Here is how Dean is trying to build the agenda for the DNC.

[madfloridian]

It sounds about as fair a way to do it as I could imagine. The meeting to pull it all together was moved from this month to December. I have watched us here bouncing off the walls, yet actually there is so much being done.

Since the meeting was cancelled because of the hurricane, they have already begun reforming committees to get ready for the meeting.

Jenny Greenleaf, a DNC member, has the blog American Street. She was with Howard when he spent some time recently in Montana. Her write up gives a good picture of his goals.

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/06/04/dean-at-the-dnc-meeting/

June 4, 2005
Dean at the DNC meeting
Howard Dean arrived after lunch. The crowd greeted him warmly. A fair number
of non-DNC people filled the room.

He talked about his travel schedule–leaving me wondering how he can look and
sound so fresh. Not only did he come to speak in Montana…he’s hanging around
to go on a sight-seeing boat trip to the Gates of the Mountains with us.

Dean reiterated that he expects the state parties to provide a few
things…and soon. He has asked state parties to put together lists of home
emails for all Dem party elected officials, from governors on down to
precinct people. The idea is that the list can be used to send out messages
so everyone can be on the same page with the same talking points.

He also asked state parties to get together with elected officials to put
together documents describing what issues are best to run on for each state.
At the DNC meeting in Phoenix in September, they’ll be combined, and then
things will be subtracted from the platform so it’s clear what the 3-4
things are that all Democrats can run on. He doesn’t want everyone to run on
exactly the same message–he says it must be tailored for specific
locality–but that we all agree on principles. He went on to say that it must
be succinct and not a laundry list.

He praised the state party efforts, noting that the first states are hiring
people now and that 13 have been funded. The DNC will train them and pay the
new hires, although they’re chosen by the states. In return, the states must
work to build strong organizations at the county and precinct level. He says
that he trusts the state parties to do what works in their states; the DNC
will make sure they have the training and resources necessary. “We don’t
believe in a cookie-cutter operation.”

He hit a lot of familiar themes, saying we will be running on fiscal
responsibility and small government. (Small government in this case means
making your own private decisions instead of letting Tom Delay make them.)
Local communities should run local schools, not the federal government. He
mentioned that the Bush administration, not content with going after Social
Security, is now after private pensions. “That money doesn’t belong to
United Airlines; it belongs to the workers who contracted to work for it.”
He wants to make pensions portable.

He repeated his familiar line about the US being the last industrialized
nation without health insurance for all. On national defense, he said the
Democrats have to convince Americans that we’re “tough enough to pull the
trigger.” (Note: that makes me cringe, but he’s right.) He said that the
current administration has sent 135,000 troops to Iraq while doing nothing
about Iran and Korea and that they “can’t tell the difference between a
threat and a nuisance.”

He wants to turn the DNC into looking outward, not inward. He said that too
many resources were devoted to reaching out to people already in the party
and that we need to do outreach to those who aren’t in the party. Chris Owen
from the AFL-CIO is heading up a new outreach program concentrating on
African-Americans, Latinos, and women. Dean said we are not going to show up
in African-American communities four weeks before the election; we’re going
to show up now.

Since values are a hot topic, Dean reiterated Democratic values: no child
goes to bed hungry, an education system with opportunity for all, not
leaving debt to your children, treating everyone with dignity, caring for
the poor. He quoted Jim Wallis as saying “the Bible mentions caring for the
poor 3,000 times; it doesn’t mention gay marriage at all.”

He said that as he travels, he makes himself available for small press
operations, such as constituency papers and weeklies.

All of this went down well with the DNC members. He seems really well liked
by the crowd, which is interesting as many of these folks were not initially
happy about him winning the chairmanship.

By Jenny Greenleaf 3:07 pm Party Process: Dems

3.. G Newman Says:
June 4th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
All this sounds real familiar to the Dean For America people. It’s similar
to what the Dean people did in late 2003, but *smarter*.

