Dean: When the Truth Hurts and is Necessary to the Process

[floridaguy]

First, I am an avid Clark supporter, even though I would (God or Allah, et al. forbid) vote for Dean, in the event he wins the nomination. However, as someone who is more concerned with removal of Bush than essentially anything else, I feel it's not only my option, but even my obligation to point out why Howard Dean should not be the Democratic nominee. That is of course if your true goal is to win the general election.

If you think that claims that his candidacy is "doomed" or that he is "unelectable" are somehow vitriolic or vemonous, I respectfully tell you that politics is tough business. As Democrats, we should put forth the candidate with the best chance to win the general election. If there are perceived weaknesses of the nominee, we must check them out. So even if my questions bother you, I would answer if Dean can answer the tough ones, he deserves the nomination. If he can't, then we need a nominee who can.

Do you think the GOP will go easy on Sir Howard? Absolutely not. I envision an ad showing a young buck toting his x-rays into a building with the letters "Draft Board" on the entrance, while the 5-second clip at the end shows skiers on the moguls and says somthing like "Ski Vermont, you'll love it". Then of course the recent flap about his claim of familial connections to the military. How exactly do you confuse "tourist" with POW/MIA? And how about the family ties to the all-whites Maidstone Club? Are African-American Dean supporters really knowledgeable about the Dean family history and the club itself? Do you know that Howard Dean was keynote speaker at the Maidstone Club earlier this year? Now, that's one GWB might not bring out, because it could be the pot calling the kettle black. (no pun intended)

Although you may not like the foregoing, every single statement above is based on fact. However, when the GOP unleashes it's $200 Million against the Democratic nominee, he/she better be able to stand up and answer the hard questions, and even be ready for non-factual attacks, and more importantly have the demeanor it takes to sit in the hot seat and respond with intelligent and tactful responses. And I'm not talking about beating on his chest like GW likes to do. Something Howard Dean seems to be pretty good at as well. I want intelligent answers, and we deserve them from the President of the United States.

Wesley Clark can stand up to the Bush machine. When the military establishment decided to try to derail General Clark as he got started, they unfortunately forgot to check the facts. Secretary Cohen apparently forgot that he called Clark one of "our most brilliant officers" and called the air campaign in Kosovo "probably the most succesful operation in history". I would be happy to link anyone to the full article.

Wesley Clark can take the heat, which the GOP will definitely crank up. If Howard Dean can't take tough questioning now, he won't stand a chance in November.

For those that claim this somehow helps the GOP, I would argue that is rubbish. The GOP has been following every aspect of the primaries, and they will unleash a barrage of attacks, both factual and not, that will make this seem like a junior high debate, and I, for one, want a candidate who can stand up to the test and kick their a-ses!

[bitchkitty]

1. Then rest assured -

because Dean's base is growing stronger with every attack. Nice of you guys to strengthen our candidate - not a method I would have used, but it seems to be working!

Of course, this kind of thing makes some of us sick to our stomachs. I wanted Clark for VP - I'm not so sure now. Whomever Howard chooses, I will support, but I hope it's someone other than Clark.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. since this base you refer to is backing the current loser, among the top

tier candidates, who is doing more damage to the effort to rid us all of bush...the people who are backing the loser or those who are not?

please note the down trend for dean in the dean/bush match ups

i say again, it seems to me by stubbornly backing a loser, you are the ones doing the pubbies work, not the people screaming 'look out...there is a cliff ahead ...don't drag us all over it"


The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms a pattern has been consistent since the beginning of polling on this question: Governor Howard Dean is consistently seen as relatively week in a head-to-head against George W. Bush. This despite the fact that Bush administration is pretty much viewed as a disaster.
In an early test of strength, 55 percent of those surveyed said that if the election were held today, they would vote to reelect the president, and 37 percent said they would favor Dean.

WashPost/ABC
12/20/03
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Dean----37

Past national polls, which asked more head-to-head questions, showed repeatedly that Dean fares much worse against Bush than Senator John Kerry or General Wesley Clark.

WashPost/ABC
11/02/03
-----------------------------------Bush--54-----------Dean----39
-----------------------------------Bush--51-----------Clark----40
-----------------------------------Bush--50-----------Kerry----44

USAT/CNN/Gallup
9/21/03
-----------------------------------Bush--49-----------Dean----46
-----------------------------------Bush--46-----------Clark----49
-----------------------------------Bush--47-----------Kerry----48

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=20297

[edzontar]

2. Well, there ya go again.....

Do we really need to read this--AGAIN?

