within the Democrats?

Why constantly make Dean out to be a victim of a conspiracy?

You want to get rid of the DLC Boogiemen it's going to take more than electing your savior Dean.

You're going to have to figure out why you seem to NEED boogiemen & melodrama.

[janx]

12. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

The emphasis is on change and reform, not on leftist ideology.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. Janx, a lot of people don't understand the terms

I have seen populist and progressive used interchangeably. They try to use lables they don't even understand.

[janx]

44. I know. Personally, I think the left's choice of the term

"progressive" was an unfortunate one. But people should at least use a dictionary...

[KittyWampus]

23. Then Why Use An Ideologically Loaded Term???????

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[janx]

15. Yer killing me!

...I need more oxygen because I'm laughing so hard!

[Tinoire]

20. You're killing me!

;)

[cascadiance]

21. I'd like to add a new set of Boxer shorts that say...

Boxers that should be worn proudly in public!

Boxer 2008!

[Tinoire]

29. Lol! I think I'll wear a set of Barbara Boxers to the next ANSWER march!!

[bklyncowgirl]

34. Don't get me wrong, I like Howard Dean but I'll pass on the speedo pix

Straight female here and frankly no 50 something politician should be seen in a speedo.

Anyone remember Paul Tsongas?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Wind Dancer]

14. I wish we could find a way to unite and lose labels.

Our system has been designed to divide and pit the "average person" against one another through boogiemen, melodrama and propaganda.

If we could come together, drop the labels, and demand our government officials represent us, not their corporate sponsors.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to tap into many of our social, spiritual and common needs "as people".

All of us continue to become further divided which only benefits the
"rulers" in this case.

I have been quite impressed with the work Bernie Sanders has accomplished in Vermont by addressing the needs of every community.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Would you rather I stopped supporting Dean?

I haven't counted but I bet I've made a few dozen posts over the last month supporting Dean for DNC and making the case for him getting that post. I've signed petitions, made phone calls, argued for his case with others. Clark is very important to me, sure, but he is not all that matters, and why are you even bringing up Clark supporters on this thread anyway? I didn't see any reference to Clark here until you brought him up. Lots of Clark supporters see Dean becoming DNC Chair as an important matter and have devoted time and effort to making it happen. I have. I don't see the basis for any rivalry around this one, so why contribute to one? Not all Clark supporters think it is important that Dean get the DNC Chair, but a whole lot do. As a group we are probably more supportive of that than those who backed most of the candidates, other than Dean, in the primaries.

But anyway, this is s pro Dean thread and I am pro Dean. I also think reforming the Party is critical. I think fighting voter fraud is critical. I think stopping a right wing strangle hold on the media is critical. I think breaking Democrats financial dependency on special interests is critical. I think involvement at the local level of the Democratic Party is critical. I spent this morning at a county wide campaign coordination meeting for the Democrats where I live. So I guess you can say I think you are mistaken in your stated assumption. Why not just keep this thread Pro Dean?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Once upon a time

I remember how upset supporters of one candidate used to get when they were accused of drinking Kool Aid and having a rigid world view with only one possible right answer. That was never fair.

Are you shocked to learn that supporters of Clark have differing opinions, or do you really believe that we can not tolerate disagreements between those of us who happen to agree that Clark is worthy of our support? You can find examples of many view points represented if you go looking for them, about Dean and virtually everything else.

I never was in favor of supporting Dean in order to get him out of the way for 2008. I was clear about that from day one as were many other Clark supporters, it wasn't only me saying that. But our word is always suspect with some. I still remember how often both Dean and Clark supporters were asked during the 2004 Primary Season to pledge that we would support whoever won the nomination. That was insulting, don't you agree? The assumptions leaped to by many about us all were always the worst.

About 2008, I think Gore would be a strong contender if he runs. Actually I think he would be a stronger contender than Dean and I only bring that up because of the context you raised. I know Gore backed Dean in 2004, and I know how unhappy many Democrats, with a high concentration in Dean's ranks, have been with the current DNC Chair because of a belief that he plays favorites. The DNC Chair is a powerful position, and I still back Dean for it, and you know why? I don't view everything that happens in our Party or country through the lens of how will that effect my favorite Democrat's chances in 2008. Some things are simply right because they are right.

I could point out many posts from Dean supporters who initially viewed the Pro's and Con's of whether Dean should seek the DNC Chair (before he officially committed to that course of action) through the prism of how would that effect Dean's ability to run for President in 2008. Will it rule him out? Will it strengthen his support base in the Party? That was a big deal to some Dean supporters at the time. Did that make them petty to not think of the overall good of the Party but rather how that move would effect Dean's personal 2008 prospects? Did that prove they only cared about a single issue, Dean becoming President in 2008? I don't think so, but it was an issue of discussion between some Dean supporters, who had different view points about it. What is the difference?

Honestly I only took issue to your suggestion that Clark's prospects in 2008 are the only thing that Clarkies care about. That is an insulting comment in my opinion. Right now a number of Democrats are exploring their options for 2008, putting out feelers, sounding out support, positioning themselves for a possible run for President. That is how politics works in the 21st Century. Three years from now thousands of posts will get written at DU about all of them, many will hold up this or that candidate as the best hope for America. Will anyone be upset in 2007 that those men and women were pondering and/or planning for a 2008 Presidential run now, in 2005? No, of course not. Will anyone accuse them of not having cared about anything else other than their quest for the Presidency? I hope not.

I made this post in reply to your direct question, but again I would rather if Clark never were raised on this thread. He had nothing to do with it. This was about Dean and him possibly becoming DNC Chair, which I hope he does. I will only mention Clark here, as little as possible, if you and others insist on bringing him up.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

55. Paranoid delusions are rampant when it comes to some here

What is funny is the victim mentality being perpetrated by the very attack bitches who jump into every Clark thread with vitriol.

What is funny is reading about the hope of Dean using his DNC Chair seat to jumpfrog to be Gore's VP.

Such rank corrupted thinking to want Dean to play favorites with Gore yet screaming about insiders pulling for their friends during 2004.

It's okay if Dean acts like a corrupted establishment insider, right?

And you wonder why DNC members dislike the idea of Dean with this
thinking/dreaming going on here and elsewhere about the Gore/Dean Scream Team for 2008.

If Dean is going to rig the 2008 race for his buddy Gore, then he is an unfit choice to be DNC Chair.

Guess what? I hope Dean is a helluva lot more principled than you seem to think he is.

Please name the attack Gore contingent.
Please name the people who think Dean is going to mean 2008 is cleared.

If anything, Dean as DNC Chair will mean Gore as nominee with himself wiggling into the VP position.

Yeah, he's doing it for us, not himself.

