Dean's misleading NH ad

[Renew Deal]

This is the ad that some people are talking about. I scanned it for your pleasure.




I first found out about this at Kucinich HQ in Manchester, NH. I was walking by there around midnight my first night and saw people. I went up to say hi. They were all very nice and we exchanged information. One of the women there said “Did you see the latest Dean ad?” I said no. She picks it up and puts it down on the table in front of me (with some force). She opens it and says read this. First line in big letters is: “ONLY DEAN OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START.” Now anyone paying attention knows that’s not true. It is a lie to not qualify that and it isn’t qualified. Then it goes on to say all that about the major candidate as you can see.

Here are the problems:
a. It is a lie. Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark were all against the war. Kucinich actually voted against it. Clark testified to Congress against it.
b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

The Kucinich volunteers (or staff) were irate. Dean has created an anti-Dean situation with them. They see through this. They don’t like being marginalized and they don’t like Dean misleading people for votes.

[windansea]

1. thanks

naughty naughty Dr Dean

[oasis]

135. A "minor" candidate debate will be held after the primaries. Trippi to

announce participants.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

136. Yeah. Thanks for the heads up!

[Rose Siding]

2. "Major"

"the only major Democratic candidate"

[Renew Deal]

5. Huh?

I am not sure what you mean. I walked into Dean HQ in Manchester and asked for it. They are in the same building as Kerry.

[babzilla]

91. ask you anything?

3 questions:

1. how do you "open up" a one page flyer?

2. did you get this flyer from the Kucinich HQ as stated in the thread opener or at the Dean HQ as stated above?

3. why did you make 6 trips in 5 days to the other candidates HQ's while you were in NH to campaign for your own candidate? Is that part of your campaigns strategy to get out the vote?

[Renew Deal]

150. The truth

It is a trifold brochure type thing.

I found out about it at Kucinich HQ and got my own copy at Dean HQ. BTW Dean is at the corner of McGregor and Bridge in the same building as Kerry but around back.

I made 3 trips to other candidates HQ. The first night to Kucinich's because they were there at midnight and I wanted to wish them well.

Tuesday to see if Kucinich's staff had an extra and yesterday to get one of my own from Dean's HQ. Otherwise it is a small town so they are all bunched up together.

[babzilla]

180. How does the front side work then?

If you fold it into 3, the frontside must be pretty mangled. You would only see a Picasso type view of HD.

Is it like the Mad Magazine back-page? Is there a joke coming?

The thing you scanned is not a trifold type thing brochure, it is a front side and a back side and does not resemble anything I have ever seen from the Dean campaign.

[Renew Deal]

194. You can see it here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=49199&mesg_id=49758&page=

You would have only seen it if you lived in NH. It has a NH address on it.

[babzilla]

238. why doesn't deanfornewhampshire.com have this posted

if they are mailing it out, how come you, or whoever


Can you link it from Deans NH campaign HQ where you supposedly picked it up from?

Another weird thing is the image of Dean & Judith. The Dean campaign doesn't use his wife in campaign brochures.

I am a contributor to the campaign and have recieved many mailings. I have yet to recieve one with a picture of Judith Steinberg Dean, that is because Dean respects her wishes to stay out of campaigning for the most part. This is yet another reason why I'm not buying your claim that this is an official campaign brochure.

edit to fix link

[Renew Deal]

255. So the paid for by Dean for America label isn't enough?

Call them yourself... 603-222-1900

Will you believe them or is that the number at Kerry headuarters I set up just to trick DUers?

[babzilla]

261. remind me where the paid for by Dean for America label is

I don't see it on any of the pieces that you have posted.

[Renew Deal]

263. Post 152 top left middle under the address.

But call them. Can you do that? Call them up. I gave you the number.

[babzilla]

267. so you scanned it for my pleasure

but you don't have a scanner.

I must ask why a person that goes out of his way to campaign for Clark in NH would make the main thrust of his post to engender hard feelings between Dean & Kucinich supporters.

That may be one way to get the anti-war vote in your corner, but its probably not the most constructive ever devised.

I guess we will find out after the NH primaries how that works for you.

[windansea]

272. I remember somebody asking for proof

in the previous thread about this

:shrug:

[5thGenDemocrat]

405. Yeah, that's the same brochure I got in the mail

Babzilla thinks we're lying about it but, then, I suspect Babzilla is just being disingenuous.
John
The part I like is that Dean proclaims himself "candidate for president," NOT "Democratic candidate for president." Maybe the governor is trying to represent the non-aligned wing of the Democratic party.

[Renew Deal]

275. The helicopters...

They're everywhere. You have to be kidding. First this has nothing to do with creating hard feelings for anyone. Second, do you know anyone with a scanner? Maybe you own one yourself. Third, why would I lie? I have no reason to. Call Dean HQ in NH. 603-222-1900 Ask them about it. Don't take my word for it. Call them.

This has nothing to do with Kucinich, Clark, or who I know that owns a scanner. This has to do with this Dean ad and Howard Dean. That's it. Call Dean HQ and ask for your self. Why can't you call them?

[babzilla]

285. 1. I called the Dean HQ

they told me that helicopters will be by to pick me up soon.

2. yes I know that the only thing this post has to do with is Howard Dean and this "Dean Ad". That is why I am not buying your scan, or your friends scan, or whoever has the scanner.

3. You say it has nothing to do with Kucinich Clark or whoever in the post above but here is what you state in the original post

Here are the problems:
a. It is a lie. Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark were all against the war. Kucinich actually voted against it. Clark testified to Congress against it.
b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

4. yes I do own a scanner, but it doesn't work for your pleasure.

No hard feelings indeed.

[Renew Deal]

290. So do you believe it is real now?

Just wondering. What did Dean HQ say?

[babzilla]

295. they said they didn't have a scanner

only a helicopter

[windansea]

9. yeah

in the small print

[mouse7]

38. You know the differece between "small print" and "text"

"major candidate" is the area of text that comprises that majority of the flier. There's no asterisk and fine print at the bottom.

You used the term "small print" to distort, sandnsea

[windansea]

151. I know the diference between misleading ads

and honest ones

and its windansea thank you :hi:

[mouse7]

162. Like other appraisals of yours, your self-appraisals are faulty

You might want to start getting feedback more often from friends and family. You need more outside input.

[TLM]

183. DO you understand the rules of headlines vs body text?

Headlines are not requiered to be detailed and since the very first line of body text under that headline does qualify the statement in the headline with "major candidate" the claim by the Kucinich people that the headline statement is not qualified is a flat out fabrication.

[windansea]

204. see post 97 n/t

[TLM]

236. Not an answer... quoting someone else who does not know the difference

between BODY TEXT and small print.

[sangha]

338. The HEADLINE say "Only candidate"

not "Only MAJOR candidate"

But I guess the headline is unimportant. It's not like the headline is supposed to summarize the article, and I'm sure no one in the Dean campaigns realize that some people only scan the headlines.

Nah, it couldn't be that.

[jpgpenn]

398. trying to get it knocked off

instead of addressing this vile form of pandering wont get anyone anywhere!:puke:

[DemBones DemBones]

309. Leaving the word "major" out of the LARGE PRINT distorts the headline.

It deliberately distorts the meaning. A lot of people pay attention to headlines only, as is well known. Even if they read the fine print, the words "only candidate" are already imprinted in their minds.

Besides, what gives Dean the license to say he's a "major" candidate and others aren't?

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, until after the primaries. And Dean's continuing to lie. He's just started to claim he's the "only candidate from a farm state." That's on top of "only anti-war candidate," and "only white candidate to talk about race to white audiences."

[TLM]

191. No, in the first line of body text under a headline

That is perfectly in line with a journalistic standard for qualifying a statement in a headline.

Headlines are to be short and punchy, not detailed and complex. Any clarification needs to be in the body text, not the headline.

Which is exactly what this does. The first line in the body text qualifies the headline with "only major candidate."


As usual this is an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill when there isn't even really a molehill.

[KittyWampus]

94. The Word "Major" Candidate Is Not There In This Ad's

Headline.

It is only present as a qualifer in the small print.

Many people don't read the small print... that's Advertising 101.

[mouse7]

164. More misleading claims

Do they read footnotes with asterisks? No. Do they read the ACTUAL MAIN BODY text, yes. There is no asterisk. The statement is at the top in the main body.

[DemBones DemBones]

312. They read THE HEADLINE

and then, maybe, they read the text.

[liberalnurse]

3. Oh give it a break ...Please.

We here all have followed the candidates....splitting hairs, arguing as to who did what first is childlike. These candidates are democrats...yes the democrats, the voice of the people opposed the war......Were all on the same team. Be glad the information is getting out there!

[Renew Deal]

7. I am not sure I want someone on my team

that lies about fellow Democrats and marginalizes fellow Democrats. Can I ask you??? Does this ad make you proud? Do you support this?

[liberalnurse]

17. Yes, I support the democratic message.

My enemy is *bush, night and day....make no mistake, it is *bush who is destroying this nation. Dean is the leader, a democrat and having him out with the message is fine with me. The others will not make headlines.

Kinda like....essentially...asking yourself which triplet was born first....Who cares as long as they are healthy. I'm for getting the message out. All the above were in sync with the opposition...So was Senator Byrd.

[Renew Deal]

23. What if the message is a lie or misleading?

You would flip if this came from the other side. WHy is i OK for Dean?

[liberalnurse]

37. Dean is on our side.....

He is a democrat.

Repuke's adgenda is different, they are the enemy today as long a *bush is in the house.

[Renew Deal]

40. So liars on our side are OK?

I am not sure what to say.

[mouse7]

42. It's not misleading.

The term "major candidate" is in the main text field of the flier. There's no asterisk with fine print at the bottom.

[adadem]

100. Give me a break n/t

[babzilla]

246. what if......

this really isn't from dean......for america.

What is dean.......for america anyway?

what I want to know is if ...... is a cover up for the "other side".

when I see ....... I think "other side".

That is "WHy is i OK for Dean." WOuld i flip if this came from the other side, you bet i would, what do you think I'm doing now. i OK.

[mouse7]

31. Kucinich's lack of voter support marginalized him.

If Kucinich was at 10%, he wouldn't be marginalized.

Kucinich is in danger of losing to LaRouche.

[Renew Deal]

41. OK, so what about Clark.

He was against the war and meets your threshold.

[mouse7]

49. Clark didn't say at beginning of the war he was against war

I was stuck with CNN's war coverage like most of the rest of us then. I watched Clark on CNN with Aaron Brown. Clark sure didn't seem too anti-war during CNNs coverage. He never said a word the whole time he was doing analysis for CNN.

I don't care if Clark told a Brownie Troop 404 during an appearance at the same time he was anti-war if he didn't use his main podium, the CNN analyst position to attack Dumbya's war.

[Renew Deal]

56. This one is easy

Clark testified to congress that the war was a bad thing.

CNN was his job. He was a journalist. Unlike most of the journalists we were dealing with, he didn't editorialize. It is funny how he has pissed off both sides. He was almost fired for not being for it and catches heat for not protesting it against the integrity of his job.

[mouse7]

62. Congressional Committee, Brownie troop... same thing

Brownie Troops get more press coverage than Congressional Committee hearings.

If clark was anti-war, he should have said it from the CNN analyst desk.

[Renew Deal]

68. So do you want all your reporters

editorializing? Are you a Fox News watcher? This double standard is worrisome.

THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

[mouse7]

76. All the corporate media reporters constantly editorialize

From Judy Woodruf to Wolf Blitzer to Candy Crowley...

They all make their right leaning opinions known.

Besides, Clark was an ANALYST. ANALYSTS are paid to present their OPINIONS.

[Renew Deal]

81. He was analyzing the war

not whether we should have been there. WHy did the white house want him fired if he was so pro-war?

[mouse7]

101. Never stopped right-wingers from hearing their agenda

Clark was doing military analysis. It is well within the range of reasoned discussion whether the war being fought should have been fought.

[BootinUp]

202. Why don't you support your

charge with some evidence? Cause otherwise its just another unsubstantiated smear from a Dean supporter against Clark. What a surprise.

[drfemoe]

315. so are you saying

it's okay to lie if you are working at CNN?

[TLM]

199. CLark also said....

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[Jerseycoa]

67. His main podium?

He was a paid military analyst, fer chrissake.

[heidler]

209. Clark said at the first debate that he probably would have voted for war

He sort of hesitated over his answer. The next time he was asked he said he would of voted against the war. Kucinich with his 1 or 2 % in the scientific polls is not a leading candidate. So Dean was correct.

[Renew Deal]

266. Can I see the transcript of that debate.

That would be interesting to see.

[neverforget]

212. Clark was paid by CNN to be an ANALYST not to spout his

OPINION! There is a difference!

[BillPhi]

369. Bullspit.

Clark testified to Congress about his opposition to the Iraq war as early as 2002. He's written two books on the subject of what needs to be done in the war against terror. Sheesh.

Be for or against whatever candidate you please, but at least *try* to tell the truth.

:eyes:

[babzilla]

278. It is A-OK that Clark was against the war

that doesn't mean that I think that he is the best candidate for president... even if he opposed it from the very start.

[TLM]

197. I am very proud of Dean and his ability to get his message out...

It is very shrewd, this ad. Because while it is perfectly honest and true... the Kucinich folks are still going to get cranky over it.

Which does two things... makes them look like whiners who are overreacting to this and it gets this ad a hell of a lot more coverage than it would have gotten all on its own.

[windansea]

223. Dean won't look to shrewd

on national TV when DK exposes this garbage

[TLM]

230. LOL! No, when Kucinich whines about this, and I hope he does.

It will be just like the last time.

Kucinich will look like a crybaby nit picker, and Dean will look like he is NOT the far left cry baby nitpicker.


Frankly this is genius... Dean gets to draw a real distinction between himself ad the far left guy, by having the far left guy implode on TV over some petty petty shit.

[shivaji]

268. Does that mean you are not proud of Bill Clinton? Did you vote for him?

[JohnKleeb]

4. *Sad sigh*

He was far from alone on being opposed to from the start. Dr. Dean, I saw the Reverend Sharpton speak out against the war in person in autumn 2002, it was Dennis Kucinich with house leader Pelosi that led the fight against IWR. I hope they did stop disturbting this ad.
This is disappointing.

[Renew Deal]

10. They didn't stop

I got it yesterday at 11:00 am from Dean HQ. It was on a table at the front door.

[JohnKleeb]

26. that sucks bleachers

Feel like these are the times when I should just pack up my bags and get out of politics. Anyhow, thanks though.

[oasis]

262. JohnKleeb, our country's going to need every young patriot to keep the

light of hope burning for future generations. Politics and politians can get ugly at times but they are a necessary evil.

[Tinoire]

60. That incenses me. n/t

[drfemoe]

318. why is it that Clark

can only get a bang by stirring up trouble between other candidates?