Bulletin: These posts are hurting your candidate.

[AWD]

4. Yep...

..pretty soon, he'll be in single digits in many polls.

Oh, wait. never mind. Too late.

[AWD]

and I assure you...

The GOP has TONS of footage of Clark praising Bush an company thatthey're going to use in commercials. TONS of it, because he praised them numerous times.

Why do people think that Clark and/or Kerry is immune to GOP attacks? They're ripe for it too.

And when Clark is shown as a hypocrite because he praised BushCo for the same reasons he attacks them now, he's doomed.

[CWebster]

3. oh, what a surprise

another Dean is unelectible thread. Popular enough to be the subject of almost every thread from the supporters of other candidates...Isn't that amazing, Howard Dean, the name on everyone's lips. ;-)

[AWD]

6. I wonder

I wonder what it's like to be polling BEHIND someone who is unelectable.

Clark supporters, can you explain that feeling to us?

[Monte Carlo]

5. "My candidate"? "Your candidate?"

This is the type of talk that really turns me off to Dean's campaign (not Dean himself). It really seems to be based on exclusion and seperation.

[AWD]

7. Ummmm....

read the WHOLE post. He's a Clark supporter.

You just showed us you only read the headline.

[Monte Carlo]

8. No, I'm reading the replies.

Helping MY candidate? Hurting YOUR candidate? That's not the type of attitude we need for a popular uprising.

[LiberalBushFan]

11. exactly, a large number of Dean supporters act like politics = baseball

In politics, you don't just pick someone then blindly root for them till the end. A Red Sox fan knows that the Yankees might have a better chance of winning the World Series should they advance to it, but that's not a reason to switch to the Yankees. Politics is the OPPOSITE. This "my candidate" thing implies some sort of rigid commitment, when the real objective is (or should be) the find the best candidate even if it's not the one you now support.

[AWD]

13. You responded to the original post....

...so apologies are necessary from me. I'm very sorry.

A popular uprising is coming. Have no fear.

[edzontar]

16. What--you want the names?

It is perfectly OK and even logical to have a preferred candidate in a primary!!!!

Isn't it?

[auntpattywatty]

9. A candidate that can't even win the nomination is supposed to strong .

enough to beat Bush??? Now, what is wrong with that scenario?

[eileen from OH]

10. Sigh.

This is so tiresome, and repetitive. I'm not even going to go into defense/rebuttal mode - sure others will as Gawd knows we've heard it ad nauseum.

Um, I don't know who you think to persuade? Dean supporters? Undecideds? Seems to me that if this line of reasoning was working at persuading anyone we wouldn't need a bahgillion threads with it.

And. . .doesn't the term you use to describe Gov. Dean in the first sentence of your third paragraph constitute a violation of the mod rules? (I'm not repeating it cuz I got a warning over an inadvertant innocent one and with my luck they'd catch mine and not yours.)

You've every right to keep posting this kinda stuff. Just thought I'd mention that it doesn't seem to be working from a "convincing anyone" point of view.

eileen from OH

[emcglynn]

12. What was I thinking?

How could a governor from a small state with a questionable record on Vietnam possiblby get elected?

[AWD]

14. EXCELLENT response!

[edzontar]

15. Does someone distribute these messages to you guys every morning, or what?

Move a few words around, say the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER....

BOY is this getting ANNOYING.

[CWebster]

18. Check this out , folks

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Some advisers to Mr. Bush, increasingly convinced that Dr. Dean will become their opponent next fall, are pushing to begin a drive to undercut him even before a Democratic nominee becomes clear. But others said the more likely plan would be to hold back until after the Democratic contest had effectively ended, probably no later than March.

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/politics/campaigns/26REPU.html?ei=5062&en=f70dde43205be535&ex=1073019600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

Repeat:

"As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him."

Again:

"As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him."

In case you missed it:

"As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him."

Don't forget:

"As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him. "

As a reminder:

"As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him."