I think Howard has drawn two lessons from his 2003-2004 run for president.
First, he was out-maneuvered on the ground in Iowa because his campaign
failed to cultivate enough *local* people. Dean’s “Iowa Perfect Storm” were
great at bringing in enthusiasts from out-of-state, but these strangers
lacked credibility with local voters. Hence, his message TODAY about states
running their own campaigns, but expanding that national DNC mailing list
down down to the precinct level, just like Trippi’s internet operation did.
That would give us a quick-response to bullshit memes like the Swift Boat
ads. WOW!

Second, Howard obviously feels the party needs a national message of no
more than 3 points that get repeated and repeated and repeated, so that you
know what it stands for. Neither Kerry nor Gore did that. (If you think they
did, tell me, in one sentence, what each man’s campaign stood for. OK, now
tell me what Bush’s campaign stood for.

I say this, in frustration, as a former Dean delegate and current
Democratic precinct co-chair. Guys, I am tired of fuckin’ losing).

Jenny, what you wrote is the BEST THING I HAVE READ IN YEARS. It has
brought a smile to my face. Someone among the Democrats gets it! YES!!!

4.. Jenny Greenleaf Says:
June 4th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Anne, I was paraphrasing there.

Dean’s trying real hard to build the messages from the bottom up, and he
fully expects them to get customized for locale. I don’t read this as a
top-down thing.

The boat trip was great. Dean cracked me up–I didn’t get the picture, but
someone caught one of him hugging a tree.

5.. S.W. Anderson Says:
June 4th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
It appears Dean gets something I’ve been harping on since at least 2000.

Democrats should try to avoid being like the relative, “friend” or
neighbor who only ever calls or shows up when he/she needs or wants to
borrow something, or get some other kind of favor. Democrats need boots on
the ground, handshakes at the doorstep and speakers criss-crossing the
country NOW. Meet ‘n’ greet, make some friends, soften some skeptics up a
little, hopefully.

In the full heat of campaign season, if you’re just starting to show up
and speak up, with every other paragraph being, “Need your money, need your
vote,” it usually ends up being too little too late.


7.. Jim in Chicago Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Great line:

“Can’t tell the difference between a threat and a nuisance.”

Howard has a way of putting things so succinctly that it really resonates
in your gut. This is what attracted so many people to him early in the
campaign before the Beltway insiders threatened by his truly grassroots
campaign began tearing him down.


8.. Mary Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 11:11 am
This is a great report, Jenny. I’m so glad that you are not only working
with the DNC, but that you also let us know what is going on. And boy, am I
glad that Dr. Dean is applying his energies to this cause.

9.. Jason Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I hope Years from now we look back on Howard Dean as the Newt Gingrich of
the Democratic party.Newt is famous because his agenda in 1994 helped add 54
republicans to the house, 9 to the senate and 10 to governorships. We have
to ability to do this with are party in 2006 because we are in better shape.
We need to LEARN FROM Newt gingrich, tom delay,and karl rove and it looks
like Dean is doing that. The conservative movement is dying Nixon won
re-election in 1972 by 23 points, Reagan won re-election in 1984 by 18
points and bush only won by 3 points the smallest win for an incumbent in
history. Remember MoveOn.org has more people in it than the christian
coalition (which only has 1.2 million members). The great silent majority is
dying off.


And a nice note from Donnie Fowler
11.. Donnie Fowler Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Chairman/Governor/Doctor Dean is really off to a good start! And, even
more, he is keeping the commitments to state parties and to grassroots
messaging that he advocated while running for our Party’s leader. No wonder
so many folks in DC still have heartburn over Chairman Dean. He’s changing
the way our Party talks to voters … and that’s how progressives will retake
the majority.

12.. Debra in Kansas Says:
June 6th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m so glad that the Dean’s DNC doesn’t plan to write off the “red states”!
Last year, many courageous, articulate Democrats running for Congress in
“red states” were ignored by the DNC, regardless of their qualifications.
2004 was demoralizing for “red state” Democrats. Some of us are just
beginning to speak up, and it’s great to know that the national party will
work with us.