His entrance into the race has done nothing but cause disruption. If he manages to somehow get the nomination it will only confirm him as the spoiler candidate. He can't beat Bush .. he's on the same side.

[Renew Deal]

323. OK

What has Clark stirred up between other candidates? Specifics would be helpful.

Also sorry that Clark's entrance has disrupted Deans coronation. How could he get in the way of the chosen one?

[drfemoe]

331. I meant spoil the Democratic Party

n/t

[Tinoire]

336. Problem is we can't blame this on Clark

I can't blame his supporter either because at least one of the original threads in PC was not started by a Clark supporter and also because we all bring unpleasant facts up for discussion- as well we should I think.

Kucinich HQs alerted people to this because angry Kucinich supporters brought it to their attention and Kucinch sent out the following e-mail on the 29th:

Dean Misrepresenting Kucinich's Record:
CONCORD MONITOR NOTES DEAN'S CLAIM

On Saturday, Dec. 27, the Concord Monitor in Concord, NH, noted: "Dean recently mailed brochures to homes in New Hampshire with a headline stating that Dean is the only candidate who 'opposed the war from the start.'"

Here is an image taken from the brochure, which the Dean campaign has mailed to people in New Hampshire and other states:

<image snipped/Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start>

It's hard to believe that Dean supporters would stand for this kind of misrepresentation. We won't stand for it.

<snip>

WHAT THE FACTS ARE:

As you all know so well, Dennis Kucinich led the effort against the war in the House of Representatives, is the only candidate who voted against the war, is the only candidate who consistently opposed the war from the beginning and continues to oppose it now, and is the only candidate with an exit strategy. His "Prayer for America" speech against the buildup to war in February 2002 catalyzed this campaign. Rev. Al Sharpton and Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun also opposed the war.

The war is not over. Soldiers are dying every day. And Dean would like to continue the military occupation of Iraq for "a few years," as he said in the debate on December 9th. Dennis is campaigning on his record of opposition to the war and his plan to end it in 90 days.
Dean's flyer and mass mailing effectively calls Dennis a liar. People have begun asking Dennis whether he really opposed the war. Dean knows the truth. After we complained in October about his similar misrepresentations in TV ads in New Hampshire, he acknowledged Dennis' leadership against the war at an AFL-CIO forum and stopped running the ads. He later acknowledged Dennis' courage on this issue during a national debate. And yet he continues to use a flyer that says "Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start."

If Dr. Dean chooses to gloss over the inconsistencies of the positions he took during the first stage of this war, that's his business. But when he denies Dennis's record, that becomes our business, and
it ought to be the business of the media. Dean is misrepresenting a material fact, and doing so despite his demonstrated knowledge of the truth. It is the media's responsibility to find out why he is doing this. The public has a right to know.

Here is information on who opposed the war when:
http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php


The rest of your post is a whole other topic and yes, I agree that his entrance has been a huge disruption but this isn't from the Clark camp.

You know, if Dean supporters hadn't spun this issue so much when it was first brought up (the first time and this week), I don't think Bleacher would ever have scanned this and posted this thread because no one would have cared. But a challenge was made by the Dean camp last week to scan it so someone did, had it not been a Clark supporter, it probably would have been an angry Kucinich supporter because several people requested copies of it from various sources.

As a Kucinich supporter, I'm really hurt and angry over this because it's not the first time it's been done and Dean has deliberately marginalized and mis-represented DK from the beginning.

We saw this early on and were hurt before Clark ever even entered the race. The hurt runs pretty deep- and this is just one more confirmation that we, Kucinich supporters, can't trust Dean. This is no way to go into the Primaries and I'm really hurt. I'm also very concerned that Dean will have alienated so many people by the time/if he gets to the top that he won't garner enough votes.

I just now, right before this sentence, Googled Trippi and dirty tricks. There is a lot that turned up and I'm really disappointed because my candidate has been hurt and some of the things I just turned up confirm what I thought was happening in the Dean campaign from the start. Trippi has created Dean's success so I can understand why his supporters would think this is ok but all is not really fair in love and war and some things really cause deep pain. This is one of them.

The spin in this thread added the insult to injury. Thank you for not having been a part of it.


Who can play dirtier? Joe Trippi or Karl Rove
by braveheart
Fri Nov 28th, 2003 at 22:56:19 UTC

Joe Trippi's creative, aggressive and quite frankly, dirty tactics were in full play while he was still campaigning for Mondale long time ago according to this article (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=uPrIwAEG7fHpGFSjMCq7tR%3D%3D which I will snip below).
"We started really early in the day," Trippi remembers, reflecting on how he and an Iowa colleague named Tom Cosgrove solved their JJ problem. "They stopped about three miles out the staging area--the Mondale buses coming from Minnesota or wherever they were coming from." What follows is one of the most ambitious political makeovers in history. A team of Mondale aides, led by Cosgrove, plasters the bus with Cranston paraphernalia--stickers, posters, buttons, everything. Three miles down the road, the bus pulls up to the Cranston tent, where a Mondale/Cranston supporter gets out and tells a real Cranston aide he has 52 people on the bus. The aide looks up at the bus, surely admiring the military-like discipline that has brought a busload of Cranston supporters from "Los Angeles or wherever" out to the middle of Iowa this early in the day, and quietly congratulates himself. He promptly hands over 52 tickets.

"And it continues like this, through bus after bus of Mondale supporters: Stop three miles up the highway, lather the bus in Cranston paraphernalia, drive on to the Cranston tent, claim your tickets. And the Cranston campaign just keeps forking them over. Happily. Hell, the more buses that show up, the more impressed the Cranston people are by their own handiwork. Never does it occur to them that these busloads of supporters aren't the genuine article. At least not until the real Cranston buses start showing up. "Twenty buses pull up, and they're out of tickets," Trippi says, still amused at the spectacle almost 20 years later. "More Cranston buses keep pulling up, and they don't have the tickets anymore." Score one for Walter Mondale. "

The problem now is: Can Joe Trippi be as evil as Karl Rove? Can Joe Trippi go toe to toe, play as dirty as Karl Rove in order to defeat Shrub?

Do you think Joe Trippi will be the man to help Dean pull this off?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/28/225619/34


===

Everyone tells their own version of how Walter Mondale won the straw poll at Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in 1983, but they all go something like this: In early October, a young Mondale aide named Joe Trippi shows up in Des Moines to check on Mondale's Iowa field operation. What he finds there horrifies him. Somehow the Iowa team has allowed the rival campaign of California Senator Alan Cranston to nearly corner the market on tickets to the JJ dinner, an annual affair designed to raise money for the Iowa state Democratic Party. This is, to colossally understate things, a problem. The dinner's traditional straw poll is an important barometer of public opinion in the state that hosts the nation's first caucuses. Mondale is a former vice president from neighboring Minnesota. Not only is he expected to win the straw poll; he is expected to win big. But the way you win is by packing the convention hall full of your own supporters. And the way you do that is by selling them tickets or buying tickets for them.

Trippi is nearly hysterical when he calls Campaign Manager Bob Beckel and Deputy Manager Mike Ford in Washington. "He speaks so fast, it was hard to keep up," Beckel recalls. "I said, 'Joe, What's the bottom line? What do you need?' He said, 'I just need permission to do whatever I need to do.' ... I just said OK." But there isn't a lot Trippi can do. He can try to get the Iowa Democratic Party to sell him more tickets. But there's no way they're going to sell him $275,000 worth, which is what Trippi estimates Cranston has bought. And, even if they would, there's no way he can afford to drop that kind of cash on an off-year event. When it comes down to it, Trippi is going to have to get his hands on tickets that have already been sold. Cranston tickets. Lots of them. And yet, once he accepts that proposition, the solution is almost elegant in its simplicity: What's to stop him from just marching right up to Cranston's people and asking for them?

<snip / and then the bit about the lemonade stands>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=uPrIwAEG7fHpGFSjMCq7tR%3D%3D

[liberalnurse]

21. The writer may of intentionally presented this

concept in this fashion to evoke inner party discord. Makes more news for tomorrow. Obviously it's effective. I'm just brainstorming...I don't know who wrote or published it.

I'm just not in Shock-n-Awe at all here.

[ErasureAcer]

64. another dean supporter's denial

When this was first reported...

Dean supporters claimed to scan it to the web...not believing it.

And now that it has been scanned...

Dean supporters are claiming it is a scam created by Bleachers to discredit Dean?

MY FREAKING GOD.

This type of thinking is just as bad as Bush supporters.

FACE REALITY PEOPLE!

[mouse7]

73. It's not a scam... just not true

The reality is the main text portion of the flier copy said "only major candiate"

That is accurate. The flier is accurate.

[ErasureAcer]

78. accurate? hahaha

As a mass comm major, studying the media, the press and public relations...this is not accurate at all.

Dean is alienating a large base with his lies.

He will not win...and we'll have another 4 years of Bush.

Why oh why are democrats supporting a liar?

The only way to beat a liar, Bush...is with a person of integrity and truth...that is not Dean.

[mouse7]

87. Go back to school and make way for the pros

As a professional broadcaster, I know it is true.

The main text portion of the flier states "only major candidate" at the top of the brochure. That puts the information on an equal presentaion with the rest of the info about Dean.

There is nothing in this Dean ad that is inaccurate. Dean's support among Dems is approaching 40%. He shattered fundraising records yesterday.

Sounds like you need to go back and bone up on your basic classes.

[ErasureAcer]

93. even if you want to deny Kucinich...what about Clark?

Clark was against the war...

Another Dean lie.

I can't wait for Clark, Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Sharpton supporters to get their revenge on Dean for his lies about their campaigns.

Dean is loser because he is a liar.

Cheaters never win.

[mouse7]

104. Clark DID NOT say he was against war as CNN analyst.

Lot of camera time on CNN for Clark to say we shouldn't have been fighting the war, and he never said it.

[ErasureAcer]

116. so what he didn't say it on CNN...?

that is good objective journalism right there.

That wasn't his job either to comment on the Iraq war...his job was to talk about American Stratedgy and what Tommy Franks and Company were planning...commenting on stratedgies that were reported...like taking bridges and towns and such.

He said he was against the war...apparently because he was on TV and didn't say it, to you means he wasn't against the war.

Riiiight.

Keep stretching there bud. Dean's comment is a lie about Clark's campaign as well.

Dean is a LIAR!

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Lefta Dissenter]

201. He absolutely DID state that he would not have gone into Iraq

when he was analyst on CNN! I don't know if anyone else has disputed your claim further down, I've only gotten this far on this thread, but I specifically pointed Clark out to my dad and others at the time, BECAUSE he was the only one on tv that I heard criticizing the administration's decision!!!

That's what made me notice him in the first place, and I said at the time that that guy is certainly smart and well-spoken, why can't we have someone like HIM as our president!

[TLM]

211. Yeah... as ususal Clark said both, talked out both sides of his mouth.

See my quotes... he also said that we need to move foward witht he war and that the rest of the world needs to get behind us and belly up to the bar.

Clark also said he'd vote for the IWR.

[ErasureAcer]

237. funny the same thing could be said about Dean

on

social security age
87 billion dollars
the IWR(for Biden-Lugar)
public campaign finance

and so on...

but you don't want to mention those...do you?

ADSWL

[TLM]

242. As usual when met with facts that disprove attacks...

quickly change the subject to some other issues.


"social security age"

Garbage argument based on quotes from an out of context response to a HYPOTHETICAL question based on circumstances that have changed since then.

"87 billion dollars"

He was for supporting our troops, but against spending that money without certain criteria being met by Bush which was not met.

"the IWR(for Biden-Lugar)"

Biden Lugar is not the IWR no matter how desperately some want to claim otherwise.

Here are the facts on the differences.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html



"public campaign finance"

Dean supports campaign furnace reform and his campaign is the very model of this, as it is supported by small donations from hundreds of thousands of supporters and not massive special interests contributions.

Now what does any of that have to do with CLark supporting the war in Iraq?

Next?

[drfemoe]

321. No one but Dean said it ..

I was there. I remember.

[TLM]

208. Clark was for the war and said he would have voted for the IWR.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[TLM]

207. As a mass comm major, studying the media

you should know the standards for headlines vs those for body text.

[no name no slogan]

251. We're not talking about 1/2 of the flyer...

we're talking about the WHOLE DAMN FLYER. Please quit parsing what we are saying and focus on the fact that Dean is, once again, using misleading statements in his campaign materials for his own political gain.

This is exactly the same kind of shit Trippi tried with the Geph '88 campaign, and it too backfired on him. I guess it should be expected from him after all these years, but it is still infuriating to see these same low-brow tactics used to misrepresent other candidates. It demeans ALL the candidates when these half-truths are used in a campaign-- and I for one am sick and tired of Dean and Trippi resorting to these methods when they feel that they can't sell themselves based on their stands on the ISSUES.

But, having seen the patronizing attitude of a small number of fanatical Dean supporters, I guess I should not be suprised. :eyes:

[TLM]

205. Now that it has been scanned, we're proven right....

since the offending statement was in fact a headline... and the first line of body text, which was pointedly left out of the initial attack, clearly says only MAJOR candidate.

The scam was in trying to misrepresent a short punchy headline as if it was a detailed statement in this handout, and leaving out the body text which qualified the headline.

[TLM]

200. Are any of those folks MAJOR dem candidates?

nope...

[Donna Zen]

6. Post all excuses below

But....but....but....

[Cocoa]

8. would it kill him to give Dennis props?

I don't get it, couldn't he score points with progressives by saying "Kudos to Dennis for voting against the IWR."

I've seen the candidates give each other credit for various things, and it looks good for everyone.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. "would it kill him to give Dennis props?"

He already did. This is a non issue and you all are beating the dead donkeys of your own candidates campaigns.
Please show me where DK has given Dean any props.

[JohnKleeb]

28. August CNN interview with Blitzer

Kucinich congruadlates him for raising all the money, hes raised.

[Tinoire]

86. He didn't have to give DK props/ He could simply have written

"Dean Opposed the War" and nobody would be picking any bones.

Had he even written "Dean Opposed the War from the start", which is not my impression, few people would even say a word but this is an outright lie.

It may sound like a nothing issue to Dean supporters but it is a HUGE issue to Kucinich supporters and activists like me who attended anti-war march after anti-war march and only saw Kucinich and Sharpton out there giving us support and saying what we were saying, sonsistently and from the start.

It's a huge issue because Dean's distorted record about being anti-war is what marginalized Kucinich and deliberately continues to do so.

[MidwestMomma]

103. Exactly right

And it's hard to understand why they would word it this way when to say "Dean Opposed the War" would be just as an effective message for their target audience which I guess would be anti-war Democrats.

And what I really can't understand is why Dean would pull the TV ads that said the same thing and apologize for the ads and then decide it was okay to print brochures with the same message and think that by adding 'only major candidate' in the text it would make it any easier for the anti-war candidates to accept. Why stir up the hornets nest again? I just don't know what to make of this.