Such hypocrisy.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. Just go take a look at any thread mentioning Gore

and do your own homework.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

88. I haven't seen anything except your singleminded attacks on certain

candidates. It's okay to attack Kerry, Clark, DLC candidates for DNC Chair, right?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveWarrior]

86. Thanks...I've been lurking for over a year but never felt like joining

until recently and even then I didn't post until today. As for Gore, you're very gracious. I just had to say what I felt about him. Why do you say my posts sound familiar?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I understand the frustration, obviously, but I won't go there

You just went well beyond any line that I would draw regarding it, and I don't really want to argue about that either. With the exception of the occasional real freeper, who can imitate any kind of Dem, Clarkie included, I do not view these people, even the ones who piss me off, as enemies. I make that distinction, and it is an important one to me. Further since I am complaining about some individuals leaping to negative conclusions about a "group" that I belong to (Clark supporters) I will not go there in reverse. I see nothing good that would come from that. In particular I will keep any and all comparisons to Republicans out of it. Those are simply fighting words and there is already too much fighting. It pisses me off when a few keep insisting Clark is a Republican and no way would I turn that language around against another Dem activist unless you show me a Zell Miller groupie. I can disagree, strongly at times, with some on this board without going there.

I tell some Dean supporters when I feel that a post they made was not helpful, so I have to say the same about this one of yours. I would rather just correct the record when it needs correcting, and point out divisive behavior when it rears its ugly head.

I very much expect to be allies over the next few years with some of the people who you just insulted. That was the case last summer when we worked together to elect Kerry. We share many common goals. I am committed to reducing tensions, and increasing trust, not the other way around. I can take care of myself and defend my candidate during skirmishes without sowing further hate.

[Cheswick2.0]

75. too bad you don't speak for all the Clarkie troops

and they aren't freepers. The ones doing all the attacking have been here since they showed up during the primaries. Unfortunately for you, as long as there are attacks there will probably be counter attacks.
Dean is running for DNC Chair right now, Clark is running for nothing. So why all the coordinated effort, with the hidden web sites and the Clarking polls?

Really Tom, you should stop complaining about others until you get your side under control.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

87. Get yourself under control...I have read your outbursts against Clark

especially and you're a fine one to chide others to "get your side under control."

LOL!

[Crunchy Frog]

90. Who are these Clarkie troops that you're talking about?

Do you mean me? Yes, I respond to polls asking for my preference for 2008 presidential candidate. That's my right as a fully participating member of this board. I might remind you that no one is currently running for president in '08, and yet people persist in putting those polls up. Why are you so particularly offended at Clark being listed in those polls and people voting for him who support him? Dean is running for DNC Chair right now, not president, and until recently, I always picked him in polls asking who I wanted for that position.

I would ask you when is the last time I've attacked Dean on this board? All of the Clarkies that I'm aware of go out of their way to avoid saying bad things about him, although, since I don't generally go onto Dean threads, I obviously don't see everything that goes on there.

In fact, there are some people here who interpret any support of anyone other than Dean, particularly Clark, as an attack on Dean. Someone actually said recently that Clark's support was largely motivated by a hatred of Dean. If that's the lens that you view things through, of course you're going to feel like Dean is being attacked, every time anyone posts anything at all supportive of Clark. If that's what qualifies in your mind as attacking Dean then I'm guilty and will continue to be guilty. I do not, however, intend to stoop to saying actual negative things about Dean.

As far as "The Hidden Web Site" goes, that was put up almost a year ago,quite openly, by people who still were interested in Clark and wanted a place where they could discuss him privately, or just chat in a nonthreatening environment. The only reason it's been hidden is that we discovered that we were the object of intense interest from hostile lurkers, and we wanted to preserve it as a nonthreatening environment where we could let our hair down and sometimes vent. I'm sorry that you find that so threatening or that you are evidently so frustrated by your inability to access it now. It is not, however, part of some big conspiracy.

I can tell you though that, with Clark doing nothing right now other than criticizing the Bush administration on TV, and threatening no one other than the right wing, there has suddenly emerged what looks like a highly coordinated and deliberate campaign of attacking him and his supporters at every possible opportunity. This includes when a Clark supporter posts something nice about Dean and his supporters. Do you expect us not to defend ourselves and the man that we support? Is that what you do when Dean is attacked, even before he was running for anything?

I don't expect any response from you, as you never say anything to me at all, other than to make snide remarks about speedo pictures. I just wanted to get things out in the open and set the record straight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Now it's your turn

Here you have just attached a post to a supportive one of mine only to throw more fuel on the fire. I'm sorry but I do not buy your overall premise. I also do not think one has to be a freeper to have differences with Dean or some Deanies, by the way, and I did not mean to imply that.

If you really are so one sided in your perceptions that you are blind to the constant string of attacks on Clark and Clark supporters that several Dean supporters have engaged in recently, I could put together a PM to you with several dozen links to posts on threads, the ones that haven't already been deleted that is. Let me know if you want me to do so. But I have taken the time and effort to defend Dean and Dean supporters and see very little reciprocation in return. Your attaching this message to this specific post of mine is a classic case in point.

You blend several activities into one toxic conclusion; coordinated attacks on Dean. That is non sense. There is a cycle of tension right now between some supporters of both men but it is a cycle, and like all "feud" cycles each side has a grievances that causes a reaction that causes a grievance on the other side in return. I could fix blame if I chose and you probably wouldn't agree with me on how I fix it, but I am choosing not to fix blame as much as possible. However you are doing the opposite and my wanting to avoid an escalation of tensions is not the same as being willing to accept all blame.

One thing that seems to be going on is an assumption on your part and others that Clark supporters are intentionally trying to talk about Clark as much as possible on DU as a way to pull attention away from Dean while he is running for DNC Chair. I am amazed that there is any need to even comment on that dark leap of logic that results in equating pro Clark activity with anti Dean activity, and the further one that concludes that there is an actual strategy to hurt Dean by talking positively about Clark. The fact that many Clark supporters have also participated in the Pro Dean threads seems to drop off the radar screen as discarded data that doesn't fit a suspicious theory. Actually over the last 5 or 6 days I know several Clark supporters who have been backing Dean who have just stopped participating on those threads completely. It isn't worth it to them to risk receiving further attacks on their motivation or on Clark.