[NVMojo]

1. The man is working his ass off on t his ...and all the dems can do is

live in a cannabilistic manner. Get on board, people! Too much is at stake for the bickering!

[Stevepol]

20. I really like Dean for taking stands, but no money from me

unless and until the DNC first recognizes the voting machine fraud and then puts it right up front, one of the top priority items.

If they would do that, they'd get my money and I bet a lot of other people's money as well.

[calimary]

27. Damn bloomin' straight! He IS working his ass off.

And he looks a LOT fresher, on his worst day with that hectic travel schedule than bush does with all the pampering and babying around him.

My heart will ALWAYS belong to "Hollerin' Howard."

And frankly, I DO believe he will also get into the voter fraud crisis. He's the Good Doctor. And he WON'T diagnose it via videotape.

[mzmolly]

2. Recommended.

Dean continues to "wow" me.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Thank you for the information.

Sounds like there's alot of good stuff going on.

[KoKo]

4. Recommended!

[Adelante]

5. Excellent

Thanks for posting this, MF.

[welshTerrier2]

6. disgusting statements on national defense

from the BP:

"On national defense, he said the Democrats have to convince Americans that we’re “tough enough to pull the trigger.” (Note: that makes me cringe, but he’s right.) He said that the current administration has sent 135,000 troops to Iraq while doing nothing about Iran and Korea and that they “can’t tell the difference between a threat and a nuisance.”

why does Dr. Dean feel compelled to point out the "tough enough to pull the trigger" bullshit and not mention ending the war in Iraq and why does he "pound the war drums" against Iran and Korea ... how about calling for diplomacy??? ... how about getting the US to honor its nuclear non-proliferation treaties which was why Iran walked out of the recent nuclear conference ...

if Dr. Dean feels compelled to make us all war hawks, i don't think he'll have to worry about the party's left wing for much longer ... btw, whatever happened to that business about the party chair not taking positions on the issues??

[madfloridian]

7. You just illustrated what I meant earlier.

If I have to explain it then you would not understand.

Nothing pleases you.

[welshTerrier2]

8. no, i'm totally pleased with calling for more fucking militarism

just fucking brilliant ... i love dean ... he's sooooo wonderful ... the left is against him ...

give me a break ...

nothing pleases me? does calling for an aggressive posture against Iran and Korea please you ... why don't you go join the military if you think Howard is such a visionary?

i love that line "if i have to explain it ..." i understand perfectly ... you are going to support this kind of total hawkish bullshit because you're blindly following Dean ... no explanation is required ...

go ahead and make your case for supporting Dean's statement .. i'd love to hear it ... yeah, let's all jump on the Dean bandwagon and get behind an invasion of Iran or Korea ... let's move those troops out of Iraq ... Iran's just around the corner anyway ... then we can prove to America how tough we are ... go ahead and support that ... i double dare you ... that's what Mr. "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is pushing??????

i'd like to see him try to sell that bullshit ... the day the Democratic Party calls for a pre-emptive attack on Iran is the day the Party dies ... plenty pleases me but not Dean's moronic comments on foreign policy ...

[w13rd0]

9. Where the hell do you see anything about pre-emptive attacks...

...or invasions? We'll continue to have problems if we can't raise our collective reading comprehension skills.

[welshTerrier2]

11. what i see ...

Here was Dean's statement: "On national defense, he said the Democrats have to convince Americans that we’re “tough enough to pull the trigger.” (Note: that makes me cringe, but he’s right.) He said that the current administration has sent 135,000 troops to Iraq while doing nothing about Iran and Korea and that they “can’t tell the difference between a threat and a nuisance.”

What i see is a first sentence in a paragraph that says "Democrats have to convince Americans that we’re “tough enough to pull the trigger.” ... and then i see a second sentence that says "the current administration has sent 135,000 troops to Iraq while doing nothing about Iran and Korea" ...

now you can use your superior reading comprehension skills to interpret that as you see fit ... my limited interpretation is that this is extremely hawkish language ... it would certainly be difficult to infer that Dean is calling for greater diplomacy, wouldn't it? you don't make statements about "pulling the trigger" and then naming the "real threats" without clearly implying the use of force ...