[bowens43]

228. It would not have been as effective.

He needed to distinguish himself from the other major candidates. He was the only major candidate to oppose the war. There is no lie, there is no foul. There are no other anti-war candidates that have a realistic shot at getting the nomination.

[Renew Deal]

306. Wes Clark

heard of him?

[drfemoe]

322. This reminds me of the saying

"let's you and him fight" ... Clark has no bang, so he ignites controversy within his brand new party which he just joined two months ago. How did we ever survive without his contributions before now?

[Renew Deal]

337. Huh

This is on the verge of incoherent. So you are saying Clark is running just to stir things up? He has no bang? Not sure what that means. He is only one of the most succesfull military leaders this country has ever had. He could have stayed retired and that still would be true. He wrote a bestselling book and was also known for his CNN work. No bang?

[TLM]

214. Would you say kucinich is a major candidate?

Just curious....

[HFishbine]

29. He does

as recently as this Sunday in Aimes, Iowa: "Of all the people running from Congress, only Dennis Kucinch had the courge to vote against the war."

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04122803_dean.rm

[ErasureAcer]

69. then why is he running this ad?

saying in big letters..."the only candidate to oppose the war"?

That is a lie.

Being honest half the time isn't good enough for someone wanting to be president.

some people have set their standards too low.

[HFishbine]

96. Where is this ad running? (n/t)

[ErasureAcer]

99. New Hampshire

and some have said it has been released in Iowa as well.

[HFishbine]

157. Really?

In what publications?

[Renew Deal]

221. It is a mailer

They sent it through the mail. It is like a small brochure. I have a picture of it at thread 152.

[HFishbine]

245. Oh. I see. I'ts not an ad. They sent it through the mail. Really?

And the proof that this was sent to anybody is where?

When is important too (if ever). We are all aware that the Dean campaign sent out a flyer in November which Dean had stopped and for which he has apologized.

[Renew Deal]

291. This was mailed to NH voters.

I was told this first by the Kucinich people and then at Clark's camp when I brought it up.

If you don't believe me, do you believe Tinoire?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=49199&mesg_id=50031&page=

I was told this was new. Also someone brought this up as a new matter on DU a few days ago.

[babzilla]

303. now you are changing your story

first it was the Kucinich camp, then it was the Dean camp.

When did the Clark camp come in? You never brought that up before. Was it before or after Tinoires sister story?

What is the newest matter on DU again? It is so hard to keep up.

[Renew Deal]

354. If you are having trouble keeping up

try reading through it all again. I know there is a lot to take in.

[Demobrat]

113. Major candidate.

Of which Dennis is not one.

[ErasureAcer]

118. Dennis is a major candidate...and so is Clark

I guess Dean and his supporters think he is the only one running for president.

[TLM]

Clark supported the war... and Kucinich is NOT a major candidate

I think you need to be on line to win at least ONE primary in ONE state before you can be counted as a MAJOR candidate.

[diamondsoul]

274. ROTFL

If that statement is what you think is required then NONE of them are "major candidates" including YOURS!

[BillPhi]

371. Bullspit again.

Clark opposed the war. Saying he didn't over and over and over again will not make it true. Just another Dean lie. I must say though, that Trippi has the Dean supporters very well trained. Stay on message no matter what facts disprove your case. Now what president do I know who does that????? Hmmmm....

:mad:

[bowens43]

232. Kucinich is a great guy

but he NEVER had a shot at getting the nomination. He was never in the running. In the age of television he isn't presidential material.

[TLM]

218. Because the headline is qualified in the body text...

The point is to draw a distinction between Dean and the other major candidates...

Tha's not a lie, it is a headline that's qualified in the body text.

[liberalnurse]

44. Actually no it would not.... but Kucinich sure did

attack Dean viciously in September/October.....I'm comfortable thinking he will give Dennis much credit after New Hampshire. It's a competition at present time .....the mood should soften soon. Endorsing one another at the moment is not part of any candidates strategy.

[babzilla]

125. did Dennis raise his hand in the last debate

when Ted Koppel asked all of the candidates if Dean could beat Bush?

answer: no

Would it have killed Dennis to give Dean props?

Dean did give props to Dennis for voting against IRW in his speech in Ames Iowa on 12/28.

[FubarFly]

11. The headline is misleading but if you read further

it clarifies, "Howard Dean is the only major candidate who opposed the war from the start- and is against spending another 87 billion there."

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

14. OK

b. Who gives Dean the right to decide who is major and who is not? Should Dean have been treated this way when he was at 5%?

Are you proud of your candidate?

[mouse7]

22. Kucinich is NOT a major candidate

Kucinich is at 1%. Kucinich is at 1% because he lost respect after that dating publicity stunt went bad.

[Renew Deal]

24. That's BS.

Also what about Clark? He isn't major?

[mitchtv]

47. was Clark against the war?

funny , I missed that on CNN.

[mouse7]

53. Clark never said a word anti-war from CNN analyst desk n/t

[ErasureAcer]

142. that wasn't his job

to make such a comment.

his job was to analyze the American Military stratedy and to comment on the military maneuverings.

by not commentating pro war or anti war he was being a neutral journalist...which is a good journalist.

He said he was against the war...apparently because he was on TV and didn't say it, to you means he wasn't against the war.

Riiiight.

Keep stretching there bud. Dean's comment is a lie about Clark's campaign as well.

[TexasPatriot]

63. no clark isnt a major candidate

he's a general candidate

though he could say he's the only major candidate - seeing as he was, at one point, a major...

maybe 'the only major candidate to believe in equal rights'...

(in case you didnt notice, i think the defense of what Dean's campaign did in this brochure is pathetic)

[bowens43]

233. Clark was in favor of the war.

He said he would have voted for it.

[SahaleArm]

349. Yet the evidence contradicts the assertion...

Were there any 30-60 day unilateral ultimatums? Oh wrong candidate. I can feel the cutting & pasting of out context statements coming...

[diamondsoul]

355. "the dating publicity stunt"

Was not Kucinich's doing. He made a JOKE at the Women's Issues Forum and what's stunning is that people choose to take him seriously when he's kidding and ignore him when he proposes a Department of Peace. That you endorse that as some sort of wisdom speaks to the fact that you haven't been paying attention either.

It's even worse when Dean's supporters get all incensed because we take an off the cuff joke from him seriously yet see nothing wrong with doing the same thing to Kucinich.

Howard Dean has already endorsed lying to the public once, it appears he thinks his candidacy either is a matter of National Security or he thinks it's ok for him to lie to the people as long as he isn't in the Oval Office.

[FubarFly]

25. Fine. But that's a different debate.

Frankly, I would like to see Kucinich get more props. I like Dennis enormously and I am happily supportive of his campaign. I don't agree with Dean on everything, nor should I be expected to, but yes, I am very proud of my candidate.

[Hawkeye-X]

122. DK is a fringe candidate

and still stuck at 2% EVERYWHERE. He is not, in my opinion, a major candidate, DESPITE what you want to believe.

Sure, he raised plenty of money on the last quarter, but it is still not enough to get notice.

"Department of Peace"? That is a joke.

Dennis' flip-flop on his pro-choice stance didn't work for me. He has always been anti-choice, and he suddenly changes to pro-choice? Doesn't work for me.

The media is ignoring Dennis because they consider him too left, and I tend to agree. Dennis may be good, but not right now. This isn't the time for a lefty President. We need to move the direction back to center-left from the right first, and Dean is the man for the job.

Then when this is all said and done, maybe Dennis can run again. But I suggested a while back that he uses the money that he raised to run against George Voinovich, and he didn't. He decided to shoot himself in the foot by being a candidate for President when he has absolutely no shot in winning.

I'm proud of Dennis, however, for bringing the message to the mainstream that the lefties are tired of the pink tutu Democrats, and if Dennis by sudden luck, somehows get the nomination, then he will have my full backing.

Hawkeye-X

[MaggieSwanson]

158. Can you explain to me why

you would consider a Department of Peace a joke?

[diamondsoul]

356. No, Maggie, they can't.

They just spout the media theme that nobody will support it.

They also can't explain why a Presidential Candidate who despises the corporate media would bring up FOX in a supposed serious plea for a woman. They also can't explain why it's ok for Dr. Dean to espouse lying to the people where matters of national Security are concerned, but the same behavior is not acceptable from G.W. Bush. I'm still trying to figure out how you trust a man who thinks it's ok to lie.

[Hep]

362. It's called "taking into account the current political climate"

I wouldn't call it a joke, though, although technically, that would be how such an idea would be received.

Look, it's a good idea. But can you honestly say that a congress controlled by right wingers and their whipping boys would entertain such an idea? PRAGMATISM.

[TLM]

222. Dean did not make that determination...

the people did, by only giving Kucinich single digit support.


Is Kucinich in the lead in any state? Even his home state?

[babzilla]

288. yes I am proud of my candidate

and no I do not believe that your scans represent my candidates campaign.

Just ask my sister in New Hampshire.

[hedda_foil]

12. Thank you for posting this.

In case anybody missed it, the very first line under the headline says "Howard Dean is the only major Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the start."

Hello? How does this morph into a lie about Kucinich?

[Renew Deal]

20. Besided the fact that Dean doesn't decide whether Kucinich is major?

Kucinich is getting matching funds. That's pretty major. Also Clark isn't major?

[mkultra]

45. getting matching funds

In no way makes you major. In fact, in this race, it shows your inability to raise money. Normally, high money raising would be a negative for me, but Deans money comes from allot of small donations from everyday peeps. Clark is far more major than Kucinich, take a look at the polls.

Right now the majors seem to be
Dean and Clark

Almost majors are
Edwards and Kerry

Marginals are
Lieberman and Gephardt

with sub Marginals being
Kucinich, CMB , and Sharpton.


At least thats the way it looks to me.

Major is a relative term that isn't awarded by the DLC. Its usually pretty obvious who's major, except in politics i guess.

[Renew Deal]

59. Are you making this stuff up?

In no way makes you major. In fact, in this race, it shows your inability to raise money.

OK, only 2 dems have EVER not taken matching funds.

Besides that, I don't agree with your assessment of major candidates and the DLC is irrelevant in this.

[mkultra]

71. Thats why the phrase

"In this race" was important. Despite what past races have been like, its obvious that any real democratic contender is going to need to exceed that limits imposed by matching fund rules.

You can think what you want about how they rank. I'm not sure on the middle, its just how i see it.

The statement about the DLC was to contrast the fact that deciding who's major is not done by some authority which seemed to be what the comment before was saying. If Dean decides hes major and says it thats his choice. If hes wrong, he looks like a kook, if hes right it helps him deliver his message to the swing voters which is exactly where that comment was aimed.


FYI
Trying to get a wife as a plank of presidential platform also doesn't make you major.

[Tinoire]

97. Because that's not Dean's decision and it's in the small print

The initial title "ONLY DEAN OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START" is designed, by all rules of advertising, to be the thing that sticks in people's minds.

The ONLY should never have been there and you would think, after the stink that was raised last time, that the Dean HQs got the message. They got the message enough to throw major in there as a pacifier in case people paying attention got outraged but they still went with that misleading title. This is really disappointing to me.

Not even one vote has been cast! I wonder if the Dean campaign even worries that they are alienating potential voters with this? This is really not very smart. As word of this gets out to the many Progressive Independent and Green activists who are crossing party lines to vote for Kucinich, does Dean think this will endear them to vote for him in the General Election? He could be setting himself up to win the battle but lose the race with these tactics because too many people are paying attention this election and word spreads very quickly in this internet age.

Dean has no need to stoop to this and whoever approved this is endangering us all by creating all this ill-will. Kucinich supporters should be a block that Dean could count on if he wins but he may not be able to not only because this isn't the first time for this &r some of the other distortions but because it's not the time at all.

If this is Trippi, I hope Dean gets someone with more savvy soon.

[FubarFly]

107. I doubt if this is Trippi.

I agree, the wording of this pamphlet is ill-advised and wrongheaded. However, I do not know how far up the chain of command this goes. I will write to Dean HQ and express my displeasure, and hopefully get to the bottom of this.

Until then, for what it's worth, I personally apologize for any hurt or dissapointment this incident has caused. Not all Dean supporters approve of these tactics.

[Tinoire]

120. Thank you. And it is precisely supporters like you

And it is precisely supporters like you who help redeem my faith that we can all work well on the same team after these bloody primaries.

This is one election we can not mess up.

You don't have to personally apologize! You didn't do it and aren't trying to white-wash it but that really helps diminish the unpleasant metallic taste in my mouth. Thank you!

[FubarFly]

127. Tinoire,

I would be crushed if we couldn't end up on the same team. I look forward to the days of a united Democratic Party, and a civil and productive DU. We may have different methods, but our goals aren't so far apart.

Peace.

[Tinoire]

141. I know that but thanks for reinforcing it

I know many of the Dean supporters here, from waaaay back and also from activist events and I have a lot of respect for you guys. In a very selfish way, I am hating these Primaries because of what they are doing to us. I can't WAIT for them to just be over because I do miss that civil and productive DU and I share that unusual ;) rush to work together to get Bush out.

We will end up on the same team! :thumbsup:

Peace to you

[Justice]

130. I Also Appreciate The Candor Of This Dean Supporter

It is wrong to lie and mislead. This ad is clever, slick misleading. What I don't understand is that Dean is ahead, why can't he take the high road? Why must he resort to this?

[TLM]

225. BODY TEXT is not small print.

Small print is the tiny shit at the bottom of a page.

The statement qualifiying the headline is in the first f-ing line of body text.

That's perfectly within journalistic standards.

[KittyWampus]

102. Dean Finally Stops Beating His Wife

in my deluded nightmares.

See what happens when you post an untrue headline designed to influence the public but then go on "qualify it" in small print.

[MidwestMomma]

117. But why use that wording at all?

Why not say "Dean opposed the war from the start"? Isn't that the important part of his message? Why continue the one-up-manshipism of being the 'only' anti-war candidate?

Especially when Dean pulled the orginal TV ads and apololgized...why even continue with this theme? Why even stir up it all up again? Does he just like apologizing? I'm as confused as ever....

[FubarFly]

121. I agree. That would have been better wording.

With 9 candidates in the race, Dean should be more careful saying he is the ONLY candidate who did ANYTHING. I will write to HQ, and I will plead with them to stop.

[MidwestMomma]

133. Thank you FubarFly

That's what I like to hear from candidate supporters. You are obviously a great asset to the Dean team. Let me know what you find out. Thanks again.

[Tinoire]

147. You don't know what that means to me

NOT because it could change things and not because it speaks HIGHLY of your integrity but also, mostly, because it will spur many people to read your posts and really weigh the points you're making.

You have just done Dean an immense service at DU and I really look forward to reading your posts about him. They may be what we need to help me and many others see enough past the spin and fluff to make us want, really want, to work for him. I hope they do because it looks like he will be the nominee and we're going to need all the passion we can muster to yank out that Idiot-in-Chief.

