Looks Like Party Leadership Wants to Wrap it Up next Tuesday. Too Bad

[WiseMen]

Leadership are furious at Howard Dean’s in-cautious attacks on Kerry. He basically fell for the Republican bait. Impression is that he may be either too inexperienced to recognize RW propaganda or else too unstable to restrain himself from using it and being used.

The way Rove used the Drudge Ploy and the effect of Dem factious squabbling showed how easy it was for the Repubs to manipulate supporters of opposing candidtes into trashing the nominee. In the current environment of desperate campaigns, Democrats have become their own worst enemy.

It would have been great if we had the disipline to keep the campaign going without destroying the Party chances. But it doesn't look so.

Expect the following orchestrated events to close out the primary contest:

All major Unions will withdraw from Dean and unite behind Kerry
Gore, Harkin and a train of endorsers will put pressure on Dean to end attacks
Clinton will publicly urge party unity.

So we have the Corporate Media and Rove's minions are doing everything to keep the contest going and the Party is doing everything to end it on Tuesday.

[Padraig18]

1. Who are Gove and Harking?

Dean's 'attacks' have been nothing more than simple truth telling, and if JK can't take it, he should get out, because those are love taps compared to what KKKarl has in store for him.

[Padraig18]

7. OK, who's Harking? n/t

[BuelahWitch]

8. Maybe "'Harking' The Herald Angels Sing"?

:bounce:

[Padraig18]

9. LOL!

:P

[Paulie]

2. They are going to cancel my vote over my cold dead PUNCHCARD!!!

I don't care what the party wants, I'm supporting my Canidate untill the Convention. No rolling over, no wishy-washy stance, it's the way it is.

F them if they force us to accept a weak canidate!!!!!

[Capn Sunshine]

3. This is specious BS

and a patently obvious attempt that I will not respond to without getting banned.

But it's truly pathetic.

[Padraig18]

4. Yeah, what you said!

Edit: So as not to get warned.

[WiseMen]

5. Wish it was. But I am just letting on to what in happening. Check Tuesday.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[WiseMen]

14. That theme is getting old.

[Padraig18]

16. Not nearly as old as the 'get behind Kerry NOW' one is!

The very thought nauseates me! :puke:

[janx]

18. The Iowa caucus was a month ago.

Sorry, most of us are in it for the long haul.

[Renew Deal]

28. Are you going to say the same thing

about Dean when he drops out Tuesday and endorses Dean Thursday?

[Padraig18]

29. Yes!

FUCK THE LEADERSHIP!

[charlie]

10. No

Cite your sources NOW.

[Duder]

11. Slow down...

Doubts grow over Democrats' choice

ALEX MASSIE


'WITH Senator John Kerry all but having won the right to challenge George Bush this November, two phrases will begin to be heard more often. They are "buyers’ remorse" and "the Kerry bubble". Indeed, they are already being heard, as some liberal commentators worry that their party may have just made a dreadful mistake.

It has become fashionable to compare Howard Dean’s campaign to the dotcom revolution that promised the world, but left its investors out of pocket and, in many cases, ruined. Less noticed has been the replacement of Dean-mania by the Kerry bubble. Democrat primary voters have invested their savings in Mr Kerry largely because, well, everyone else seemed to be doing so, and weren’t the media telling us all he was a sure thing?

This is where the "buyers’ remorse" comes in. Sooner, rather than later, Democrats will begin questioning the wisdom of their actions.'

More...

[polmaven]

19. Did we miss the part thea reads:

It could have been much worse - they could have picked Mr Dean or General Wesley Clark?

[Duder]

27. Don't know about "we" but I read it all...

'It could have been much worse - they could have picked Mr Dean or General Wesley Clark - but betting on Mr Kerry is not necessarily a prudent investment. Forgotten amid Mr Dean’s implosion and Mr Kerry’s consequent comeback is that there were good reasons why his campaign all but fizzled out last year.

Certainly, Mr Kerry galvanised his campaign by shaking up his team, sharpening his stump speech and surrounding himself with fellow Vietnam veterans, but the underlying weaknesses that had pundits discounting his chances last November remain, and nothing that has happened this year has changed that. The Kerry high tide has covered up these perilous rocks, but when the tide recedes, they will be seen in all their danger.

In any case, Mr Bush’s poll ratings compare favourably with Bill Clinton’s in 1996 at the same stage in the electoral cycle. Mr Kerry only just beats Mr Bush in a head-to-head match-up after a terrible month for the president and a great few weeks for Mr Kerry.

Democrats, of course, are banking that Mr Bush’s own problems will outweigh Mr Kerry’s failings. It is true that any election is first a referendum on the incumbent - but it is equally true that the electorate will forgive an incumbent’s weaknesses in the absence of a compelling alternative. Mr Kerry is many things - dogged, determined and tough - but he is not inspiring. And if he is doughty, he is also dissembling and slippery.'

Still more left...

[retyred]

12. It does appear bad for the less than front two

It was bound to happen, sooner or later it would come down to two, then one.