[Rose Siding]

19. ROFL- I saw that this morning and it was the ONLY

thing I considered posting in this thread- I was running through my mind trying to remember the easiest way to pull it back up when, WALA! There you are! *still chuckling*

[edzontar]

23. Thanks!!! I just posted this link on my "used to like Clark" thread..

Seems to make our point, doesn't it?

[floridaguy]

20. Is anyone going to unemotionally discuss the facts?

1. Dean's medical deferment is a liability during a time of war, and the circumstances are worse. (issue: electability/country at war)

2. Dean's statement to the Iowa reporter regarding his POW/MIA brother have yet to be explained away.(charcter-ability to tell the truth)

3. Dean family are life-long members of an all-whites club that has practised "exclusion" in a way only rivaled by the Republican Party.
(upbringing unlike GWB?)

[edzontar]

24. Blah blah blah Clark voted for Reagan blah blah

Negativity, repeated endlessly, useless, sevice to the enemy, blah blah blah...

[madfloridian]

26. What shameful remarks!

I think you should be ashamed. You just slammed many fine men who got deferments just so you could slam Dean. You must not remember much about that era if you don't think people tried to get deferments.

I won't even comment on the lack of knowledge you show in the POW comment. It should be embarrassing to you to use it.

NOW, you really did a job on people who belong to clubs. Most clubs have membership guidelines even now. So you do not like Dean because his family had money and belonged to exclusive clubs. Well, that means we cut out of the running a lot of good potential candidates in the future.

[Rose Siding]

27. Your conclusions are opinion, not fact n/t

[AWD]

22. It happens...

...after the nomination is secured by Dean, there will be peace here and the only disruptions of the Dem party will be by purveyors of "that other site".

This is NOT to say that the current infighting comes from that sight. this is to say that we will return to the DU dynamic of 2002.

[edzontar]

25. I can't wait for that glorious day.

nt

[AnnabelLee]

21. With all due respect

I see no "truth" in your post, only your opinion.:shrug:

[hackwriter]

28. Do you really think they won't do this to Clark?

You said: "Do you think the GOP will go easy on Sir Howard?"

I ask you, "Do you think the GOP will go easy on Clark?" Or for that matter, anyone short of Joe Lieberman, who hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning anyway?

The bottom line is that the Karl Rove smear machine is ready and waiting to brand whoever the Democratic nominee may be as something awful. If it's Dean, he's "angry" and "radical." Clark is "insane" (something that right wing talk radio is already saying). Kerry is p*ssy-whipped with his wife's money and "looks French." Gephardt is a liberal liberal liberal anti-growth pro-union out-of-touch liberal.

So to my mind, the real question is, "Who has the balls to strike back and not let them get away with it?"

And so far there's only one answer.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Clark's military background will somehow "inoculate" him against the GOP's smears. It won't. Rush Limbaugh has been screaming for months that Clark never served in Vietnam and he's just a sock puppet for Hillary Clinton. Does it matter if it's a lie if everyone believes it?

[floridaguy]

30. I agree that Clark will be attacked, but . . .

I certainly agree that Karl Rove and his bandits will unleash their fury on the Democratic candidate. That is exactly my point. We owe it to ourselves to examine and discuss potential weaknesses of our nominee. If someone could address the three things I brought up, and explain or discuss them so that when they come up, there will be ready responses, we will have a better equipped candidate. In the legal field, this is called "pulling the sting". If Dean supporters stick their heads in the sand e.g., blah, blah, blah, we will have a less prepared candidate.

My ultimate goal is beating George Bush, again. And I'm not willing to sit back and let one part of the party put our second best candidate in the race.

If someone thinks it's "shameful" that I question the fact that the Dean family has ties to a club which historically excluded members based on race and ethnicity, then I'm willing to take that heat.

As far as who is the toughest candidate, with the ability to stand up to the Bush machine, I suggest you do some research on how Wesley Clark put his finger in the chest of Milosovic, and told him to stop killing people or he would be removed. He followed through and stopped the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Lastly, do you really want to use Rush Limbaugh's comments about Clark as an example? Please. The last time I checked, you don't win silver stars and purple hearts for nothing.

When this nominating process is over, I will stop questioning the fitness of Howard Dean to be the Democratic nominee. Until then, failure to do so is unacceptable.

[w4rma]

29. I don't want to hear about what Clark "will" do. What *is* he doing? (n/t)

[Moderator]

31. Locking.....

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.



DU Moderator