[mouse7]

13. Desperate Kucinich supporters: flier pulled 12/9: see edit

Yep, there was a flier produces by a state Dean organization that the national dean office ensure was pulled.

A MONTH AGO.

The best you have is errors in fliers from a mnoth ago?

No wonder Dean is lapping the field.

On edit: this is a different, accurate flier.

[Renew Deal]

18. Actually this went out last week and I got it yesterday.

I picked this up yesterday from Dean HQ. Now you show me the old one.

[mouse7]

27. This one says only "major" candidate

It's accurate.

[Scott Lee]

32. Yes, Dean was accurate on this.

Which boggles the mind as to what length some of his detractors will go to keep fighting against reality.

[Renew Deal]

39. Let's say you are right about Kucinich

in some twisted world. What about Clark? He is not major? This type of campaigning angers your rivals. Like I said the Kucinich staff was irate. They don't have to vote for or support Dean after this.

[mkultra]

74. in order for this question

to be pertinent it must also ask "was clark against the war from the beggining." Im pretty sure the answer to that is no. Making Deans comment, "Only major candidate against the war from the beggining" still pretty accurate. Once again, it looks more like a comment aimed at the swing voters than the other candidates.

[Renew Deal]

84. You need to be more sure.

Because pretty sure is pretty wrong. Clark was against the war from the start and I think polls and money make him "major".

[TLM]

244. More BS...Clark supported the war from the start...

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[dodgerartful]

284. merely par for the course....

snoop, dig, snoop, blab, contort.....

[Tinoire]

115. Issue is the repeated lie - From Kucinich Headquarters

Here is the e-mail from the Kucinich HQs explaining this:

On Saturday, Dec. 27, the Concord Monitor in Concord, NH, noted: "Dean recently mailed brochures to homes in New Hampshire with a headline stating that Dean is the only candidate who 'opposed the war from the start.'"

Here is an image taken from the brochure, which the Dean campaign has mailed to people in New Hampshire and other states:

<image snipped>

It's hard to believe that Dean supporters would stand for this kind of misrepresentation. We won't stand for it.

<snip>

WHAT THE FACTS ARE:

As you all know so well, Dennis Kucinich led the effort against the war in the House of Representatives, is the only candidate who voted against the war, is the only candidate who consistently opposed the war from the beginning and continues to oppose it now, and is the only candidate with an exit strategy. His "Prayer for America" speech against the buildup to war in February 2002 catalyzed this campaign. Rev. Al Sharpton and Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun also opposed the war.

The war is not over. Soldiers are dying every day. And Dean would like to continue the military occupation of Iraq for "a few years," as he said in the debate on December 9th. Dennis is campaigning on his record of opposition to the war and his plan to end it in 90 days.
Dean's flyer and mass mailing effectively calls Dennis a liar. People have begun asking Dennis whether he really opposed the war. Dean knows the truth. After we complained in October about his similar misrepresentations in TV ads in New Hampshire, he acknowledged Dennis' leadership against the war at an AFL-CIO forum and stopped running the ads. He later acknowledged Dennis' courage on this issue during a national debate. And yet he continues to use a flyer that says "Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start."

If Dr. Dean chooses to gloss over the inconsistencies of the positions he took during the first stage of this war, that's his business. But when he denies Dennis's record, that becomes our business, and
it ought to be the business of the media. Dean is misrepresenting a material fact, and doing so despite his demonstrated knowledge of the truth. It is the media's responsibility to find out why he is doing this. The public has a right to know.

Here is information on who opposed the war when:
http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php (which I am pasting below)

Who is the Antiwar Candidate -- Dean or Kucinich?
PDF | Word

With mainstream media repeatedly labeling Howard Dean a fervent foe of the Iraq War, many antiwar-oriented Democrats have flocked to Dean's campaign. But as the record shows, the presidential candidate who opposed the war consistently and unwaveringly from the beginning is Dennis Kucinich.

By contrast, Dean made alternately hawkish and dovish statements on Iraq prior to the Oct 2002 Congressional resolution, then muted his voice after the war started in March 2003, and recently insisted to the Washington Post that "I don't even consider myself a dove" and "now that we're there , we're stuck." Dean has also declared the bloated Bush military budget off-limits to cuts.

Here is a relevant timeline from mass media accounts:

Sept 21, 2002, KUCINICH -- "Leader of the Opposition"
The NY Times runs a news story about how "a small group of Democratic die-hards in the House is trying to rally opposition to military action." The piece refers to "two dozen or so mainly liberal lawmakers...though they may be viewed as outside the mainstream of even their own party, they are raising their voices against an invasion, even if their leadership is not." The piece accurately calls Rep. Kucinich a "leader of the opposition" and ends by quoting him: "This is an attempt to start a serious debate inside the party."

Sept. 23, 2002, DEAN -- Might Endorse Pre-Emptive Strike
Dean gives a waffling endorsement of President Bush's pre-emptive war:
"Pre-emption is not off the table, but the moral high ground does matter," he says, as quoted in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The paper reports that Dean "also said he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them."

Sept. 25, 2002, KUCINICH -- Denounces Pre-Emption
Introduced by anchor Judy Woodfruff on CNN as "one of the most active House opponents to President Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq," Kucinich denounces Bush's policy of pre-emptive war: "Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?...America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone."

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.'"

Sept. 29, 2002, KUCINICH: "There Is No Imminent Threat"
On the same CBS "Face the Nation": "At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States." Kucinich adds: "There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat."

Oct. 10, 2002, WAR RESOLUTION -- Dean at 1%
Thanks heavily to Kucinich's leadership, nearly 2/3 of House Democrats vote "No" on the war resolution. But the four men in Congress then running for president all vote "Yes": Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman. Dean is at 1 percent in polls (Marist College poll, Oct. 9-10).

February 2003, DEAN -- "Democratic Wing of Democratic Party"
First reference in news media (according to Nexis Database) of Dean using the Paul Wellstone-line: "I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

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."

March 19, 2003, WAR BEGINS

March 20, 2003: DEAN (Muted Remarks) vs. KUCINICH (Pulled No Punches)
Dean and Kucinich address press groups in Washington D.C. AP reports on their respective comments:

Dean: "'I'm not going to back off my criticism of the president's policy, but I'm certainly going to change the tone,' Dean said between the speeches. 'There won't be the kind of red meat remarks that you make in front of partisan Democratic audiences.'"

Kucinich: "Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took his presidential campaign to the same newspaper audiences, but he pulled no punches in assailing the president for starting the war. He urged Bush to bring the troops home and focus on problems in America's cities, including unemployment, pollution and failing schools. 'This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq,' he said. 'These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.'"

May 2, 2003, BUSH DECLARES END OF "MAJOR COMBAT" IN IRAQ

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)

September 7, 2003, KUCINICH -- Get U.S. Out and U.N. In
"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion. We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."

http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php

[sandnsea]

16. ONLY DEAN can save us

What rot. :eyes:

[Clark4VotingRights]

375. I'm so glad General Clark is not distorting the records of the other Dems

I wish Dean would stop it.
That brochure saying he was the only anti-war candidate
was disgusting. Kucinich voted against IWR in congress.

[Donna Zen]

19. Major?

Clark is a General.

[mitchtv]

30. thanks, Fellow Democrat

I am not a Deanie, but this kind of post from Clark bores, helps insure that he is not the man.

[Renew Deal]

35. Dean lies

and it's Clark's fault? Makes sense

:shrug:

How about giving up the appoligist act and taking responsibility.

[mitchtv]

43. still undecided, but I have eliminated Kerry cause of his negative

campaign, I like Clark, and pray that he can keep from attacking fellow Dems. I will vote for the nominee. I despise folloewers who cannot get a positive message on their candidate, but rather resort to pulling down the competition. Let's face it DK is a footnote(I like him the most, but really).I will probably vote for Clark or Dean.

[Renew Deal]

51. OK

I posted several positive items about Clark today. This ad by Dean speaks for itself. That's why so many people are pissed. Dean put out this ad. If it is causing this much trouble, maybe it really is trouble.

[babzilla]

316. "OK", now we understand WHy you are pissed

no need to take it out on the Dean supporters.

Maybe it really is trouble.

[jpgpenn]

50. where are you getting this from?

Where in that post does it say Clark said this? This is a Dean ad based on a MAJOR LIE. Explain your reply.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

33. Just give it up

Despite Kucinich's integrity and good ideas, Hes not going to win. Its clear, since every other statement on his web site is about dean, that he is now relegated to defining himself by contrast with Dean instead of in contrast to Bush. Kucinich has never really been a real contender and the statement of Dean being the "only major democratic candidate" is kinda true, it just doesn't feel that way from a Kucinich supporter's point of view.
Dennis Kucinish has very progressive ideals and i salute him for that. Society just wont progress fast enough for him to be seen as mainstream enough. Even if it could, somebody else with greater ideas would surly arise and be to progressive to be popular. I know it seems crazy to lean toward popular in a contest that holds our future in its hands. Reason is, after all, more like a race in the sense that the more intelligent outshine the rest of the pack early on.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that i recommend that you try and get comfortable with the circumstances. We need all democrats to stop fighting and start outshining. Bash bush more and Dean less.

[Democrats unite]

34. his is what will not give Dean the nomination...

eom

[adadem]

36. This kind

of politics is perfectly ok when it's done by the good doctor who does nothing wrong. Surely you know that it was actually the Kucinich campaign that put out this flyer as a way to discredit the good, good doctor. LOL

[mkultra]

46. Dog pile

As far as im concerned, Dean was all over Bush and only bush until a core group decided to dog pile him. So he can bash them all he wants.

[jpgpenn]

57. "Dog Pile"?

is that what it's called when the masses do everything they can to show a candidate willing to say anything even Major Lies for a few more votes?

[mkultra]

75. only candidate

As far as im concerned, hes the only candidate with his comments under the heat lamp. Im sure all the others have made mistakes and comments, changed direction and position, or tried stunts. Kucinich is probably exempt from that statment but once again. Its to late to matter. He didnt make a big enough impression to garner support.

[jpgpenn]

the"only"?

Dean is the only candidate since the end of the summer the MAJOR MEDIA has allowed on thier air waves. This wasn't just a "MISTAKE" as you say, this was an "AD" where alot of brain power and money went into getting a "LIE" across to those unsuspecting voters. Call it for what it is and recongnize the behavior of the indivdual that would "SPIN" such a tale!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[ErasureAcer]

48. Thank you for posting Dean's lying ad

This man is not presidential material.

I think he has pissed off a lot of Kucinich supporters. I know I won't be rallying behind him if he is the nominee.

Liars should not be president.

[Melinda]

66. DK is not a Major candidate no matter how much you wish he were

And Dean is not a liar no matter how hard you try to spin that meme.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[adadem]

85. Me, too

Already got one...don't need another. One in the same.

[Dolphyn]

341. If you think Dean is not a liar ...

Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean

[Tinoire]

366. Hi Dolphyn- Welcome to DU! / Correcting your link

:toast:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

I am always happy to see Kucinich supporters here because I know there are many more out there than the media has been letting on and I am tired of seeing the "Kucinich is unelectable" meme become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Everywhere I go, I run into Kucinich supporters and yet the media would like us to believe that we don't exist! Go figure!

Good to see you join in!

Peace & Kucinich 2004 :toast:

[RetroLounge]

404. So you use a SOCIALIST link to bash Dean

while you support Kucinich?

and you wonder why DK is not a major candidate?

:shrug:

[mitchtv]

373. so Bush is not a liar ?

and you have no idea who the enemy is. I will support the Party's nominee. Those who don't are willing to give america away.

[Tinoire]

52. Thank you Bleachers. This is extremely disappointing & shameful

Especially after Kucinich called Dean out on this and Dean said he would stop saying that.

This is one side of Dean & his Campaign that I don't like because it's the equivalent of a paper running a lie on page 1 and then retracting that lie 2 weeks later, in small print, on page 21.

I hope Kucinich brings this up at the next debate. Dean's supporters will be furious if he does but undecided voters need to know these things because they speak to character and integrity.

I am also concerned that he says that he was against the $87 Billion for Iraq. I went and checked the transcript from the September 25 debate and that's not what I'm finding there:

Text: Democratic Candidates Debate / Sept 25, 2003



DEAN: I believe the $87 billion ought to come from the excessive and extraordinary tax cuts that this president foisted upon us <snip>

So I believe not only should we get rid of the $87 billion worth of tax cuts to pay to support our troops--even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops--I also believe we ought to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut. It is bad for the economy and it has not created one job.

WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?

DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts?

<snip>

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

<snip>

SHARPTON: <snip> In terms of your question, I would unequivocally vote no, because I think to continue to invest in a flawed and failed policy is not wise or prudent. It is really to try and chase bad investment with bad investment. The signal it would sent the troops is that we really do love them. Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy.

<snip>

KERRY: Well, let me begin, Brian, by first of all saying I hope the fact that the ticker is down in both measures is not a reflection of the fact that all 10 of us are meeting here today. <snip> I believe the $87 billion is at issue. I have introduced an amendment, together with Joe Biden, that calls on shared sacrifice in America. We need to ask the wealthiest people in our country to bear some of the burden, as our troops and as the middle class in America is bearing the burden.

<snip>

CLARK: Now, look, this $87 billion is the first we've heard from this administration of anything like a reasonable estimate of what the down payment is. Congress needs to really go after this figure.

What is the strategy? What will make this operation a success? What will it take to exit? How do we get international support in there? There are dozens of questions to be asked on this.

We need to make this operation a success. We need to support our troops. But we need answers on this.

And the final answer that we need is, the president needs to tell us how he's going to pay for it. This can't be an addition to the deficit. We want to see where the money's coming from.

<snip>

LIEBERMAN: That is certainly my first choice as to how we should finance this $87 billion. The fact is that the only Americans sacrificing today for our policy in Iraq, which is critical to our national security and world security, are the 140,000 Americans who are there in uniform for us. <snip>

But we have no choice but to finance this program for two reasons.

We have those 140,000 American troops there. We need to protect them. We need to protect them and bring them home safe to their families.

Secondly, we are involved in a great battle in the war on terrorism. Those terrorists have poured in there. They're attacking Americans. They're attacking the institutions of civilization: the United Nations, Jordanian embassy, Muslim mosques. We cannot afford to lose this fight.

<snip>

EDWARDS: Let me give you a simple answer: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground there. I will not vote--I will not vote for the additional money unless and when we have an explanation about our allies coming in and what we're going to do to share the cost with others.

<snip>

GEPHARDT: Gloria, we've got to get answers to very important questions. I don't think you can assume that Republicans are just going to vote for whatever the president asks for either.

We got some tough questions to ask. What's the money go for? Are we going to just pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq? Is that part of this money? When we can't remodel schools in the United States, can't, apparently, get the electric grid straightened out in the United States, we're going to build the electric grid in Iraq?

<snip>

MOSELEY BRAUN: I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who right now are in the shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves.