And your obsession with "Clarking" of polls is laughable, even if you think Clark supporters spreading the word about ongoing polls is dumb. It isn't sinister, and it certainly isn't an attack on Dean, which may be more to the point. Where do you get that stretch? Why is everything Pro Clark seen as Anti Dean by some Dean supporters? It seems obsessive to me, honestly it does. Call us obsessive about polls if you must, but what does this have to do with Dean? I started two polls here as you know dealing with this burning issue of "Clarking" of polls. The first asked people who voted for Clark at DU to identify themselves so other DU members could judge for themselves whether it was all "invading outsiders" who skewed polls here to Clark. That's because some posters, usually Dean supporters, revived the old meme that Clark voters aren't really DUers. The other poll asked all DU'ers who gave a fig's leaf about whether or not DU polls were linked to from other Democratic oriented web sites. 90% didn't care. 80% thought it was appropriate.

As to "hidden Clark sites" I only know of one, and it was started last April and has/had nothing to do with stopping Dean or anyone else except for George Bush. Most of the activity there through the Fall focused on the efforts to defeat George Bush, with an emphasis on Clark's efforts naturally. And it never was meant to be "hidden". It was started long before Skinner decided to open up Candidate support groups at DU, and for many of the reasons that Skinner ultimately decided candidate support groups here would be useful. And most of that site was open to anyone who wanted to drop by until recently when it began getting hacked. Yes it had a chat room where only Clark supporters were welcome and I do not see that as part of an evil plot. Both Dean and Clark supporters have had messages deleted by the moderators in the support groups we both have at DU. Both Dean and Clark supporters have felt uncomfortable at times with posters from other "camps" participating in "our" own DU support groups. Both Dean and Clark supporters get hot under the collar sometimes at this or that and need to spout off to someone and maybe get talked down from being enraged. Do I have to PM you the veiled references Dean supporters make to their own "coordinated" activity they engage in off site at the place "whose name shall never be mentioned"? This conspiracy talk is non sense Cheswick.

I would love to see you just once chastise someone who is attacking Clark or Clarkies the way I just did on this board to someone who attacked Dean supporters. I suggest we get back to the issues.

[Adelante]

96. Oh Tom

"Really Tom, you should stop complaining about others until you get your side under control."

Too, too funny.

[Tinoire]

19. Nothing wrong with being a Centrist. The problem is neo-Liberalism

The most Green, most Leftist voters can find it in their hearts to support Dean because he has NOT signed on to the shameful corporate agenda of supporting American imperialism and worse yet, he listens to his supporters and represents their viewpoints.

Dean knows he's a Centrist. When progressives invited him to speak at PDA after the convention he was very surprised and asked why he was being invited pointing out that he wasn't a Progressive.

Deosn't matter. We'll take him. He speaks for us. Dean has already managed to unite Progressives, Centrists, Greens, pro-Israelis, pro-Palestinians, Northerners, Southerners, rednecks, yuppies, rich Blacks, poor Blacks, etc. Everyone is wiling to compromise except the neo-liberals and that's where the party line is being drawn in our party. People for Progress vs the NeoLiberals who think that if they just pay a little more lip service and toss bigger crumbs things will be just swell again and people won't notice as they go about the same old business of pushing corporate globalization. But they won't because things were never that swell and we're not going back to those days. We're doing exactly what we were asked to do when we weren't thrilled about voting for Kerry- we're sticking around and reforming our party from within. A necessary step to that reform is identifying those who are standing in our way.

Evolution then revolution! Either DNC Chair or President!!

[Cheswick2.0]

22. My DFA meeting were a weird combination of people

All the people you discribe and a lot of swing republicans too.

To me Dean is liberal in the areas that matter most to me. Besides the effect of his centrist policy in VT was a great economy, decent jobs, healthcare for almost everyone, lowed child abuse rates and a better environment (by working with the NRA of all people).

[Tinoire]

27. I noticed that too and was going to post this graphic instead

It's amazing to hear complaints about a Centrist like Dean uniting the huge range from Republican to Green.... Go figure :shrug: :scratches head:

I love the Dean machine! It reminds me of the ANSWER chant "Rise Up" and I think that's the whole problem. Dean is getting all sorts of people to rise up and the establishment can't control such a broad movement. I'll take Dean and I'll take him proudly standing right next to you even if he's not my ideal but this whole thing isn't about a man, it's about a movement for change. And Dr Dean is the designated leader! Now how do I do the Dean scream because there wasn't one word in that sentence he 'screamed' I disagreed with. Taking back my country NOW!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: Yeeeeehhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww for the joining of Republicans, Independents, Democrats, and Greens taking our country back.

[Eloriel]

37. Tinoire

You are one powerful advocate. Hmmm mmmmm.

I LOVE that you love Dean. Does my heart SO good because I remember once upon a time when you weren't so sure about him (to put it mildly) and I was so sad -- not that you preferred someone else at the time -- but that you couldn't see what I and so many others saw, and which you've so beautifully articulated in this thread, but instead seemed to have been impressed by some of the really savage mischaracterizations (lies) about him posted here and elsewhere. So VERY glad you got through to the truth of Dean. I shoulda known you would, you who are drawn to the Truth like a moth to the flame.

Dean isn't perfect, but DAMN! he's wonderful. You take a look at the population of elected Dems around the country and very, very few of them can hold a candle to Dean in terms of insight, clarity, brutal but righteous honesty, etc. That honesty is, to me, like a healing balm. Hearing Dean simply speak the truth (or anyone, actually, but Dean does it so blazingly well) is a jolt of positive, bracing energy for me.

Anyway, so glad you're on board! :hi:

[Tinoire]

42. Lol! Eloriel!

Good to see you :hi:

Yes I do remember that which is why when people accuse me of being a Deaniac all I can think is "moi?"

I always knew there was something to Dean because 1. my mother really liked him in her aloof intellectual way and 2. I knew there was NO way the activists I'd been fighting with with be on board with a fraud. My disagreement with Dean was mostly because I preferred Kucinich's ideas & positions more and thought that he represented our ideas better plus I really, really hated & despised Joe Trippi from the start but I have come to understand what some of my local friends who were on the original Draft Dean team told me (from the Gay Rights and Liberal Jewish groups)- they deliberately drafted a Centrist who they knew would listen to them and be able to unite the progressives and the not so progressives (and about Trippi, they said they knew but that they needed a nasty, dirty bull-dog). And even though our common activist friend J (aka H_F) assured me he was listening, really listening to you, I thought at the time that there was way too much for him to listen to and catch up with. But he's really surprised me and it's not just by hollow, cheap words that any staffer can churn out by combing forums like DU to see what the catch-words of the day are, but by his ACTIONS.

The people trying to take down Dean are the same people I've been fighting. The movement fighting back at them on Dean's side is the same movement that's been fighting every single cause I've fought over the last 20 years. I don't need a think tank to spell things out for me. You're either with the revolution or you're not and Dean is leading it! I'm with you, with the revolution- not going to stand in the middle of the road waiting for Hitler's tanks to run us over as the Vichy collaborators keep telling us that they can feel our pain.