Dean focussed on troops and pulling triggers instead of sane, peaceful approaches like diplomacy and reducing our nuclear stockpiles ... Iran is only a threat if we fail to seek peaceful resolutions ...

[w13rd0]

12. You apparently see what you want to see...

...135,000 troops in Iraq makes us ill-prepared to act in the event we would need to. He mentions two particular hot-spots that are of some concern. Whatever, not worth arguing about. Rather than read what is written, you read what you wanted to read to keep your level of angst or whatever amped up...

[welshTerrier2]

14. "two particular hot-spots that are 'of some concern'" ???

he referred to both Iran and Korea as "threats", not as "of some concern" ... one of us seems to be twisting the facts ...

[lojasmo]

24. Iran and NK are threats RELATIVE to Iraq, which isn't one.

Dean was pointing out the administration's FAILURE to discern an actual threat, from a false threat.

Also, Kerry lost on NATIONAL SAFETY and TERRORISM.

Democrats DO INDEED need to convince the electorate that we are not soft on defense. It's a no brainer.

[welshTerrier2]

25. i agree, mostly ...

first, whether Dean was pointing out that Iran and NK were threats RELATIVE to Iraq, my point remains that he should not have done so in the way he did ... his remarks are unnecessarily inflammatory ... Iran poses a challenge to the US; not a threat ... the best way to deal with Iran and NK is not by sabre-rattling and politically motivated "macho speak" ... Dean should have emphasized the wisdom Democrats employ when addressing nations that are not friendly to US interests ... surely Democrats consider many options beyond just "pulling the trigger" ...

i have no issue talking to Americans about the Democratic Party's willingness to support the use of force when necessary ... i think we need to stand for a strong defense ... if Dean feels compelled to make a case that Democrats are willing to "pull the trigger" when appropriate, i support his view ... but i don't support that view in isolation ... and that's how this statement presented the view ...

Dean gave no consideration to dirty words like "peace" ... he didn't talk about the BEST way to address concerns about Iran and NK ... all he did was call them "threats" and link the issue in a paragraph about "pulling triggers" ... his statement, whatever actual views he holds on the issue of Iran and NK, was very short-sighted ...

[desi826]

26. Subject: Dems are characterizing this wrong

which is why WT2 is so pissed.
I don't feel that's unreasonable considering the characterization.
This is the fault of the Dems, though.

lojasmo wrote:

"Also, Kerry lost on NATIONAL SAFETY and TERRORISM. Democrats DO INDEED need to convince the electorate that we are not soft on defense. It's a no brainer."

It seems a shame they can't get that right.

Yes, John lost on the national security issue, but NOT for the reasons MOST Dems think.

They don't seem to realize that their problem is local, not international.

John wanted America to believe that he can "pull the trigger" but, when a bunch of men show up in the middle of his campaign defiling his name and openly lying on him, he says nothing.
He doesn't fight back.
They don't seem to understand that most average American men would NEVER put up with that and therefore rejects the man that does.
This is why John lost. Well, that and his vacillation on Iraq.
But both were of his own doing.

These contradictions are what's killing them.

Dems want to convince Americans that they will goe toe to toe with terrorists in other countries (read: get our military to indiscriminately bomb large groups of brown people) but they go on national tv and allow themselves to be bullied by reporters and talking heads.

Every week.

They want us to believe they have the discipline necessary to be Commander In Chief, yet they will publicly stab their fellow Dems in the back at every turn, thinking that they will impress people. Again, Americans, especially men, respond to at least the appearence of loyalty and honor and therefore rejects the group of people that do not display it.

They want to talk tough, but hide underneath their desks at the first sign of controversy.

Then they wonder why Americans find them "soft"

Dems don't get that they can talk until the cows fly home, Americans will NOT believe them because they have given them no frame of reference by which to believe.