And so, it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we just not blow up that country and leave it blown up; we have a responsibility.

Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is.

Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq and I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq, and at the same time asked the question, "Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?" He didn't answer the question then, he's not answering the question now.

But I believe that it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true


Links to debates can be found here: http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/debates/

[windansea]

65. right on

i hope DK does bring it up...bet he does

[Renew Deal]

70. I hope he takes it out at the next debate

and sticks it Dean's face. That's what McCain and Bush did in their debates. There was some real nastiness there. Dean has caused this.

[mkultra]

79. lieberman caused this

see subject

[adadem]

88. Lieberman

forced Dean to print a flyer with a blatant lie...OK.

[MaggieSwanson]

119. Along those lines...

Dean's flyer and mass mailing effectively calls Dennis a liar. People have begun asking Dennis whether he really opposed the war. Dean knows the truth. After we complained in October about his similar misrepresentations in TV ads in New Hampshire, he acknowledged Dennis' leadership against the war at an AFL-CIO forum and stopped running the ads. He later acknowledged Dennis' courage on this issue during a national debate. And yet he continues to use a flyer that says "Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start."

If Dr. Dean chooses to gloss over the inconsistencies of the positions he took during the first stage of this war, that's his business. But when he denies Dennis's record, that becomes our business, and it ought to be the business of the media. Dean is misrepresenting a material fact, and doing so despite his demonstrated knowledge of the truth. It is the media's responsibility to find out why he is doing this. The public has a right to know.

[JohnKleeb]

124. A pity that hes getting questioned because of this

It was him after all with Pelosi not Dean and Pelosi that fought the IWR in the house, I know Dean isnt a congressman, I am not stupid. It was also Kucinich who spoke at an anti war rally. Exactly well put, Maggie welcome to DU.

[JI7]

195. are you serious ?

if they question kucinich on whether he reall y opposed the war, that's just really sad considering he did the most of all the candidates running to oppose it.

[TLM]

248. People have begun asking Dennis whether he really opposed the war.

Bullshit...what people?

Maybe people started to ask Kucinich is he's a major candidate?

[Tinoire]

258. Welcome to DU MaggieFaye!

:toast:

[TLM]

247. Why try to dishonestly act as if supporting our troops once they're there

is the same as supporting the war?

[Melinda]

58. *Yawn*

Darn that qualifier anyway!

[KittyWampus]

106. Dean Still Hasn't Stopped Beating His Wife?

In my deluded nightmares.

See what happens when you use a headline to influence people despite adding a "qualifier" in small print?
Do you know what happens when you repeat the headline enough times?

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. That's Dean's ARROGANCE run amok

and all he's managed to do is alienate Kucinich, Sharpton and Clark supporters.

Let's just let him continue burning bridges, shall we?

[FubarFly]

77. Partisan supporters of other candidates are being alienated

on all sides. Dean is hardly the only offender. Let's not pretend that he is. I will still vote for Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman even after their viscious and unfair attacks on Dean. Nothing done by a Democrat during primary season makes them even remotely as bad as b*sh. Hopefully reason will win out over the cheap histrionics of the circular firing squad.

[mkultra]

83. Dean is looking ahead

I think Dean is just aiming at a different crowd now. It probably seems clear to him that he has the primary in the bag and hes using the heat to make statements to the swing voters that they understand. Seems logical to me as the middle folk don't really pay enough attention to understand the language used in primaries. Deans is shifting his focus toward reaching those who live, sadly , off of sound bites and clips.

[adadem]

386. He forgets

he will need those alienated folks to beat bush.

[maxanne]

80. if

all the supporters of candidates worked as hard for their chosen candidate as they do at bashing Dean - they might actually be getting somewhere.

[Renew Deal]

82. This is a Dean flyer

I think he bashed himself.

[maxanne]

92. way to miss the point

Spending all your energy slagging Dean isn't doing anything positive for your candidate. The constant slagging is turning a lot of voters off, as a matter of fact.

[ErasureAcer]

98. good we can turn them off to Dean

this man, a liar, should not be president.

Potential voters...don't vote for Dean!

Heck, if it is a Bush-Dean battle for presidency...I'll get out their on election day outside of my polling station and carry a sign on one side that says...

"Bush is a LIAR"

and on the other side

"Dean is a LIAR"

It will be great...anarchy here we come...that is better than lying leaders.

[KittyWampus]

108. Bleachers Just Returned From Campaigning In NH For Clark

so Bleacher is NOT "spending all their energy slaggind Dean".

[Lobo_13]

89. I took a poll at work

and it turns out that I'm a major candidate.

I was also against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I'm pissed.

[revcarol]

90. The thing that makes me so upset

is that the headline, so eye-catching and attractive, in such large letters, is what GETS THE ATTENTION AND SPELLS THE TONE.


It IS a lie, Dean knows it, he got caught on the TV ad and had to retract at the AFL/CIO debate, he is putting the same brochure out in Iowa, as reported by the DesMoines register, and there is NO retraction and NO pulling of the brochures and replacing them with corrected brochures at his campaign's expense...

So, instead he says,"DK is the only one who voted against the war" in one appearance and everything's supposed to be hunky-dory, when the brochures went out to THOUSANDS OF HOMES.

It's a moot point whether DK is a minor candidate or not or whether it says that in the body of the text. The point is that the eye-catching headline which EVERYONE will read IS A LIE.

[KittyWampus]

109. When Will Dean Stop Beating His Wife?

This is what happens when you use a headling to mislead people even though a "qualifer" is present in the small print.

[ErasureAcer]

114. Dean is beating his wife? I better create an ad & circulate it

what a jackass.

Yeah...this lying thing is great.

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. Isn't there a debate in IOWA on Sunday?

I think I saw that on C-SPAN. SURELY Dennis will take this little piece with him and embarrass the hell out of Dean? I can't see Dennis letting this slide. Where better to point out the error of Dean's ways than on National TV in a debate? If I were Kucinich, this ad would be glued to my forehead, it would be in every speech I made, on every debate I'm in and on every interview. People need to see how Dean operates. JMCPO. Take it to him Dennis.

Burn bridges burn.

[windansea]

110. yep....

:nuke:

theres more than one short fiesty guy in this race

go DK :grr:

[madfloridian]

105. Wait! Stop! You guys all said this is how primaries work? Right?

Didn't you? When we were down and yelling for everyone to back off a little, didn't you guys jump on us with both feet?

You all yelled...."get a life! Get a clue! This is primary season...this is how it works!

Oh, yes, this is how it works.

[corporatewhore]

111. Karl agrees !!Lying is ok !!!

Dean should be as low as Karl!!!

[MidwestMomma]

126. Guess you won't be sending that donation to the Dean campaing...

Looks like the brochure exists after all. Wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not.

[diamondsoul]

296. That was me who offered to donate,

And no it doesn't look like I will, but Dennis got $50 from me (via a good friend) last night. His funding is going to grow more than some here believe, and his Primary results are going to shock them something awful.

[ErasureAcer]

112. lying isn't playing fair...and this shouldn't be "how it works"

and it has already nipped Dean in the ass...I won't be voting for him in the GE.

And I know others who don't want another liar to be president as well.

Dean has ruined his own campaign...you remember this when he loses the GE election....don't blame the green party, don't blame the socialist party...don't blame the weather...don't blame anything...

Dean has alienated the democratic base...and he will pay.

I'm going to be handing you guys some tissues on November 2, 2004.

[MidwestMomma]

137. ErasureAcer-Don't buy into the hype!

We don't know Dean will be the nominee. Keep up your spirits. Not one vote has been cast yet. It's still anybody's race. Don't believe the spin that the doctor is IN! Anything could happen. Maybe you won't have to vote for him in the GE afterall...

[ErasureAcer]

144. I won't be voting for Dean

so your comment of "have to vote for him in the GE" is wrong.

But you're right in that this race hasn't even begun yet.

If Democrats no what is good for them...they won't support Dean and his lies.

[MidwestMomma]

160. Sorry..meant to say 'won't have to NOT vote for him'

Didn't mean to imply you had to vote for anybody. Peace

[ErasureAcer]

271. ahhh, ok

that would make more sense.

:)

[diamondsoul]

292. Actually, I know of two absentee votes

in the past week. One was for Dean, the other....Kucinich. Looks like they're neck and neck again!:evilgrin:

[diamondsoul]

360. Who is "you guys"?

I've defended Dean, and still do whe it's warranted. This isn't one of those times.

Shortly after I posted to the other thread about this ad, I responded to a different thread about Dean's tax plan. I explained he was being perfectly pragmatic and holding to his priorities when he says he will repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts, because that's the truth.

When he's honest, I'll defend him, when he's dishonest I'll call him out for it. THAT'S the way Primaries work.

[curse10]

123. Thanks for scanning that in Bleachers

This is just awful and the Dean camp should apologize.

[ErasureAcer]

128. apologies isn't good enough

this is the 2nd time they've pulled this shit on Kucinich.

Don't be sorry, don't be stupid.

We don't need another liar in the president's office...say NO TO DEAN!

[Hawkeye-X]

129. Sorry to inform ya, but it is factually accurate

There's nothing decieving about that flyer.

[curse10]

131. When someone other than a Dean supporter spouts that spin

maybe I'll believe it.

[abburdlen]

299. "factually accurate"

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Guess what? When Bush said that it was factually accurate too. The words are true but the message is a lie.
Please Dean supporters tell your candidate he should hold himself to a higher standard that Bush!

[Skwmom]

353. Nothing deceiving?

Clark was against the war, Kucinich was against the war. Dean's stance against the war - it changed depending on what he thought was the best "political response."

[FubarFly]

132. We're still waiting for our multiple apologies from Kerry

I'm sure they just got lost in the mail. :eyes:

[curse10]

134. This isn't about Kerry

quit changing the subject. This is about Dean. And so far not a single good explanation has been given for this pamphlet.

[FubarFly]

140. Guess I'll have to keep waiting huh?

This distortions in this pamphlet palls in comparison to the BS the Kerry camp has been slinging about Dean.

With that said, if I find a good explanation, I'll give you one.

[curse10]

153. Oh yeah

and we'll patiently await a apology for the "cockroaches" comment.

The poor mistreated Dean mantra just doesn't cut it here.

[FubarFly]

155. Fair enough

But why did you think the cockroach comment was about Kerry?

Just wondering.

[curse10]

300. It was addressed to all Dem congressmen

which Kerry, Kucinich, Gep, and Edwards are all members of.

Nice try.

[drfemoe]

330. only if they consider themselves

"entrenched beltway bureaucrats" .. which is how the question was phrased and answered. It doesn't seem to matter to some that Kerry has spun this as proof of Dean attacking "him" and all of Congress.

[revcarol]

138. I will vote for Dean

but not contribute one damn dime to the campaign.I will not go house to house. I will not print out things at my own expense and mail them to anyone.I will keep my mouth shut about him, and he won't get any praise from me.

All my money will go to getting rid of our DeLay wannabe Congressman. All my time and money and energy will go for state-wide or local candidates and getting rid of the Congressman.

I'm sure that I am not alone.

This is not just a matter of politics. It's a matter of CHARACTER.We have one amoral SOB in the WH now who believes everything is political and you should do what you can get away with, especially lie, cheat and steal.

I didn't like Dean before, but this whacks it. No support from me except my clothespinned nose when I vote. I'M PISSED!!

[adadem]

370. You are not alone

If the character and values of the Dem candidate are no different from the pug candidate then why bother casting a vote for either candidate. I will vote Dem but only for the state and local candidates. I want integrity in the White House.

[artr2]

139. Where on this pamphlet does it say "Paid for by Dean for America"?

Thought that all things put out by the any campaign had to have that disclaimer? Thanks for scanning it. It's not official Dean material unless it has that disclaimer. Try again, harder next time.

[Renew Deal]

146. Actually it is on the back.

It is a trifold brochure. It works out to 6 pages of 8 1/2 by 11. Give me enough time to scan it and I will. But if you want, call Dean headquarters and ask them if they have a pamphlet by this name? Tell them what it looks like.

603-222-1900

[Renew Deal]

172. Paid for by Dean for America

I serve at your pleasure.

[babzilla]

250. in that case can you take another picture

of the purple page and the panels on either side of the purple page. That must be where the union printing label is. If you can post this side, I'm sure you can post the controversial side.

I am also curious to know what other topics are covered on the backside of this brochure.

TIA

[Renew Deal]

287. More info

The Union label is right above the Paid for by Dean for America label. The topics discussed are the ones on the first page I scanned.

[babzilla]

289. No, there is not a union label where you claim it to be

and No, the topics you claim are discussed supposedly exist on the purple page that I have yet to see connected to the back side of the "scanned Dean trifold brochure".

Can't wait!

[diamondsoul]

298. "not a union label"

No? Then what is that little rounded rectangle looking thingy above the "Paid for by Dean For America" showing on the scanned image? Perhaps your vision isn't quite as good as you seem to think? (Note, that isn't a personal attack. I myself wear corrective lenses and often don't realize I need to update them until I miss something I shouldn't miss.)

[babzilla]

310. I want the purple page to show it

The original poster has shown the front of a brochure that does not say anything about Dean being the only one opposed to the Iraq war from the start. Dean is quite aware that he was not the only one opposed to the war from the start. Dean does not send out literature to claim as much, as far as I know.

I am skeptical that the Dean campaign would waste their time trying to convince people that he was the "only one opposed from the start".

I am also skeptical that the Dean campaign would send this brochure to Kucinich and/or Clark people exclusively.

These are the only camps that I have heard from that claim to have received this flyer, except for Tinoire's sister of course.

Dean has nothing to gain from any candidates supporters by claiming that he was the only one to oppose the war from the start.

On the other hand, some candidates may think that they have something to gain by convincing others that Dean is campaigning against them in an unfair manner such as this outrageous trifold brochure. Oh the horror.

[Renew Deal]

326. If you are skeptical

of Dean's campaign doing this, will you abandon ship when you find out it is true?

It wasn't sent to Kucinich or Clark people only. It was sent to NH voters. Some of them support those candidates.

Why will you not call Dean HQ? They will tell you if they sent it out. 603-222-1900

I think you are afraid of the truth.

[diamondsoul]

361. Well so sue Bleachers because the brochure isn't

printed the way you want it to be! Jeez, I can understand you wanting to see all three of the panels with the "purple page", but to fuss because the union bug and DFA statement isn't on that page is ridiculous.

[revcarol]

143. Bleachers7

Can you scan the back? Settle this once and for all.

[Renew Deal]

145. I could

but it will take time. I don't have a scanner.

The back says
Dean for america
195 McGregor Street
Manchester, NH 03102

Paid for by Dean for America

Meet Howard Dean, M.D.

and has a picture of his wife.

[in_cog_ni_to]

148. Do you have a digital camera?

If so, you could take a pic of the back and upload it. :)

[Renew Deal]

152. Here it is

[babzilla]

264. so do you have a scanner or not?