The next time Dean is in my area, I'll go hear him speak with a glass of wine in my hands and raise it in a silent toast to the Dean movement.

Dean is the center where we all can meet. I'll take it because he's an honest center that everyone can walk towards without straining themselves too much ;) Those of bad will can just remain by the sidelines watching and one day tell their children about that nasty Boxer revolution that toppled the corporate empire and that nasty communist (or whatever other lie) Dr. Dean who stopped their mad dream of a New World Order.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. Explain this to me.

You just flat out lied about Clark. Yet you made a post to me asking me to help stop attacks on Dean? I made s specific point of saying in a post that I think it is wrong to smear Democrats by equating them to Republicans (Zell Miller excepted). You reply to THAT post by blaming Clark supporters for all the problems around here, and then here you repeat an outright LIE about Wesley Clark being a Republican as a fact? You know it's a lie, I know it's a lie, and by now virtually all of DU knows it's a lie. Yet you repeat it. AND YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE ATTACKING DEAN?

You go on to say this about Clark: you call him "a stalking horse war profiteer". Well that is an opinion so it is harder to call that a bald lie, but will you agree that it is hard to state a more unflattering opinion about any Democrat than your choice of words about Clark just was? Is this how you win friends and influence people? Can you not even see, maybe out of the corner of your eye, why behavior like this contributes to some people wondering if Dean has the temperament or fair mindedness to lead the entire Democratic Party?

Let me be clear. I think that Howard Dean has the right temperament and can be fair minded enough to lead the Democratic Party. I support him in his bid to become DNC Chair. My comments are not about any perceived weakness of Dean's. I think he is the strong leader our Party needs right now. But I know human nature and so do you. If you don't like some Clark supporters it becomes harder to like Clark. Same is true of Dean, but there is a difference. Dean is seeking to become leader of the whole Democratic Party. Dean has huge support in the Party, my support is part of that. But, for better or for worse, Dean does not now speak for a clear majority of all Democrats. There are Kerry supporters in our Party, and Clark supporters, and Edwards supporters, and Clinton supporters and so on and so on. How will he pull us all together and lead us to victory? Through acts of leadership like calling Wesley Clark a Republican stalking horse war profiteer? I don't think so.

For Dean's sake I continue to believe that your statements do not represent an accurate bellwether of the type of people who generally back Howard Dean, and I certainly do not believe Dean shares your venomous opinions about other Democrats with significant support in the Party. Ask him yourself some time, or are you actually saying that Dean is running to break the influence and rid the Party of Republican stalking horse war profiteers like Wesley Clark? Now that would be a winning platform. Not.

This was a pro Dean thread until some people insisted on dragging Clark into it, and it wasn't Clark supporters who insisted on doing so.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. You won't get an answer to this Tom

and unfortunately, your post and possibly mine, will likely get deleted. I just wanted to make a few observations and points.

If there were any Clarkies behaving the way some of the Deanies are, I would be alerting on them right and left and calling them on their behavior at every opportunity. I would be far more upset about a Clarkie behaving that way towards Dean and his supporters than I am about Deanies behaving that way towards Clark and his supporters. You know why? Because I actually care about Clark's political future. I care about how people percieve him, and anyone who claimed to be a supporter of his who behaved that way, I would assume to be either a troll trying to discredit him, or just a profoundly misguided supporter. I would never indulge a fellow Clarkie who was behaving in such a way as to bring discredit on Clark.

There are a number of Democrats that I despise, but I have never gone out of my way to attack them. I would never go into a positive thread about them and start calling them names. I would absolutely never go into a positive Clark thread and start attacking some other Democrat, no matter how I felt about him or her.

I haven't had a post of my own removed for nearly a year, but nevertheless, I've crossed a line a few times, and other Clarkies have let me know about it and urged me not to behave in that way. I have seen many cases where Clarkies have asked other Clarkies to tone down their behavior, and generally they do.

You may know that I have moved from supporting Dean, with some reservations, for DNC Chair, to opposing it. Not that my opinions count for a damn thing, but nevertheless, I might, like you, have been calling and writing my own state DNC representatives, passing the petition around to people I know, and other things, that I am now not doing.

It is not because I think this small contingent of thugs is representative of Dean supporters in general. I don't. It's because I haven't seen a single Dean supporter step in and tell one of these people that the behavior is unacceptable and to knock it off. I'm seeing a situation where supporters of a potential leader of the Democratic party don't care how he or they are percieved, and don't seem to mind the prospect of alienating large numbers of other Democrats. In particular, I'm seeing a group of people who are unable to police themselves; unable apparently even to recognize bad behavior in their fellow supporters. I'm sorry, but I do think that to a certain extent, a person's supporters are a reflection of that person himself, and from what I've seen, I simply can't any longer support Dean for DNC Chair.

I have to wonder at the motivations of people who claim to support a certain politician and then do absolutely everything in their power to alienate and turn off others to that politician. Well guys, you've won this one. You've succeeded in turning off a person who previously supported Dean for this position and might have been quite active in promoting him. If he gets the position, you may actually succeed in driving me out of the party.

Now I'm nobody, but if I'm in any way typical of other people, our party could end up being severely damaged by Dean being head of DNC, if in fact, his supporters reflect the type of person that he actually is. And the sad thing is, that I don't think I've seen any Dean supporter on here at all who would even care.

I sign off now, and leave you to your regularly scheduled martyrdom.

[CWebster]

92. Is it sour grapes OR is it evidence that

he obviously doesn't resonate with all centrist types?

[cascadiance]

18. Perhaps one way to send a message to the DLC would be...

to have every one of us who supports Dean for DNC chair to switch their party affiliation to Independent from Democrat right now.

I'm already independent, and had at one point before the election thought to register as a Democrat but didn't get around to it in time and didn't want to create a paperwork snafu that would keep me from voting. I'm now telling the local Dem club that I've been attending meetings with that I still do want to register as a Democrat, but am holding off to do so until they decide on the DNC chair. If Dean wins it, I'll register as a Democrat.

If all of us independents inclined to become Democrats do the same thing that I'm doing, and all registered Dems who want Dean in (who aren't actually participating on voting for the DNC chair) were to exit the party as a show of solidarity (with the promise that they would reregister as a Dem after Dean gets voted in), then it might send the message to those at the top the level of revolt that would happen if they try to go against the grass roots now and pick their DLC/corporate blessed candidate instead. Maybe they'd get the message that the party is doomed if they don't do the right thing and select someone that represents the constituency, not the money pimps they've been representing at the expense of us all with the decay we've had over the last four years.

[KittyWampus]

24. And You Want Dean To Be Chair Of The DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

if you can't see the hypocracy in that, it's a sad day.