In plain english: they can't even defend themselves to a reporter, or Republicans. If they can't even do THAT much, why should ANYONE in this country trust them, to defend their families, their communities, or their country against a terrorist?

If they don't have the discipline to keep their disagreements behind closed doors and keep a unified front, how can people trust them to effectively guide our Military?

In even plainer english: until they start kicking ass, and taking names here at HOME, they will NEVER see that White House except as visitors. Period.

Tough talk will NOT save them.

Agreeing with bombing innocent brown people will NOT save them; especially considering the fact that a majority of Americans now see the senselessness in that tactic.

Repubs "get" this easily; as does the MSM. This the reason for the constant manipulations.

But as usual, DC Dems have no answer to the real questions being asked, and all the answers to the ones that aren't.

The hard truth is they need to EARN America's trust here at home. Right now, they don't deserve the White House.

Not until they can show they are will to fight for what they believe in; FIRST here, then abroad.
Des

[calimary]

29. This statement of yours is PAINFULLY true...

John wanted America to believe that he can "pull the trigger" but, when a bunch of men show up in the middle of his campaign defiling his name and openly lying on him, he says nothing.
He doesn't fight back.
They don't seem to understand that most average American men would NEVER put up with that and therefore rejects the man that does.
This is why John lost. Well, that and his vacillation on Iraq.
But both were of his own doing.


Let me tell you - I HEARD people actually say stuff like this last fall: "gee, if he can't defend himself against those Swift Boat people, how in hell can he defend our country against attack?"

I believed he could, but I also can see this point VERY easily. Because it makes sense. That's when his campaign lost it, I think - when he sat back, taking the high road, thinking with these mean-ass junkyard dogs if he just ignored it it'd go away. Mary Beth Cahill was WRONG in her advice to him to do this. People who think we need to merely "rise above it" and "take the high road" and the people will see the truth - are KIDDING THEMSELVES. That will only work in a utopian world where people actually do see and recognize truth and respond properly once they do. It is NOT the case with early-21st Century America.

It's a worthwhile question, and if we don't address that stupid meme about Dems being soft on defense, we will KEEP the numbers close enough for the other side to keep stealing. It HAS to be addressed.

I'm guessing he chose those words "strong enough to pull the trigger" because it also will resonate with gun owners. THEY, TOO, are reluctant to vote Dem because too many of 'em are wrongly fearful that Democrats gonna take mah GUNS away!!!! And that's not so. Look, I'm not a gun nut, either. I would like to see no guns PERIOD. But you have to be realistic in this nutcase world. There are people as single-issue dug-in on guns as some of us, like me, are about a woman's right to choose. And that HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. I think he's very shrewd using that wording. Because the Second-Amendment-or-Die folks will hear something in there that they can relate to. And that's a good thing. We need their votes, too.

[desi826]

30. I wish I weren't

Calimary wrote:

"Let me tell you - I HEARD people actually say stuff like this last fall: "gee, if he can't defend himself against those Swift Boat people, how in hell can he defend our country against attack?""

It's common sense.
You have to give people a framework by which to believe your tough talk. Kerry took that away by not immediately confronting those liars when they first came out.
It wouldn't have taken much either.
When asked about them he could have given them one
good answer "I dare those liars to say that to my face."
It would have been short, sweet.....and fatal.

"I believed he could, but I also can see this point VERY easily."

Oh so did I.
But I also knew he was making a mistake by letting this go on.
He should have hit quick, fast, and ruthlessly.
Then stood his ground.

"Because it makes sense. That's when his campaign lost it, I think - when he sat back, taking the high road, thinking with these mean-ass junkyard dogs if he just ignored it it'd go away. Mary Beth Cahill was WRONG in her advice to him to do this."

It's a DLC thing to do.
"Don't speak out against them, don't fight them."
It's shrinking their numbers like mad.

"People who think we need to merely "rise above it" and "take the high road" and the people will see the truth - are KIDDING THEMSELVES. That will only work in a utopian world where people actually do see and recognize truth and respond properly once they do. It is NOT the case with early-21st Century America."