I am confused because at first you said give me time to scan it and then you said you don't have a scanner.

If you don't have a scanner how did you happen on to the scan of the flyer that you picked up from the Kucinich HQ and the Dean HQ?

Also, since I'm asking you anything: did the Kerry and Gephardt HQ's also have this brochure? Just wondering.

[babzilla]

273. you do have a scanner

you must, because in the original thread starter you said that you scanned this for my pleasure.

Which is it? Do you have a scanner or not?

[babzilla]

301. he could but he doesn't have a scanner

wait, he does have a scanner for your pleasure.

Its one or the other. He either has a scanner or a digital camera, for your pleasure.

[Octafish]

154. Why's Dean have such a hard time with the Truth?

If Dean can't tell the truth now, we'd be in trouble with him in office. The problems facing the country could overwhelm the greatest statesman. Imagine what they would do to a liar as president? Oh yeah, we already have seen that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

159. Thanks for your input!

:hi:

[Octafish]

169. Anytime! Read for yourself: Dean is a liar!

He says anything neccesary to get elected, then WATCH OUT! once he is in power. Check his record for yourself.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

BTW: Thanks, Feanocurufinwe, wherever you are!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

175. You're kidding with those links....

Right?

[Octafish]

182. Check out the articles.

You may learn something, right? Here's some more detail:

Meet Howard Dean
The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal)

by MICHAEL COLBY

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

As the son of a wealthy Long Island family (his father was a prominent Wall Street insider), Dean's used to having his golden path well greased. After dutifully attending Yale and then medical school, Dean looked for a state to launch both a private medical practice and a political career. He chose Vermont as much for its beauty as its lenient mood toward carpet bagging politicians, thus joining Brooklynite Bernie Sanders as a born again Vermonter.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

With his sights now set on the White House, the Dean team has been doing its best over the last year to polish up a mediocre gubernatorial record. They're also trying to position Dean as "the liberal" in the Democratic field so as to grab the much-coveted early primary voters.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

EDIT: Everything added after first sentence.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

188. Read 'em.

My question remains...."You're kidding, right?"

[Octafish]

193. You read fast.

No I'm not. Dean spells disaster.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

198. They've been posted here for 10+ months.

Checked them all and made sure I was familiar with them. Opinion pieces and articles from people who were on the opposite side of a particular issue with Dean. So what?







ed: sp

[sangha]

257. Then I'm sure you have a link

Because you've asked for links several times in this one thread alone, I'm sure you'll be able to to keep up with your own standards and post links.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

350. Yes, I do:

Rock Solid Link

[Octafish]

357. LOL! That goes right back to...your post here.

Even if it came from Howard Dean's #1 fact-checker, that doesn't make it true. Which is the point: Dean is a liar.

Without links, here's some more on the subject:

Dean said he wanted Clark to be his running mate.
Clark said he declined.
Dean said he never offered Clark the spot as his running mate.

Gee. Whom to believe? That wasn't that hard.

[Lobo_13]

161. You mean like

Bill Clinton?

yeah, those were tough times.

[Octafish]

170. Difference is Clinton was smart.

He almost was smart enough to lie his way out of perjury. Still, Starr, Scaife, Tripp and the rest of the VRWC trapped him.

Dean? Let's say that Bill Maher was too kind when he called him "Dumb."

[Lobo_13]

186. Yeah, because

doing what he did without the benefit of being born to a powerful political family certainly requires an astounding lack of intellect.

Too dumb to become a doctor
Too dumb to balance budgets for eleven years
Too dumb to win five gubernatorial elections in a row
Too dumb to sign into law the most imporant equal rights bill in decades
Too dumb to provide healthcare for children and old people
Too dumb to realize that he couldn't become the front-runner of the Dem primary season
Too dumb to beat Bush

Or is he just too dumb to realize that he's too dumb to do all these things?

[Octafish]

192. Is that so? What about when he played dumb at the draft board?

Smart enough to show up with a note from his orthopedist.
Smart enough to show up with an X-ray from his radiologist.
Smart enough to remember to say that his back hurts when he runs.
Smart enough to spend that winter skiing the moguls.

OK. So he's smart enough to do all that and what you say, too. Great. It doesn't take a dummy to see that it adds up to four more years of Bush.

[Lobo_13]

203. ah the Draft "dodge" canard

Do you recognize the difference between going down a mountain on skis six times a day and mucking through the jungle for 12 hours with 80 pounds strapped to your back? If you don't, then you might want to not bring it up again, because you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. But then, to people like you, it's more honorable for him to have lied about an established back condition which would have disabled him before the end of basic than to be honest about it and let the army make their own decision.

You have no apparent conception of the realities of military life and just how much punishment your body goes through.

[Octafish]

358. The Truth Hurts, huh Lobo_13?

Even if you don't like it, this will be a topic of interest to most of the electorate: Dean is a coward.

Even if you don't consider Dean's back was good enough to ski on, the facts are his back was good enough to hike the length of Vermont, when he became governor by default. Here's a link to the article and nice photo of a sweaty, happy, pain-free Howard Dean:

http://www.aldha.org/howdean.htm

What a nice picture. Dean's wearing a backpack, which probably doesn't weigh 80 pounds. He probably made the girls carry that one, don't you think?

BTW: How the fuck do you know what I know? Or what I've done? Did you ever hear of Buckaroo Banzai?

[Lobo_13]

392. Nothing painful about this truth

The real truth is that this "issue" only matters to people who have a military fetish, and most of those people were never in the military. They're also not a very large group, or we would have elected more than one veteran since Kennedy. So accept your minority status and move on with your life.

Keep trying though. He walked the Long Trail over something like 25 visits spread out over a couple of years. And he never had an 80 pound pack on his back while doing it. I can't be sure of it, but it was probably a nice leisurely pace, as well.

The only people that made the determination about his back was the Army. So why don't you write a letter to them about it.

Nice to call everyone who didn't pass their physical a coward. Considering you could be rejected for things like eczema or psoriasis.

BTW: How the fuck do you know what I know? Or what I've done? Did you ever hear of Buckaroo Banzai?

Your statements give a good indication of your level of ignorance. BB was a neurosurgeon/particle physicist/musician/frontman for the Hong Kong Cavaliers/adventure hero. Not a soldier. (Amazingly, I just watched that last night:) )

[in_cog_ni_to]

163. Don't forget...

Dean has already said he thinks it's OK to lie to the American people. :grr:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

165. Regarding what?

edit: for link

[Renew Deal]

215. About national security

he said it in some debate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

241. Asking for a link would probably be out of the question....

Right?

[sangha]

256. He gave you a citation. What are you complaining about?

The poster clearly stated that the statement was amde at one of the debates. You can research it yourself by finding the transcripts, which are available on the net.

Asking for a citation doesn't mean you have the right to get every little bit of info about the issue. It's merely a way for you to get enough info to track down the accuracy of someone's assertion. You've been given enough info, now do the legwork, if you are truly interested.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

351. Seeing as there have been several debates...

I was hoping he/she could pin it down a little better. Wading through the transcripts of 15 different 90 minute long debates is not my job. You see, when you make an assertion it is incumbent on the assertee to provide proof, not the non-assertee. Hell, if I only get the state that the debate was held in, I'd accept that.

The poster did not give me a citation. He/she gave me a claim to a citation. Had I been given a citation, this "conversation" would not be occuring.

[diamondsoul]

359. It was the most recent one, Rummy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A50859-2003Dec9¬Found=true

From the WaPo transcript linked above-

SPRADLING: Under what circumstances is it OK for a president or someone speaking on his or her behalf to lie to the American public?

DEAN: Under what circumstances?

SPRADLING: Under what circumstances?

DEAN: I can't think of any circumstances, with the possible exception of some sort of national-security matter that would -- if some piece of information were put out that would endanger American lives or some circumstance under which peoples' lives would be in danger or something of that sort.

Now I understand he qualified it with "possible exception", and this is still not acceptable for me. Bush lied in matters of National Security. I'm sorry but with-holding information and outright lying are two different things to me. I can deal with with-holding information (matters of troop movements and locations for example), I cannot accept lying period.

[revcarol]

363. I remember being absolutely HORRIFIED

when I saw that and thought, "another Bush," as I spilled my coffee.

One of the earlier debates, sorry I can't pin it down further.Not the Women's and don't think it was AFL/CIO.

[Lobo_13]

166. And yet another out of context distortion n/t

[bowens43]

239. People keep saying that but still no one has been able to

point out a lie in the flyer. Tap your heals together three times while repeating "dean lies' and maybe it will come true!

[ErasureAcer]

252. exactly what I've been saying

No more lying Presidents.

Dean hasn't made a case that he'll be different.

His actions have spoken loudly.

[windansea]

156. let's see

so far we have

brochure didn't exist...was a plot to smear Dean

brochure exists

denial
denial
disclaimer
more denial
change the subject
it's Lieberman, Kerry, Clark etc fault
more denial

next??

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

167. Thanks for your input!

[adadem]

387. Truth hurts

apologists I guess

[slinkerwink]

168. okay, kucinich supporters....is Dennis a major or minor candidate?

The polls, and everything else, even the FEC reports would seem to indicate that Dennis is a MINOR candidate.

Therefore, Dean was right in saying he was the only MAJOR candidate who opposed the war from the start.

[MaggieSwanson]

171. Some poll results for you, then in response...

***Newsday.com: 3,334 voters, Kucinich leading with 1,672 votes, 50.1%
***POTUS Poll: 5,922 votes, Kucinich wins with 3,158 votes, 53.3%
***The Iowa Channel.com: 8,430 votes, Kucinich wins, 31.4%
***MoneyCentral.msn.com CNBC TV; 62,00 votes. Kucinich wins, 30%
***Free Internet Pres: Kucinich wins with 67%
***DemoChoice web poll; 3,158 votes, Kucinich wins with 53.3%
***Mr. Poll, Kucinich.vs. Dean: Kucinich wins with 85%
***Mr. Poll, All candidates: Kucinich wins with 34%
***Democrats.com: Kucinich wins week of October 19
***Democrats.com: Kucinich wins week of November 2
***Democrats.com: Kucinich wins week of November 9
***Radioleft.com: Kucinich wins, 72%

Hope has never trickled down. It has
always sprung up. -Studs Terkel

[slinkerwink]

178. internet polls don't prove anything---real, actual state polls do....

[ErasureAcer]

249. ADSWL^ :because the media has no agenda...right

:eyes:

all polls are useless bud.

[Dolphyn]

343. "Real" polls don't prove anything either

Here's what the Harris Poll folks have to say about whether their results prove anything:

• In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the results have a statistical precision of +/-3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Unfortunately, there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include refusals to be interviewed (non-response), question wording and question order, interviewer bias, weighting by demographic control data and screening (e.g., for likely voters). It is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors.

Source:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031222/nym123_1.html

Do you really think polls are a meaningful basis for anything? I believe that Kucinich trails in the polls solely because people don't know about him (or, because all they know is that stupid Internet date).

I also believe that many Dean supporters are supporting him primarily because they mistakenly believe "Only Dean opposed the war from the start."

[MidwestMomma]

174. Kucinich supporters should not have to defend their candidate to you...

I believe it should be the other way around. Don't you think you should defend your candidate's unnecessary wording of "Only candidate"/"Only major candidate" in the brochure? Please explain why the brochure could not state "Dean opposed the war" and leave it at that? Espcecially since your candidate apologized once already for using the 'only candidate' wording.

[revcarol]

177. Ignore the fact that the headline in large print is a lie.

and only concentrate on the fine print...

If Dean gets away with these lies about Kerry and Kucinich and CMB and Al Sharpton, will he lie to Congress and/or the American people as President? He's already lying to the people who are supposed to make an informed decision of whom to vote for.

Disturbing pattern of behavior here.

I cut him some slack after the first incident. Not any more.

[babzilla]

281. don't let them fool you revcarol

the disturbing pattern of behavior is all about the folks trying to set the Kucinich supporters vs. the Dean supporters.

I am not falling for that. We have a lot in common. Search in the archives as to where these people are coming from.

The first second and third incidents are not coming from Dean, IMHO they are from those that have a motive to set the anti-Iraq war believers against each other. Watch out.

[Tinoire]

347. Will you please stop

spreading that ludicrous theory that someone went to all the expense of printing up a glowing advertisement that does nothing but praise Dean and sent it to his potential supporters in the very states that Trippi desperately needs to win? It's downright insulting to people's intelligence and is doing more harm than good to Dean. We are neither stupid nor appreciative of this type of spin and several people have already made this clear in the other thread.

I am sure an apology or a half-assed explanation will be forthcoming from Dean Headquarters anyday now, preferably as close to the State Primaries as possible and as quietly as possible. I hope Kucinich calls him out on this at the debate in 3 days. I am looking forward to Dean's answer on National TV and also to the answer from his Headquarters.

[Renew Deal]

187. Is Clark a major candidate?

maybe I missed something.

[TLM]

173. As expected...poop.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:


So once again we see the claim that Dean said he was the only candidate was BS because it was in fact just the headline, not the story. Nobody expects detail in a f-ing headline. And in the body of the story it clearly says only MAJOR candidate.


This is just another desperate attempt to spin the same old story... that Dean is so horrible as to dare tell the truth about Kucinich, CMB, and Sharpton not being a major top tier candidates.

And newsflash, Dean was treated that way when he was at 5% and some dems still want to treat him that way now, even though he's leading the pack.

[Renew Deal]

184. So wrong in so many ways.

The headline is a lie. Second, Clark is a "MAJOR" candidate. "Same old story???" Nope, new story, this went out last week. "Dems are still treating him this way." I didn't know one of them considered Dean a minor candidate. Can I ask you??? Are you proud of what Dean has done with this ad? Do you support playing with the truth?

[MidwestMomma]

196. Newsflash, controversy isn't about who the 'major' candidates are...

Controversy is over 'the only candidate' rhetoric used by the Dean campaign. It's the fact that he apologized for using the term and then continued to use it in new brochures. It just looks bad.

[babzilla]

176. I don't believe that this flyer is from the Dean campaign

reason #1: why would Dean use the picture on the far right on page 2? Of all the pictures available, the Dean campaign would not choose this one. I won't even bring up the heavily armed G.I. Joe image on the right, which is just a ridiculous picture.

Alright I will bring it up. It is also very hard to believe that any democratic candidate would use that picture of that helmet strappin' dude cockin' his gun in their brochure sent out to convince voters that they were the candidate to oppose the war from the start.

reason #2: Dean's main point about the Iraq war is not that he tagged firsties opposing it, I have never seen anything in any Dean literature or speech where he has made the claim that he was the only one from the start to oppose the Iraq war. His main point regarding his opposition is more concerned with why it was a wrong war at the wrong time and the fact that Bush lied to get the public to support it and the fact that the democrats in the congress that supported this wrong war at the time (I guess some could define that period of time "the first") were also wrong. Note that this does not include Kucinich.