[cascadiance]

28. Yes... And I don't have a vote in who gets selected...

Only the 440 members of the DNC do. But if enough of us sent out a strong "measurable" means to show those voting who we want as a DNC chair and how strongly we feel about it, perhaps they'll get the message more that they need to pay more attention to the ranks of the Dems that want Dean in, not the DLC.

If Dean gets elected chair fo the Democratic Party, I advocate *everyone* who reregistered as an independent go back to registering as a Democrat. Everyone like myself, who've been sitting on the fence wanting to register as a Democrat then register right after he gets selected as a show of his strength and support.

I'm not in any way trying to say that I'm trying to tear down the Democratic Party that we've had up to this point. I want to help others (I think a majority of us) affect change so that it goes back to its roots and represents the grass roots, not well-heeled contributors.

I DO want to be a Democrat, but I DO NOT want to be a Democrat if the party isn't about representing Americans and is more about trying to solicit campaign funds and compromising it's values. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about that. I'm asking us instead for a move AWAY from hypocrisy. Getting Dean in is such a move.

[Tinoire]

31. Not a bad idea but I don't think enough people would get the word

in time enough to do it unless there were a quick organized campaign but the deliberately oblivious party establishment would probably pretend they didn't notice.

I was never a Dean supporter but if Dean doesn't get it, I'll be royally pissed. I think the most important thing we can do is keep bellowing and stop forking our money over except directly to the candidates we approve of.

Why are you behind Dean? For me it's because I believe in democracy and he has majority support from the people, the real people and not the corporations that got themselves reclassified as "personhoods".

[cascadiance]

33. You're probably right...

... about not having time for "defections" to be recognized as a protest and to have it do the right thing to affect those voting. Maybe if someone who wants Dean in is reading this thread (or another thread if we start one separately), they can affect getting such a message out through moveon.org if enough people felt it might work.

But I tossed it out as an idea of how we could affect change. Maybe later on some other similar vote too if we had more time. But I really do see this vote being critical for me to be a true part of the Democratic Party and believe in its core ideals/policies for the future. I want leadership I can believe in and for the reasons you mention here too. I also see Dean as a person who has ability to surround himself with people to use creative means to get more people into the party and more of the grass roots to contribute, both spiritually, and financially to its success so that we can have an alternative to the campaign finance corruption problems that I think are at the core of the Democratic Party's problems (and our nations' problems) today. That equation needs to be changed, and Dean is the one person I think that can best handle making and leading us to that fundamental change.

I relish the day when we an tell Rethugs that only *they* are the hyprocites and that we now no longer get bought off by campaign finance funding from the likes of Enron, etc. I think if that can be done and the Democratic Party can still get it's messages out to the people in an inspirational way, will be a new and revolutionary day that all Americans can be proud of. I'd like to be a part of a Dean-lead Democratic Party that can make that happen.

If the Dems fall onto their swords once again and avoid putting Dean in as DNC chair, that to me is a sign that they'll never fix the problem, and it might be a time to heavily campaign for someone like the Greens to take on this role instead (and maybe even push Dean to move over to them). I will still vote for Dems who support my philosophies from that point forward, but as an independent voter, I'll look at each individually and others who oppose them too and consider alternatives (not Republicans though of course).

And even if we can't have a campaign for people to deregister as Democrats before the vote be effective, I'd still like to challenge many independents out there who are on the fence to register as Democrats like me to register the day after Dean gets selected (if he is) to show the added support he has as DNC Chair to empower him in the battles he will probably still face in changing things later.

[Tinoire]

47. I totally agree with your points but slightly disagree with one statement

I totally agree with your points especially this one:
...Dean as a person who has ability to surround himself with people to use creative means to get more people into the party and more of the grass roots to contribute, both spiritually, and financially to its success so that we can have an alternative to the campaign finance corruption problems that I think are at the core of the Democratic Party's problems (and our nations' problems) today. That equation needs to be changed, and Dean is the one person I think that can best handle making and leading us to that fundamental change.

The only thing you said where I slightly disagree concerns the Republicans. Rose Siding was telling me that in Senator Byrd's book, he discusses how even the worst Republicans "have thwarted *some* -though very few- of the exec grabs for power" (just wanted to quote Rose :) ) I'm eager now to read his book and get an inside glimpse of some of these going-ons. I hate the neo-Liberals as much as I hate the neo-Cons because they've been working in concert and strongly believe that if we end up doing what we want, we'll end up identifying the real divisions and redefining the two camps until it boils down to the mad fools for a New American Empire vs the people who just want to live their lives honestly without exploiting other Americans and people half-way around the globe.

Back to your point about Independents, I know a lot of Democrats who have already done so because they were so disgusted and wanted to send a very strong message. My only fear with what they did is that for some reason, the Democratic Party has decided that Independents are all on the Conservative side; it refuses to acknowledge the existence of Independents who left because the Party is too far to the right. With your idea though, as long as the message was clearly spelled out and LOUD enough (so that they couldn't twist it), I think the mass defection would not only be such an embarrassment that they'd quickly start paying a little more lip service to us, but it would give more politicians the courage to stand up and break ranks.

The Boxer Rebellion. You got it baby ;)

[cascadiance]

54. I might be an independent...

But I don't really consider myself to "the right" or to "the left" of Democrats. I just want to be aligned with a group of people that really want to not subscribe to groupthink that's forced on them, but are able to work together and come up with plans to deal with everyone's *honest* differences of opinion on an equal playing field. I believe that many (most) of the Democrats in the Democratic Party want this as well, but folks from the DLC and a few like them have gotten in the way of this happening.

Though I might have called Republicans "Rethugs" on occasion, I speak mostly about who's in power over there, which is why I label all of them that at this point. I do recognize many there that have taken decent stands on things in the past. I used to like my old moderate Republican rep Jim Leach in Iowa who I think thinks for himself and his constituency for the most part, and even Charles Grassley, much as I disagree with him on many things, at least on many important issues, such as helping Sibel Edmonds get her voice heard, is doing the right thing. I like John McCain's sense of wanting the common man to have a better voice, even if I have some disagreement with many of his positions, and even if I think he does have some questions to answer for for me to consider voting for him on why he supported Bush, after Bush has given him horrible treatment over the years.

I'm probably not as different as you might perceive. I think that with getting Dean in as the DNC Chair, we can get a party that speaks for people like you and myself. I think with the Republicans, there's a far bigger task in fixing that infrastructure. I think the Jim Leaches, Charles Grassleys, Olympia Snows, etc. will at some point have to make the decision about whether they can continue to function independently in such a party. I don't think they will if they stay, and I think they need to follow Jim Jeffords' path, at least at the present time. Maybe McCain can do a takeover like Dean might be on the verge of doing, but I'm not counting on it. Maybe if Dean is successful in his efforts to lead the DNC and really does rid the Democratic Party of corrupting influences over it, will do more than just win over independents like me. It might actually bring people like McCain, Snow, Leach, Jeffords, etc. (and their constituencies) into its membership as well with a bigger tent. That's a world I'd like to see. When corporations are no longer "persons" that certain elites control and get added representation from.