We were set up to prmaturely thin the herd ourselves and those few took the bait willingly and moved in for the kill, but there was no kill to be had.

Fool me once, shame....shame on you, fool me.....can't get fooled again!



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[Nicholas_J]

13. Yup

In a race like this, with a lot of the moneyed interests in the nation trying to shore up Bush, the part is right. Such campaigns are usually lost because the your own side doesnt have the time to adequately campaign against the incumbent who usually has a great advantage in a presidential race. This is one of those rare races in which the incumbent is losing his popularity, and part of that advantage, and so one of those few election in which the incumbent can be thrown out. Which means the demcratic party has to start its campaign against the incumbent immediately. as well as to start raising enough money to mount a strong campaign against Bush. The only reason that Bush has a 200 million dollar advantage right now is that the democratic candidates are raising money to use in campaigns agaisnt each other. If you put tgetther the money that Democrats have already raised for the primary process and spent already, it comes close to the sum that George Bush has raised and has sitting in the bank to use in the general election. One of the reasons for fron-loading the primaries was precisely to select a front runner early, so that the party could have time to raise money to use for the campaign against Bush, as well as to keep hammering at Bush's record, and keep it actively in the public eye, not allowing the Republican Adminstration to divert public attention away from the foul ups of this presidents policies. If a candidate is decided on soon, then the party has six months to raise mney, and keep attention on the Bush record, and exploit any problems that crop up between now and the fall, when the final campaign will begin in eanest. This also include having those "Washington Insiders" in congress contininually demandin investigations into intellgence failures, corporate scandals, even pinniing the blame on the ever increasing public outrage over things like the Janet Jackson exposure on the Bush policy of allowing fewer and fewer companies to own more and more of the media outlets in the country. Congressional Democrats will focus all of their attention on Bush Administration failures, and make sure that these failures remain a public issue.

Which is why you see pundits like Bill Crystal trying to blow off the early selection of a democrat, but doing so in a very nervous way.

[ibegurpard]

15. I could've gotten behind who the Party insiders wanted

if they had put as much effort into opposing the Republicans and winning the 2002 elections as they have into kneecapping Dean. As it is, they can go whoring to the corporations and big-money donors they are so terrified to alienate for support.

[janx]

17. What?

"Leadership are furious at Howard Dean’s in-cautious attacks on Kerry. He basically fell for the Republican bait. Impression is that he may be either too inexperienced to recognize RW propaganda or else too unstable to restrain himself from using it and being used."


He didn't fall for anything! He knows very well that Kerry's the DLC candidate.

Are you kidding? And are they still borrowing the "unstable" word from the right wing tabloids? It seems to me that whoever came up with this crap is getting the propaganda mixed up.

[blujig]

20. Howard Dean brought a lot of this on himself!

In one of the debates in Iowa Dean inferred that if he wasn't the nominee he would take his ball and supporters and go home. He loss me then and probably a lot of other folks. His supporters seem to have that same attitude. They were so sure he would win they failed to consider the possibility of a loss. I am sure the outcome of the Iowa Caucus was a shock. I think all of us want the same thing. Beat Bush. Kerry wasn't my first choice either but ABB.

[slinkerwink]

22. no---Dean said he would support the nominee

and he said he couldn't guarantee the same for his supporters.

[Padraig18]

23. That's NOT true!

Dean said (accurately) that his supporters were not transferrable; he did NOT say that he would take his ball and go home, or whatever the silly anaology was that was used.

[HFishbine]

33. I'm sure you're right

He probably did lose a lot of other folks if they misheard his statmenets the way you did, when in fact, he said no such thing.

Below is a transcript to the debate in Des Moines (1), can you show me what you are refering to? Maybe it was in one of the other debates (2). Or maybe not.

1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10799-2003Nov24¬Found=true

2) http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/debates/

[LizW]

21. It's amazing

how freaking terrified the insiders still are of Howard Dean and the Dean supporters.

[slinkerwink]

24. they want to quash any remaining grassroots and have it

back in the hands of the elite party leaders again.

[WiseMen]

32. Grassroots rule! But self-destruction should not.

[Padraig18]

37. What is self-destructive?

Actively opposing a candidate we believe to be inferior is self-destructive? :wtf:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

26. Everything you said is correct.

I believe that everything there is correct.

[quaker bill]

Yet another unwise post,

Perhaps you are correct. If so then good for them. I could give a rats behind.

I will still be voting for Dean on March 9th. The ballot is already printed and his name is on it. Too bad.

Damn, I was so looking forward to spending my cash on a candidate I support. I lined up alot of leave time to work on a campaign.

I guess I will just have to take a trip instead.

[WiseMen]

31. Sorry. Just passing on latest.

[HFishbine]

34. Passing on?

Passin on from who or where?

[madfloridian]

36. Passing on from whom?

From the party to the Dean supporters?

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Cocoa]

35. are Dean's attacks hurting Kerry?

I don't see how. Annoying, maybe, but the only potential real damage is to the memory of Dean's campaign.

I personally think he's going to cool it soon, and become a very positive force again in the fight against Bush.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

39. locked

inflamatory