I think that one of the things they were thinking was that the public wouldn't believe them(and essentially didn't) so they had nothing to worry about. But as usual, Dems always neglect the perception factor and therefore always fail the test anyway.

"It's a worthwhile question, and if we don't address that stupid meme about Dems being soft on defense, we will KEEP the numbers close enough for the other side to keep stealing. It HAS to be addressed."

The very question comes up because 1) they don't fight back at home against domestic opponants and 2) traditionally Dems need a REASON to go to war.
Numder one, Dems did to themselves and only need to find courage to solve that problem.
Number two was done by both Repubs and the MSM.
To try to make discernment a *bad* thing.
Saying that one shouldn't go out looking for war is a good thing.
That it should be a LAST resort, not a first one is a good thing too.
That don't make you a dove, it makes you a responsible human being. Dems should have made sure this point was strongly stated and stood their ground.
Less people die that way.

""I'm guessing he chose those words "strong enough to pull the trigger" because it also will resonate with gun owners. THEY, TOO, are reluctant to vote Dem because too many of 'em are wrongly fearful that Democrats gonna take mah GUNS away!!!! And that's not so."

And how many times have Dems said just that? If you have a permit for one, keep it! No one wants to take it from you.

"Look, I'm not a gun nut, either. I would like to see no guns PERIOD. But you have to be realistic in this nutcase world. There are people as single-issue dug-in on guns as some of us, like me, are about a woman's right to choose. And that HAS TO BE ADDRESSED."

Agreed.
I see no reason not to find common ground with these people.
I'm sure they have kids that they don't want to be on the wrong end of a gun.

"I think he's very shrewd using that wording. Because the Second-Amendment-or-Die folks will hear something in there that they can relate to. And that's a good thing. We need their votes, too."

Agree that they are some of the people right of center we could find common ground with, as opposed to the no-woman-should-be-allowed-to-have-an-abortion crowd, whom I disagree with trying to find common ground with.

But, I admit that the "trigger" phrase does bristle a bit with me because it does sound to me like "indiscriminately bomb innocent brown people for political gain" and being a brown person myself, I have to struggle not to take offense.
Des

[shance]

16. They're hot spots of money signs and oil rigs.

If there is any concern over Iran and Syria, it is self-promoted and inflicted by this Administration.

[madfloridian]

10. You again illustrate my earlier point .

Dean is advocating being prepared to defend our country. I know what is going on in many of the groups on the left, I suscribe to their newsletters.

There is absolutely nothing Dean can do to please them...I hate to name them...because they want a third party. Problem is they don't have a leader....they just want to destroy what we have a chance to rebuild.

When you get like this, I just back off. It is impossible to reason.

[welshTerrier2]

13. did Dean call for working with the UN??

did he call for diplomacy?? ... did he differentiate between Iran's nuclear power issue versus nuclear weapons?? does he think it wise to talk about "pulling triggers" before he talks about maintaining peace?? does he believe that threats like that help "defend the country" instead of "defending the country" by finding a way to avoid war and reaching a negotiated solution??

you just love to repeat the mantra that there's nothing Dean can do to please the left ... the above points would be an excellent starting point ... neither you nor Dean is going to "please the left" by taking such hawkish positions ... you make it sound like he's been more than reasonable ... his statement is total hawkish bullshit ...

and while we're on the subject, Dean continues to be out of touch with the majority of Americans (52% according to the latest NY Times/CBS poll) who are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq ... instead of complaining about the left so much, how about getting Dean to get in line with the majority of Americans who don't agree with his "we're stuck there" position on Iraq ??????????????

the reason you find it impossible to reason is that you're trying to defend an unreasonable positions ...

[madfloridian]

15. Just stop.

I posted a nice account of what Jenny wrote of his words while on a visit there. I am not going to answer any more. I have been asked not to respond when I suspect I am being sort of baited.....so I leave it to others to answer.

I will say this. The goal of many in the two main leftist groups whose main agenda is the war...they don't worry about issues of the elderly or the poor....just the war.