[Tinoire]

65. I understand

Thanks for explaining but in the end, for me, it's pretty much the same.

If I could, I'd dump 100 neo-liberals for 1 Independent of your ilk. McCain though is a neo-con. That's where you'll find the answer to the question you asked. Other than that, from what I know (which isn't that deep), I'd welcome the people you mentioned with open arms.

Your last 4 sentences sum up why they hate Dean, and more importantly, the Dean movement. They don't know which option is riskier for them- to let him have the chairmanship of the party or leave him around to run for President in 2008.

I'm enjoying their unmistakable panic.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Howard Dean didn't say we shouldn't judge

Usama bin Laden pre-trial.

Howard Dean just said that someone running for president shouldn't declare what verdict someone should get before there is a trial, even in the case of UBL.

[WI_DEM]

26. yeah, that hack Terry McAuliffe really expanded the party

[Radical Activist]

30. Nice framing

After reading Lakoff I think I understand much better how Dean and some of his supporters use framing. If you can insert the frame of Dean being a progressive populist reformer that is going to take on the party establishment, then it doesn't matter how many times you point out that Dean is fairly moderate and establishment himself, because it doesn't fit the frame. Framing can be good and bad, even when Democrats use the tactic.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. he is a populist and a progressive

most people are not confused about that. Sorry you are but you do serve the useful purpose of kicking the thread.

[Radical Activist]

39. Really because all the other big Dean supporters

on this site claim that he is a moderate. Didn't you get the memo?

[Cheswick2.0]

40. Nope sorry, he is a combination and also progressive and also populist

and none of those things are contradictory.

Guess you''ll have to wait a few more years for the demise of the democratic party and the rise of the leftie revolution. Too many lefites support Dean to join you at this time.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

60. Dean is not the only one who is that combination

That's the political thing to do at this time in history, especially when you're a career politician trying to survive in these GOP times.

And this lefty can see that quite clearly, no matter how the Dean supporters try to demonize the competition.

Too bad the strategy seems to be tear down others to prop your own
candidate up.

All the DNC Chair candidates (except for Roemer) deserve consideration.

[Tinoire]

66. It's a mistake to think of this as a competition

There's no competition. Certain people will never be in the running for Lefties because they stand for and next to everything we've been fighting.

It has nothing to do with personalities, it has to do with issues. Real issues like war, death, occupation, hunger- not 401ks. Not kinder, gentler wars. Not economic sanctions that starve people in the name of "democracy". Not oppression of people all over the world so that WalMart can have 'sales' and Safeway can sell its canned pineapple 2 for 1.

And it doesn't matter how much lip service is paid to domestic liberal issues or how much more cleverly they think they can wage wars on nouns than George Bush. We're not falling for it.

[Cheswick2.0]

81. Maybe I should make up another screen name so I can attack other people

and not have it reflect back on Dean or Gore. LOL

[janx]

84. Now, now Cheswick--

You know that's against DU rules! ;-)

[ProgressiveWarrior]

85. Someone like you would try to slime newcomers to DU

At least Tinoire gave a decent answer instead of mocking me, which seems to be your trademark style here.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. Why would you do that?

You already do just fine using your own screen name. And believe me when I say that it does not reflect well on anyone that you're trying to "support".

[Adelante]

94. Well, you can, of course

There are instructions on how to do it posted in your little viper pit, pardon me, Romper Room. BTW, our little Romper Room was hacked the same day you and your cronies dropped by, but that could have been a coincidence. Where was I? Oh, yes, after your spying visit to DU Clarkies, I looked into the site that dare not speak its name, politely paying a return visit. So you already know how to create multiple user names for DU and how best to use them to attack other people, as well as frustrate DU's system. It's all there on the site with Skinner's dog in the crosshairs of a rifle.

Just a reminder. :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

32. "unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq" ?? ... well, not exactly ...

source: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper, when Dean was asked to clarify his Iraq position, Dean said 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, Dean said, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

[Cheswick2.0]

38. according to a sorce quotting a sorce quoting a sorce quoting Dean........

by taking bits and peices of what he said to make a case, Dean one said we should work with the international community to disarm Saddam if he is armed.
D'oh! LOL

You are getting a bit ridiculous don't you think? Raloh Nader is never going to be the Chair of the democratic party, so what exactly is your motivation? Would you rather see sopme DLC asshole in the position? Does that fit into some fantasy you have of destroying the party?

[welshTerrier2]

45. i expected better from you

you know perfectly well, the referenced article provided a very good recount of Dean's position ... and if you think my intent is to distort his position in any way, that's unfortunate ... whether you trust me or not, that is not my intention ... i am more than open to having you post an accurate recount of what Dean has said on the war ...

the bottom line is that while Dean has often spoken out against the war, he has not been totally opposed to it at all times ... prior to the war, and please correct this if it's wrong, he clearly supported an invasion according to the following conditions: 1. he preferred (but did not require) that the international community joined in but totally supported unilateral action if they did not and 2. the ONLY condition he required prior to invasion was if Saddam refused to allow inspectors back in within 30 to 60 days ... is this an accurate reflection of the position Dean took before the invasion? i believe it accurately reflects the statement he made in February, 2003 BEFORE the invasion began ...

i also have no idea why you made reference to Ralph Nader ... are you suggesting I've ever voted for him? do you assume I'm a Green? are you thinking i'm leaving the Democratic Party to become a Green? none of these is true ...

since you raised the issue of my "motivation", allow me to tell you my motivation ... first and foremost, my motivation is to stop the insanity in Iraq ... i have seen an endless stream of articles posted on DU that purport to suggest that Dean has been strongly and consistently anti-war regarding Iraq ... it just is not so ... setting as the sole condition for invasion Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors back in does not make you strongly and consistently opposed to the invasion ... and for many months now, Dean has said we are stuck in Iraq ... my point has never been that he's some kind of gung-ho war hawk ... but he was not calling for withdrawal either ... he's entitled to whatever view he wants to have but i don't see how keeping troops in Iraq is doing anything but making the situation much worse ... I have never heard Dean acknowledge that we have to get out soon because we cannot succeed in Iraq militarily ... have i missed something he said? i hope i have and i hope you can show me i'm wrong ... you seem to think i'm "anti-Dean" ... you seem to think i'm a Dean basher ... I strongly support him for DNC Chair ... but i don't think he's shown much leadership on Iraq and i think that's tragic ... i'm also hoping that he soon will call for withdrawal because staying there, no matter what people think should be accomplished first, is never going to yield the results we seek ...

and finally, you asked would i rather see some DLC asshole in that position ... well, i've written extensively on the hideous pro-war positions Mr. Rosenberg has espoused ... i hate the DLC and have written extensively on why they must give up their power to the grassroots ... it's time for a major change in the party ... it's time to open up the platform process to give every single Democrat a voice in forming the party's platform ... and I think Dean brings the best credentials to get that job done ... we cannot have more of the same or we'll get more of the same ... it's time for a change ...