Futhermore, the other main point made in this flyer, that there was no exit strategy is another thing that the Dean campaign does not make a major issue out of. That is more of a Kucinich campaign issue which really makes me wonder.

reason #3: The graphic artists that create flyers for Dean have better aesthetic sensibilities than are displayed in this scanned flyer. The fonts and colors are not similiar in any way to what the Dean Campaign actually distributes. If you are not aware of it the Dean campaign has its own unique font and it is nowhere on this "official campaign flyer".

more peculiar details: on the original thread that was posted about this supposed Dean flyer, when asked for details about the supposed flyer the OP assured us that the flyer was a professionally printed 3-fold brochure (he later quoted something from the 4th page of the 3-fold 2-sided brochure, ok, it must have been a 4-page 2-sided flyer, I was never good with paper airplanes)

anyway, this folder/flyer that the poster held in his hand, while defying anyone else to doubt him of its existence, supposedly included an insignia which proclaimed it to be printed with union labor (at this point the poster wished he had had his magnifying glass to see the insignia once prompted by another poster whether it was indeed included on the "professionally printed piece")

what I am trying to ask is where is the union label?

[Renew Deal]

179. This should settle it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=49199&mesg_id=49862&page=

Remember, this is scanned in. I had to cut the color and clarity to make it upload.

[in_cog_ni_to]

189. There it is in black and white. OK, next excuse. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

206. I don't see it at:

http://www.deanfornewhampshire.com/


Next excuse. n/t

[babzilla]

217. where is the purple page in the scan?

why does the header say dean....for america? Dean....for america means nothing and would never be the heading of an actual campaign brochure, sorry.

why don't you go to www.deanfornewhampshire.com like the flyer says.

Funny that the NH HQ would have the actual flyer at the office but wouldn't have it on the site to download for anyone to distribute.
See that is how the Dean campaign works, campaign materials are available for distribution from the blog. I find it unusual that the only time I have seen this particular purple page is when it is being decried by the "Kucinich supporters" as unfair.

So is it only the Kucinich supporters that recieved this brochure or have others got it in the mail?

[windansea]

181. see post 152 n/t

[Tinoire]

234. Why don't you just go pick one up for yourself and see?

I just called my sister, who is a Dean supporter in New Hampshire, and asked if the ad was from the Dean campaign. She had it in front of her. "YES IT IS".

Your spin is dis-heartening. It reflects very poorly on Dean supporters and 100% reinforces the common perception that too many Dean supporters have their head buried in the sand.

[babzilla]

260. Well I just called my brother who is a Dean supporter

he said NO IT ISN'T. Who to believe?

If I could just go pick one up for myself, I may be able to see it.

Sadly, I have searched and searched and have only found it on threads started by those who seem to revel in stirring up controversy between the Dean & Kucinich camps.

I find the phenomenon strange & I find the phenomenon unlikely that Kucinich folk should start a war against Dean who is the candidate closest to Kucinich as far as speaking against the Iraq war goes.

Another thing I find odd is that the "Kucinich supporters" spreading this fear of Dean proclaiming that he is the only/first one that opposed the war use sketchy and unsubstantiatiated proof that Dean is really running to take Dennis down as opposed to taking Bush down. That is the most laughable thing.

[ErasureAcer]

265. what the hell are you talking about

the pictures are in this thread.

did you not look at post #1?

*smashes head against table*

You can see the damn ad RIGHT HERE!!!!!

my gawd.

[MidwestMomma]

283. I think the poster is saying the ABD folks are responsible for the ad...

because they are trying to create an 'artificial' divide between the Dean and Kucinich camps. I don't know, got room at the 'head smashing' table for me?

[Tinoire]

282. Spin all you want...

The Kucinich HQs has its hand on this ad and sent an e-mail out to DK supporters who have been outraged about Dean's misrepresentations and flip-flopping FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS CAMPAIGN.

From the VERY beginning of this campaign, it's been spin, spin and more spin from too many Dean supporters here. At the beginning of this campaign, people who pointed out that Dean was no liberal but a centrist of the purest sort were attacked and muzzled until Dean was far along enough in the polls and the evidence so irrefutable that now those same supporters act as if they had never said that or bullied those who told that truth.

If this is the sort of thing the Dean campaign and supporters have to resort to to advance his machine THEN NO THANK YOU.

Kucinich and Dean have VERY little in common. The only thing Dean has that comes close to Kucinich is his rhetoric and some of us demand more than that. Some of us demand a little substance. This may come as a shock to you but Kerry is, and has long been, the top second choice for most people in the Kucinich camp. We do not see Dean as even remotely close and even though Kerry is not that close either, we are lucid enough to realize that that domestically he's a social Liberal with the record to prove it.

[MidwestMomma]

286. Thank you for clearing some spin from the room

I'm not a part of the Kucinich campaign but I had a gut feeling that Kucinich supporters could not be that strong of a second tier of support for Dean. But there has been so much spin, as you say, I got the impression that Dean was the second choice for a lot of Kucinich supporters and that somehow he best represented their views after Kucinich.

And that confused me because Dean is not a liberal candidate. This whole thread has been very enlightening. Thanks.

[babzilla]

293. Actually the Dean & Kucinich camps have a lot in common

Tinoire, take you and your sister for example.

While out campaigning for Dean, the only people I have come across are Kucinich supporters, I am sure we will unite for a common cause once the primaries are over, at least that is what the Kucinich supporters that I have met in person say.

[Tinoire]

328. My sister is a Dean supporter who does not have time to research

My sister is also getting her eyes opened and finding out, thanks to me, that she does not have as much in common with Dean as she first thought. She is still with Dean but I don't think she will be for much longer because she hates dishonesty and this was not honest. My sister was also gullible enough to think that Bush wouldn't be this bad. My sister is also young, gullible, and too busy to dig deeply into candidates but she is not one to bury her head.

I am going to send her the link to this thread so she can see with her own eyes what kind of spinning goes on to secure Dean's nomination and how deep the denial is on the part of the same type of people who have been pumping Dean up to her. There are already certain things about Dean she doesn't like and she finds him and his campaign too strident and angry.

Once the primaries are over, we may very well unite for common cause, but this is not something Dean supporters should take for granted; it all depends on the conduct and positions of the nominee. I hope for the sake of Dean's objective supporters that too much damage won't be done before we have a nominee.

What good will it do us to win the battle if we can't win the election?

I used to think that Clinton and the DLC were 100% wrong in their attempts to stop Dean and that they were doing it for only selfish reasons. Now I am beginning to understand that they really could be concerned that Dean could win the Primaries only to lose the General Election. I really am understanding why the Freepers are in a delight about his success. They're in such ecstasy that they have a new cartoon- a $500 check from the Bush/Cheney 04 Fund made out to the Dean campaign with a little note in the memo section that reads "Keep talking!". It's a huge hit over there and very painful to people like me because I can see the validity of that cartoon.

You seem to think Dean walks on water and just laid an unbelievable spin in this thread- going as far as to imply that another campaign put this ad out to damage Dean (which is ludicrous because the ad is 100% complimentary of no one but Dean and none of the other candidates are stupid)- but he doesn't walk on water or on air and if he falls, he will fall very hard and hurt ALL of us. I don't want another 4 years of Bush. It will be hard enough for me to have to hold my nose to vote for Dean after all of this & because he's a Centrist with too many inconsistencies from the start but the cockiness and denials coming from too many of his supporters is a huge turn-off. Please don't be so sure that Kucinich supporters are behind Dean. Kucinich supporters have been pissed from the start. If you don't believe me, about who most of us think is closer to Kucinich, you can run a poll asking DK supporters to ping in and identify themselves so that the poll doesn't get freeped like most polls here.

There is a lot in common between the supporters of all the camps IMO and just because supporters have something in common doesn't mean that the candidates are close in position.

I feel sorry for a lot of Dean supporters. I get the feeling there are a LOT of young,passionate people behind him who are going to get their hopes crushed and will spend the next 4 years bitching about Nader, the Greens, or whatever because nothing anyone points out about Dean sinks in, even when the proof is in black, white and color in front of their very eyes- such as in this thread.

Believe in Dean. Work for him. Vote for him. But please don't spin. Supporter and candidate spin can easily lose this election. So can the arrogance seen in this thread.

All that said, if Dean wins the Primary I will try to concentrate on his better points, be happy for his supporters and pray that Bush is yanked out of office.

[robbedvoter]

185. The very words Gore babbled in Harlem - obviously from the script

Was dean in the army? Was he a major? Was that to differentiate himself from the "general candidate?
I have an archive with anti-war articles from Summer 2002. Nowhere did I find the words HD mentioned. I did find this though:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html
mark Fiore noticed the "general" now candidate opposing the war.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html
Guess the major missed a spot. And his sore sock puppet too.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[ErasureAcer]

220. thanks again

you have let the truth come out...

it is a shame that some people can't face the truth.

This is topic of the year...sure we are only one day in...but still.

:loveya:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

210. Link?

[Renew Deal]

213. Link to what

This is a DU exclusive. But feel free to call Dean HQ in NH and ask them if this is for real. 603-222-1900

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

216. That "ONLY Dean opposed the war?"

This has you in a frenzy?

[Renew Deal]

219. Can you see the original post?

Do you see what I scanned? It is there in big letters. I am not sure what you mean otherwise.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

224. If this is what has "Kucinich people" frothing at the mouth....

...*chuckle*...

[ErasureAcer]

240. I'll be the one chuckling when your lying candidate gets hammered

by Bush.

Bush-lite won't cut it...and that is exactly what Dean is.

Lies, lies and more lies.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

243. See you at the Chuckling Corner!

Lies, lies, and more lies.

Sounds like you might have a campaign slogan there!

[windansea]

253. Dean won't be the nominee

watch what happens in this next debate

In the past few weeks Dean has shot himself in the foot so many times he has no toes left

what we been seeing here in DU lately (Dean flip flops..distortions..lies) is gonna be exposed on national TV

after this debate his numbers are gonna tank

[BootinUp]

226. Dean is the only major candidate thats a democrat!

I am just predicting the next lie :)

[Renew Deal]

227. lol

:yourock:

[MidwestMomma]

231. LOL...You obviously know how this works

:D

[MaggieSwanson]

235. I hear you! n/t

[Lefta Dissenter]

376. Jim, I'm taking you to Vegas!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=54093

Jim4Wes, the man with the crystal ball! :D

[revcarol]

379. You won the prize!!

Brochure in NM...Great reading in that thread...

[ClarkGraham2004]

229. Where is the lie?

[LWolf]

254. Today's word: Duplicitous

I just read through the triple digit responses, and have this to say:

Thanks, Bleachers7, for doing the work. This was demanded just yesterday; some Dean supporters needed it in front of their face to acknowledge that Dean is still using this dishonest/misleading statement in his campaign.

Now that you've provided the evidence, some Dean supporters say it's ok because of the word "major." In spite of the fact that the headline is an outright lie; putting the word "major" in the main body of the text as a qualifier is duplicitous.

Of course, Dean supporters support the Koppel definition of "major." I consider Kucinich to be a major candidate. Based on his experience, record, and the job he has done opposing Bush since he took office. I don't need the tee-vee to tell me who is worthy of my time and attention and who isn't. If "major" is an opinion based on differing criteria, then it can't be used as a factual qualifier, even if there was something aboveboard about qualifying a lie later on in the text.

Then there are the Dean supporters who now want to claim that it didn't come from the campaign; even though this brochure pictured was picked up in a Dean campaign HQ.

And this statement:

as recently as this Sunday in Aimes, Iowa: "Of all the people running from Congress, only Dennis Kucinch had the courge to vote against the war."

When he says this in a speech, and then contradicts it with campaign materials at HQ, what are we supposed to think? That a statement will pacify us while he continues to campaign on misleading or false information?

And Fubarfly, the Dean supporter who recognizes the problem, and acknowledges it. Thank you. If we are able to unify all of these camps for the general election, it will be because of people like you.

Meanwhile, there is another thread titled "Now all supporters are alienated."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=49923

This is why. People who are willing to alienate all opposition rather than acknowledge weakness, flaws, or wrongs. People who grandly hand themselves victory before a vote is cast, and patronize the opposition. People who think duplicitous campaign statements are "shrewd," and dissenters are "whiners."

This is a self-destructive campaign strategy; win the primary at any cost, alienating all the supporters you will need to win the general election and get anything constructive accomplished in office. And it's so unnecessary. Dean has enough support to campain cleanly.

[windansea]

259. right on Lwolf

and congrats to Fubarfly for his statements :thumbsup:

[Capn Sunshine]

269. Where's the lie? I don't see it. Parsing is not your forte.

The only "major candidate " duplicity I see is despite the polling numbers, you want to give that status to kucinich....why not Larouche, too?

Damn, you guys better stop nerding out over vocabulary problems and get to work on your OWN campaign !

Or you thing thousands of postings on DU. inuendo, half truth,outright slander, flame wars, alert-o-ramas and cheesecake photos is how a campaign is run? When does this leave you time for the real world?

[Renew Deal]

277. Umm,

Isn't Clark a major candidate. BTW, DK isn't #1 on my list.

[Capn Sunshine]

294. Ummm.

Yes. Are you saying he was against the war at the beginning? Was this when he was still a registered defense industry lobbyist or when he was an unregistered voter who was doing color commentary for the corporate networks/ Or was it during his 60 k per speech tour that he came down on the side of the anti-war movement? Or was it the speech he gave at that demonstration?
Oh yeah. He didn't do that.

I don't buy your whole Clark was against the war thesis. If he was, he kept it a good secret until his focus groups got back to him.

[Renew Deal]

305. Red Herrings

galore.

What does lobbying have to do with this? Clark was a registered voter, he was not registered with a party. BTW, neither is Dean in VT.

Clark's focus group? Sure. Did he get into that before or after he testified in congress. The is some of the most pitiful drivel I have ever seen on DU.

[Capn Sunshine]

270. Where's the lie? I don't see it. Parsing is not your forte.

The only "major candidate " duplicity I see is despite the polling numbers, you want to give that status to kucinich....why not Larouche, too?

Damn, you guys better stop nerding out over vocabulary problems and get to work on your OWN campaign !

Or you think thousands of postings on DU, inuendo, half truth,outright slander, flame wars, alert-o-ramas and cheesecake photos is how a campaign is run? When does this leave you time for the real world?

[shivaji]

276. You have just stumbled onto Dean's very SHREWD STRATEGY

which is that by making statements or putting out ads which are controversial, he gets EXTRA MEDIA ATTENTION FOR FREE! What Dean says can not be said to be "lies", but rather are debatable points.

Example: "Arrest of Saddam did not make us any safer". Well, everyone criticised it as being over the top, but yet it can definately be debated. Why did we go to ORANGE ALERT from yellow, if we are safer now than when Saddam was in the spider hole? ONLY REASON IS IT IS OPEN TO QUESTION ABOUT BEING SAFER.