I work with all of those issues.

Do a search on Dean, UN, or on Dean Iraq. Do your searches, find your info and remember that the guy your groups are trying to bring down from the left was the loudest voice against the war last year since early on.

Then we have the groups from the right like Democrats for Life and their anti women issues.

And then we have supporters of a couple of former candidates who simply keep thinking Dean is a threat....and they never let up here at all.

Shame on all whose agenda is to destroy the party without anything real to replace it. Then the DLC wins, and the GOP wins by default.

[welshTerrier2]

17. not your call ...

first, i'll be glad to stop when i hear Democrats coming to their senses about the issues of war and peace ... i have no problem with Democrats being willing to use force and "pull the trigger" as a last resort ... i have no problem with Democrats communicating that idea to the American people to benefit the Party politically ... i stand for a strong national defense and i am not a pacifist ...

but Dean's statement makes no recognition of using war as a last resort ... it is pure, ill-conceived hawkish bullshit ... i responded in my post to Dean's statement ... if he has views about the responsible use of force or the role of the UN, he should not make such shoot-from-the-hip remarks without including those views ... without them, his statement is totally hawkish and totally irresponsible ...

and this statement is more inflammatory bullshit: "the guy your groups are trying to bring down from the left" ... let me give you a hint: i only belong to one group ... some consider it a leftist group ... it's called the Democratic Party ... that's it ... i'm not secretly a Green or a Socialist Workers Party or even a MoveOn ... all i am is a Democrat ... one might refer to your constant concerns about these evil third party infiltrators as "seeing things that aren't there" ... it might be useful to understand that there are many Democrats who are sick and tired of all this militarism ... WE ARE THE MAJORITY NOW ... DEAL WITH IT and understand that your guy is OUT OF TOUCH ...

you talk about working on issues for the elderly and the poor ... i commend you for that ... and i already commended you for criticizing Dean's support of Casey ... we should never support ANTI-CHOICE candidates ... that's a civil rights issue that is wrong to overlook just to win an election ...

you keep wanting to blame everyone else for destroying the Party ... maybe Dean's hawkish views are going to alienate the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" ... we don't want more war with Iran or with N. Korea ... we want to defend our country when it's necessary but we also want peace ... if the Party won't represent those views, and i think they are the majority views, then it is the Party that is causing the problem; not those on the left ...

shame on those who will not represent the majority view ...

[pberq]

23. Right on! U.S. out of Iraq NOW!! nt

[pberq]

22. I second this post

It seems that the only people who are allowed in leadership positions in the Democratic party must toe the line of the global empire.

Yes, that is what we are talking about here, Global Empire. The Dems try to differentiate themselves from the Rs by putting a more multi-lteral face on it, but the bottom line is the same.

Of course, I am not including the great Democrats who refuse to buy into this - the Out of Iraq Caucus:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3120

[texpatriot2004]

18. Thank you Howard Dean n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

19. Sounds good, very good. Now try to get everyone on board.

That's where the problem lies.

Democrats are paralyzed because of the contradictions within the party. This is the first thing that has to be overcome. The second thing is to light a fire under those Congressional Democrats who don't get the message.

[bettyellen]

21. .....

[rniel]

28. A few ones I liked

"Small government in this case means making your own private decisions instead of letting Tom Delay make them."

---Damn that's brilliant. We will win over some republican voters who can plainly see the government is getting way too intrusive in our lives.

"Second, Howard obviously feels the party needs a national message of no more than 3 points that get repeated and repeated and repeated, so that you know what it stands for. Neither Kerry nor Gore did that. (If you think they did, tell me, in one sentence, what each man’s campaign stood for. OK, now tell me what Bush’s campaign stood for."

---That's exactly what we need, americans can't remember too many things at once they have a short attention span.


---And just overall this is making me feel really good and hopeful

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Wordie]

32. K&R (Kicked and Recommended)

...whoops!

Got this message:
"You can only recommended threads which have been created in the last 24 hours."

...oh well, I tried.