[dansolo]

48. Dean was against the war because the case for war was not made

Dean is not anti-war, and never claimed to be. He would have supported the Iraq war if there was any proof of there being a genuine threat posed by Saddam. That is the point that is lost on most people. He required the burden of proof of the so-called imminent threat to be met by the accusers, i.e. the Bush Administration.

[welshTerrier2]

51. here are some quotes from Dean about Iraq

if i've taken these out of context, if Dean never said these things, if i've misquoted him, whatever, please add to this record ... we need Dean's voice added to Kennedy's call for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ...

here are some quotes Dean made regarding the Iraq invasion ... the standard he cited in these quotes was focussed on letting the inspectors back in ...

here are the quotes:

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

February 19, 2003 DEAN -- Unilateral Action Is...Unavoidable Choice
Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "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."

August 12, 2003, DEAN -- "We Cannot Leave Iraq"
"I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq" (Buchanan & Press, MSNBC)


my position here is that while Dean made numerous criticisms of bush's policies regarding Iraq, he also made numerous statements that in no way could be construed as clearly and consistently opposing the Iraq invasion ... the quotes above address not only statements he made before the invasion began, but also a statement suggesting that we were stuck in Iraq until we accomplished our goal ...

if the quotes are accurate, does it seem reasonable to say that Dean was clearly and unequivocally and consistently opposed to the war in Iraq? Dean has many great qualities but showing strong leadership against the madness in Iraq has not been one of them ... yet ... let's hope this changes ...

[marcologico]

57. Exactly. Dean plays the "anti-war" candidate but he's no such thing. n/t

[Kipepeo]

69. When has he played the anti-war candidate?

Oh, you mean how the media played him, I get it....back when they were trying to brand him as mr. super liberal (as if it were an insult) sushi-eating, volvo-driving, etc.

Dean has never said he is anti-war or a pacifist. He has, however, consistently opposed this particular war (the way it was launched without the administration proving a threat and without seeking any real UN coalition, and the way it has been carried out).

[marcologico]

71. Dean: "unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." And

yet he pays his bloggers to hype him as the anti-war candidate. That's hypocrisy, as sweet and sticky as maple syrup.

[Kipepeo]

72. First

give me the context of that quote, please. Thanks

And secondly that blogger bullshit is just that: bullshit. I assume you're talking about dailykos, who disclosed on HIS BLOG at the time that he was working for Dean and who, from what I understand was never paid to 'hype him as the anti-war candidate'(your words apparently). You should really offer a source for an accusation like that.

[marcologico]

74. See post #51 for source, and yes I mean KOS and who knows how many others.

n/t

[Kipepeo]

78. Ah, so you take part of a sentence

and offer that up with integrity?

This quote:

"Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations," Dean said. "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."

In it's entirety I have no problems with that quote, provided that they first completed inspections and actually found proof that Saddam proved a threat and had weapons of mass destruction. Again, this is IF that had been the case and IF the UN would not have chosen to do anything about it (although I doubt that would have been the case had Saddam *actually* been sitting on wmd's).

Of course, all of this is hypothetical bullshit because Bush never even allowed the inspectors to finish their job because he knew there were no WMDs and at the time he needed WMDs as an excuse.

As for the Kos thing, I fail to see how him working for Dean and disclosing it on his blog at the time is in any way questionable. And I'm still waiting on your source that claims he was paid to (in your words) 'hype dean as the anti-war candidate.' That's hogwash.

Oh, and you threw on a handy, vague closer: "...who knows how many others." Now I'm convinced.

[marcologico]

80. Now you have the facts. I'm not going to argue faith-based politics. n/t

[Kipepeo]

98. Faith-based politics?

care to elaborate or offer any of those sources yet?

[welshTerrier2]

89. allow me to jump in here ...

first, let me say that i never read KOS and have no comment about it ...

second, i think it is fair to say that many Dean advocates regularly characterize him as having been consistently opposed to the Iraq war ... if you read post #51 above, I would hope you agree that such a characterization is not accurate ...

now, with regard to the "60 day ultimatum" ... i think you've dismissed it as a hypothetical just a little too quickly ... let's take a closer look at the statement ... what i was looking for from Dean, at the time, was an absolute adherence to the standard of "imminent threat" ... this meant that not only did Saddam have to be a bad guy, not only did he have to have threatened the U.S., not only did he have to have WMD, but he had to have the capability to attack us and there had to be evidence that an attack was imminent ... so, whether you agree with these standards for war or not, i was hoping Dean would stand up and say loudly and clearly that these tests had not been met ...

but Dean's statement set a very different standard, a much lower standard ... yes, he hoped the U.N. would participate ... but even that should only have occurred if there was an imminent threat ... it would have been wrong, in my view, to call for a U.S. supported invasion because the standard of imminent threat had not been met ... Dean's statement about the U.N. was stated as his preference, not a pre-condition for unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq ...

and then we look at the next section of Dean's statement, the 30 to 60 days part ... IIRC, both Hans Blix and Scott Ritter argued that Saddam's weapons had been destroyed during the Gulf War ... bush's invasion was about regime change, not disarmament ... by making the statement he did, Dean created a standard by which a country would have to prove they were not an imminent threat or an invasion could be justified ... shifting the burden to Saddam was wrong ... he could never have met the standard Dean insisted on ... even after all the inspections, even after our troops scoured the countryside, even after Iraqi scientists were "questioned" and even after people were tortured, bush still maintained there were WMD in Iraq ... how could Saddam have "proved" otherwise within 60 days ...

here's the quote from "Face the Nation":

We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

in this quote, Dean said that if the U.N. didn't agree to give Saddam a deadline to allow the inspectors to return, the U.S. "will go into Iraq" ... that seems pretty straight-forward to me ... the ONLY pre-condition in this quote was the requirement, within 60 day, for Saddam to allow inspectors to return ... have i twisted this statement? if i have, please explain ... it seems very clear that Dean was saying that inspections were THE criteria ... there is no statement that required an imminent threat, no proof that Saddam was planning to attack the U.S., no acknowledgement that he had been totally contained for more than 10 years, no means of attacking us ... just inspectors ...

if you read the last of the three quotes in post #51, you'll also see Dean has endorsed continued military action in Iraq because "we're stuck there" ... some may agree with this position ... but i trust you'll agree it is not an "anti-war" position regarding Iraq ...

my issue with Dean is not that he's a war hawk ... i believe Dean may eventually "get there" ... his voice would be very welcomed by those of us who bitterly oppose this insanity in Iraq ... it is beyond my grasp to understand how anyone making an honest assessment of how horrific things have gotten in Iraq can continue to believe in the possibility of a military success ... how many more must die before every Democrat says enough is enough ... let's hope Dean, Kerry or somebody shows us the way out of this darkness ...

[marcologico]

59. I wouldn't expect much, based on the threads I've seen.

Basically the usual distortions.

[welshTerrier2]

61. actually, i disagree ...

i think the poster I was responding to is often very insightful and articulate ... my comment was directed at this particular post, not the poster ...

what is most distressing is what you have referred to elsewhere as an "infomercial" ... i found that most amusing ...

it's too bad that many of Dean's most energized supporters aren't willing to acknowledge the deficiencies in his Iraq position ... i, for on,e support Dean for DNC Chair ... i do NOT require him to be perfect on all issues ... but it is both bothersome and troubling that, for those putting so much energy into building a grassroots movement, they seem so eager to stifle legitimate criticisms on their candidate's position ...

let's hope Dean is more open to hearing from all Democrats than some of his staunchest advocates seem to be ...

[marcologico]

62. Okay we disagree. What I see is nonstop disinformation in the interest of

a decidely sleazy and unimpressive politician.

[welshTerrier2]

64. a few points

just for the record, i supported Kucinich in the primaries and was strongly ABB in the general ...

while i was an extremely early supporter of Dean's campaign, i was uncomfortable with some of his statements on Iraq and switched to Kucinich ...

However, there's no question that a broad-sweeping grassroots energy within the Party is needed ... there's no question that the Party is much too "insidery" ... i've written numerous times on the need to give a voice in the platform process to every single registered Democrat ...

I, like you, have been very turned off by the "infomercial" ... you won't make any allies in politics by shouting people down ... and that's especially true when they're right and you aren't ...

but whether he's the best "vehicle" out there or not, there's no denying that Dean has helped create a wave of enthusiasm among people who historically have either not participated or have had no real say when they tried to ... i think the party does need to breathe a new grassroots energy into its efforts and frankly i'm sick and tired with "the current party regime" ... Dean is by no means perfect ... i've certainly done my share of criticizing him for failing to lead on the war ... i believe the criticism is justified ...

anyway, i think it's time for a change and i haven't seen anyone capture the enthusiasm of such a large segment of the party as Dean seems to have done ... with the endorsement of PDA and a party peddling candidates like Fowler and Rosenberg, I'm on board with Dean ... we can't afford any more insiders ... it's time for a change ...

[marcologico]

68. Kerry wrote a book arguing that a police response to terrorism

is more effective than a military response. That's the guy I want in the White House. Dean's bogus anti-war policy and Cain-and-Able skullduggery is part of the problem, not the solution.

[welshTerrier2]

70. Kerry's one of my Senators ...

unfortunately, he's not the one calling for withdrawal from Iraq ...

let's hope he does soon before too many more people are killed in this hopeless madness ...

what i'm looking for in this screwed up party of ours is some damned leadership starting with standing up to bush on Iraq ... i don't intend to re-open all the old arguments from the primaries ...

i never agreed with Kerry's position that "internationalizing" the war would work ... HOWEVER, i have argued that at least, with new leadership (i.e. if Kerry had been elected), perhaps he could achieve a real international presence in Iraq ... but now ??? it's time to get out ... there is no chance of bush building an international coalition ... first, i doubt he wants to and second, who the hell would ever trust him ???

so, regardless of my views of where Kerry was, today I call on him to join Kennedy in choosing the only possible path ... and that's withdrawal ... i hope he finds a way to do that ... that's the kind of bold leadership the Party needs ... unfortunately, Kennedy seems to be one of the very few willing to take the leap of faith ...

i'm a mutual frustration society though ... i'm frustrated with Kerry's lack of leadership on the issue ... but i'm just as frustrated with Dean's lack of leadership ... these are the two guys in the strongest leadership roles right now ... and neither one of them has spoken the truth on Iraq ... it's time to get the hell out of there ... i hope one or both of them stand up soon ...

[marcologico]

73. I'll take what Kerry said in his book over what KOS says on his blog any

day. I don't believe for a second that Dean would be different from any other NAFTA-loving, welfare-reforming "centrist" (Clinton for example) and probably a lot worse, since he lacks military experience and would become a tool of the Pentagon and all the polluting corporations he's done favors for in the ten years he was Vermont's toxic governor.

[welshTerrier2]

76. who are you supporting for Chair ??

because i have huge problems with Rosenberg and Fowler ... Frost seems like he's better on issues but i don't like his "insider" status ...

[marcologico]

79. ABDean, but I like Frost, mainly for his red-state experience. n/t

[Cha]

49. And, aren't we so "diverse"?

"Down in the trenches, Dean still resonates. Such support, from the ground up, is proof that he can expand the party and attract and hold the diverse constituency Democrats need to bring this country back from the brink."

Glad to see some in the media know that we are on "the brink"!



That was an interesting article on January 12, 2005..

Thanks!

"The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party"
by David W. Orr"

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-36.htm

[tsuki]

50. Sent the VT Guardian a note. n/t

[DemocracyInaction]

52. Want to Know How Cookie Will Crumble??

Go to the bank on this 'cause it always happens-----the new head of the DNC will be somebody nobody ever the hell heard of. AND in '08 all the dudes and dudettes we are fighting over as to who SHOULD be nominated will not either be in the picture or flushed early and someone you are not even talking about today will be our nominee. And the same process will continue for the next 40,000 years or until this house of cards finally blows down.

[John_H]

67. I wonder if Common Dreams thinks it's helping Dean

Plenty of mainstream Dems are going to have to vote for Dean if he's going to become chair, so comomon dreams tries to perpetuate the myth that deam is a near-nader bombthrower, which is patently false. Hey, and why not remind folks of dean's most contoversial statements? And what pro howard dean rant would be complete without a little dem bashing, just to make the one-percenters smile over their Organic Mango-Green Tea Chais?

The rethugs are going to try to do all of the above in due time. If common dreams actually wants to help Dean they ought to paint a more accurate picture of him. THAT's how he's going to get elected. Thankfully, i doubt too many of the people with the power to vote dean in read comnmon dreams.