Dean and his team impresses me more with each passing day. I will be even more impressed when his wins in Iowa & NH EXCEED all expectations, as I am predicting.

[Lefta Dissenter]

279. WOW, Bleach, you've earned your four gold stars for today!

Jeez, the Dean supporters asked for a scan of the brochure, and you were gracious enough to provide it!

Not only did it give all of us an opportunity to see the much-discussed brochure, but it certainly gave us the chance to witness another onslaught of Dean 'support.'

The more I see, the more it puts Dean into a solid 8th place in my list of candidates.

and I'm sending some gold stars to Fubarfly, as well. Are there others like you out there in the Dean camp, or are you an anomaly?

[Renew Deal]

280. Dean has moved down my list for 2 reasons.

1st because this is a blatant misrepresentation.

and 2nd, because of how much it hurt the Kucinich supporters I met.

[babzilla]

297. so did those Kucinich supporters you met

give you the scanner for pleasure.

First you said you have a scanner, then you said you don't, you might have a digital camera, or it may take some time to post an answer for those that have questions.

Perhaps it is that those hurt Kucinich folk felt sorry for a Clark supporter like you and emailed the "offending" Dean brochure scan to Bleacher7, a Clark guy, so that you could evangelize in the name of Kucinich?

Where is the trifold backside that has the purple page contents? Why can't you scan it? Why can't I find the union printing label anywhere on this "official Dean flyer"?

Who's pleasure is it for anyway?

Who is blatently misrepresenting?

[windansea]

302. yikes!!

we have a new :tinfoilhat: acronym

CSSKMIHOP

Clark Supporter Scan Kucinich Made It Happen On Purpose

[MidwestMomma]

307. I like it!

Only by digging deep will we be able to get the real issue at hand...which candidate is the scanner REALLY working for? Has the scanner used it's scanning capabilities to smear any other candidates? Who is providing the funding for the scanner?

Only by resolving these serious scanning issues will the issue of did Dean mislead the voters be resolved. }(

[adadem]

383. LOL

Apologists go to all lengths to defend lies.

[Renew Deal]

304. I am not responsible for your problems.

She me where I said I "had/own a scanner"?

What is a purple page? I don't know what that is. The union label is where I said it was, but I will repeat it for the needy. It is on the top left side of the page in between the address and the paid for by Dean for America label.

It is for the pleasure of my fellow DUers who had asked for a full page scan.

Dean is blatently misrepresenting himself. Hope this helps.

[babzilla]

325. I'm just asking for the "Iraq What Plan"

to be shown as a trifold like the front page, it would be informative to be shown what the other backpages say.

You have the scan of the front trifold page, why not the back trifold page?

[Renew Deal]

329. Actually it's a picture

not a scan. The second page says Balanced Budgets and created jobs. The third says Healthcare for all. But what's the point?

[adadem]

385. Where's

the apology Babz?

[newsguyatl]

308. first

this IS an actual pamphlet put out by the dean campaign, i have a few myself in hand...

and in fact, it DOES say dean was the only MAJOR democratic presidential candidate to oppose the war... and he is ABSOLUTELY correct! i have much respect for kucinich, braun and sharpton, but they're NOT "major" candidates.

if you bitter clark supporters are saying that's he's lying because wes clark "opposed the war from the beggining" i suggest you do a little more research on your man of mans... you might be a little surprised what you find out.


suffice it to say, this pamphlet and statement is absolutely 100% correct and factual...


i know you guys are really digging for ANYthing at this post to try and get dean, but i got news for ya -- it's too late.

[Renew Deal]

311. Too late

Why because the appoligists say so or because the voters say so? Which one?

[newsguyatl]

313. haha

first, nice job at refuting MY refutation of YOUR argument.

secondly, it IS too late to bring dean down... he's taken off and, unless HE HIMSELF trips up and falls, none of the others will or can catch him... that's right, even clinton's own stalking horse, wes clark...

sometimes, it's hard to accept reality... i understand this... and it REALLY sucks when you're on the losing end of reality, huh?

[Renew Deal]

314. This one is getting bookmarked

Just in case someone has to deal with reality.

[windansea]

320. heh heh

you are in for a big surprise

:evilgrin:

[TexasPatriot]

333. i'm sorry

but this sort of attitude before a single vote has been cast is exactly why so many of us in the democratic party feel repelled by the prospect of a Dean candidacy.

if Dean can bring this much divisive hatred to the party that 'falls in love' with their candidate, i dont want to think what the GE is going to be like.

As a hard core democrat - i'm the LAST person you want to piss off this badly - because you're going to need those like me and our money in the fall, and i may have been called a cockroach 1 too many times.

[Bad Thoughts]

317. Major/Minor

Posters appear to be making a lot about whether this flyer's claims apply to Kucinich. They focus on the wording "major candidate" to say that Kucinich does not belong to this group and can be excluded from the list of candidates under consideration. I don't know when this flyer was release, or when Dean started to make this claim, or even the specific histories of the two campaigns. However, there are some issues that should be brought to bear.

First, the claim of being a "major candidate" is a rhetorical device--it is tooting one's own horn, whether or not it is true. There is no legal or political distinction being used. Kucinich could be called a major candidate--he is part of the debates, the democratic party has not seen fit to ask him not to come to any events. Until mid summer, it would have been arguably difficult to call Dean a major candidate as the group of Senators in the race appeared to hold the spotlights.

Second, one must question whether this claim prevented Kucinich from becoming a major candidate. No one argued more forcefully against the war. He is the only complete peace candidate. Could it not have happened that Kucinich would have grown in public stature had Dean not said that anti-war voters had no other choices?

[newsguyatl]

319. ahh

>>>Could it not have happened that Kucinich would have grown in public stature had Dean not said that anti-war voters had no other choices?<<<

could it have happened that kucinich would have grown in public stature HAD he the right message, HAD he ignited the passion from the base, HAD he run a campaign worthy to go into history?

these are all interesting questions indeed. but i have an answer for you, SINCE he did none of the latter, folks came to dean... and they came early... like kucinich as much as you like, he ISN'T a "major" candidate, and that's just plain fact.



this is an obvious tactic by clark supporters to pitch dean supporters against kucinich supporters... a very lame tactic i might add. the truth is, you kucinich supporters DEFINITELY do not want clark in office... goes without saying, read the writing on the walls, especially when it's THIS bold...


take care

[Renew Deal]

327. Yes a tactic. Hmmm I wonder what else we can come up with in the

dark, smokey cellar. Yes this has worked. We made Dean print a bogus ad just to piss off Kucinich supporters. It's Clark's fault the ad says "Paid for by Dean for America."

:shrug:

[curse10]

324. Welcome to DU Bad Thoughts!

:hi:

[Tinoire]

367. Welcome to DU Bad Thoughts

I don't know who you support and it doesn't really matter but thank you for pointing out something many people are either missing or wilfully ignoring.

I do however differ with you on one thing- Kucinich is not as far away from Dean as and the media and the Dean campaign would have us believe.

Dean is doing very well but it is too early in the process to start the coronation. The more I compare what has been going on here with Mondale's campaign, which Dean's Campaign Manager also ran, the more similarities I am seeing in the tactics of deliberate misperceptions and creating an illusion that people people have no other choice.

I was expecting better from Dean and should have looked into the Trippi link long ago. Lemon-ade stands and stealing other campaigns tickets to pack halls with your own supporters indeed!

I hope Dean supporters demand this stop and that Dean make a public apology immediately. If, after reading these related threads, you can not see what the fuss and pain are about, then how the hell can we ever be on the same team. Dean supporters should at least try to understand. You don't need to understand why my foot hurts after you've stepped on- you need to believe ME when I tell you you have hurt me. Thank you to all those who did not spin and who do understand.

:toast:

[Bad Thoughts]

380. Thank you for the welcome

Thank you ... it is great to know that people can be cordial here ... the fear of being raked over the coals kept me lurking for a while.

For disclosure, I am a Clark supporter, but I have taken several long looks at Kucinich. He is one of the most broadly informed candidates, and one of the most creative. I especially like his ideas for reforming elections. I feel that he ought to have been a more competitive candidate. Certainly he deserves to be recognized as one of the more important leaders in the Democratic Party, and I would hope that he would gain some stature out of these elections regardless of who runs against George Bush. (My interest in Kucinich is by no means a way of undermining Dean--Dennis could easily turn his guns on Clark, perhaps to greater effect).

I feel that the rhetoric of different campaigns is largely jockeying for position, calling someone more or less democratic, more or less electable, a major or a minor candidate, experienced as a governor/legislator/in domestic affairs/foreign affairs/electable/grassroots organizer/the military/by humble origins/by profession ... . My biggest concern has yet to be addressed: how will democrats stop the slide toward becoming a permanent minority party, politically or socially or regionally. I am more worried than ever because so many people are putting so much emotion to their candidates (even my candidate, Clark) that some sort of permanent rift appears inevitable. (However, I am a pessimist.)

My plea would be this: let's recognize the rhetoric for what it is. Because Kucinich's chances appear slim does not mean that he should be turned off. And as he reminds us, he will be swearing an oath somewhere in Washington next January. Everyone ought to be figuring out how they will work with him.

[Tinoire]

382. Jeez! Welcome again then!

Clark is unfortunately not someone I trust yet but some of his supporters are such amazing people that I feel rather bad at times about being so vocal about my distrust of the people behind his campaign (I'm a DLC hater) and disgust over the war in Yugoslavia. That said, he does have some qualities that would be an undisputed asset.

But Clark & Kucinich aside, welcome again to DU. That was a wonderful post and I really look forward to working with someone this thoughtful after these bloody Primaries are over!

Peace

[stickdog]

332. Dean tells the truth the bluntly. Clark was not against the war.

Meanwhile, Sharpton & Kucinich are not major candidates by any objective measure of popularity.

Remember when it caused a HUGE stink when Dean said Graham was not a major candidate? How long did it take until he was proven right about that?

[Lefta Dissenter]

334. Oh, well, since DTH has not chimed in here yet,

I'll just post his sig line... sorry if I'm stepping on toes, DTH

Two Great Howard Dean Quotes

"It is a good thing for us to have Wes Clark. I have four people beating up on me for being against the war. Now, I have a four-star general saying the same thing I've been saying." -- Howard Dean

"But I think Wes Clark, he is somebody I keep in close touch with. He's a terrific person, very bright, very capable, very thoughtful. Our views coincide on a number of matters, and he is a -- I certainly can't say enough good things about him. It'd be tough to run against him." -- Howard Dean

[ErasureAcer]

335. Dean OWNED

His ad lies about Clark as well as Kucinich.

Straight from the horses mouth...how will Dean supporters spin this?

"but...but..."

[stickdog]

345. "Now, I have a four-star general saying the same thing I've been saying."

Now, Clark is undoubtedly saying many of the things that Dean has been saying.

And I give Clark a lot of credit for that, just as Dean does.

Before and during the war, however, Clark was hedging his bets as a CNN analyst and a newspaper columnist.

For example, which one of the two was speaking out against the war while Saddam's statue was being pulled down?

[diamondsoul]

340. "popularity"

Who CARES whether Graham was a "major" candidate or not? He was in the race and his supporters and HE deserved more respect than to be dismissed that way.

But do carry on making every other candidates supporters so pissed they wouldn't touch Howard Dean's name on the ballot if he marched up to their doors with a half a million bucks cash! Nahh, you don't need us at all, the "Dean Machine" can take over America without anyone's help, right?

Keep it up. You'll make good and sure Dean comes down and comes down hard.

[stickdog]

346. I don't agree with Dean's dismissal of Kucinich. Dennis is my second

favorite candidate after Dean, and third isn't even close.

However, many here are characterizing Dean campaign's dismissal of Kucinich's chances as a lie, when in fact it is a disrespectful and regretable truth.

[zulchzulu]

339. Intellectual dishonesty is the fuel of Dean's campaign

Dean lies about his record; he lies about the other candidates. He attacks the other candidates and then whines like a poor little child when he is rightfully returned fire.

Dean has truly become a despicable candidate. It is almost impossible for me to envision such a person as a Commander In Chief of this great country. What a vulgar thought to even imagine...

[adadem]

372. Makes one think of

who?

[iowapeacechief]

342. A fellow Kucinich supporter sent me...

...to this thread, and I read every post, then joined DU. I'd visited before, but now I gotta speak up.

I've watched both Dean and Kucinich very carefully since first meeting them on the same day last April. I've watched the others, too, but less. For a long time I said Dean was my second choice, mainly because of his opposition to the war.

However, I've heard his "only" war-opponent claim too many times. He insults ALL his fellow candidates when he slams their war votes, not only the "minor" ones.

I've heard him acknowledge Kucinich's courage only once (the last DNC debate), and my heart leaped. Maybe Dean could be my Number 2 after all!

So I went to a Dean speech two weeks ago, frankly hoping to come away liking him better again. (I REALLY liked the Dean I met last April.) Former Iowa Congressman Dave Nagle introduced the candidate and declared his endorsement. He told of having voted to oppose the first Gulf War. A vote to declare war is the toughest decision a Congress member will ever make, he said. It is possible to vote against a popular war, but very hard, he said. It's about conscience, he said. Dean was right while others failed to take the courageous stand, he said. No Kucinich mention from Nagle, nor did I expect one.

The shocker was not the way Dean proceeded to claim, as usual, that he was the ONLY candidate brave enough or bright enough (no qualifiers, no nods to single-digit, "lower tier" colleagues), but the way he ridiculed those Democrats who voted FOR the war resolution. The contrast with his introducer was striking. At this time last year, I might have welcomed some cheap shots, but now I have challenged Kerry and Gephardt firsthand and listened hard to their explanations of their votes "for" war.

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin voted with them; I wasn't happy about that, and I know what a tough call it was for him. Dean has never been close to such a vote, and his sneering dismissal was a big insult to all those who did vote, either way.

Today I'm ready to give all the others more "benefit of the doubt" and measure them on other aspects of record and character. (Well, not Liebermann, but he's so minor...)

Happily, I don't need to settle for one of them before I caucus for Dennis Kucinich on January 19!

And what if we lack the 15 percent required to be "viable" in my precinct? Why would I join the Dean folks? Petty stuff, someone said. Oh, no!

Dan Clark

[Tinoire]

344. That was a great post!

Impressive first!

Welcome to DU Iowapeacechief! :toast:

Today is probably the most rancorous day I have ever seen between Dean and Kucinich supporters. I am sorry that this is your introduction to DU but I'm thrilled to see you and thrilled for your fresh voice.

Your journey is similar to mine and your points about not having to vote is important to me. I stopped giving anyone a free pass for not having had to vote a long time ago. Having voted for the war is a negative in my book but that doesn't make not having had to vote for it a positive. It's more like -1 point vs 0 points and those who were vocal, consistent and whose actions spoke for their principle get several positive points. Attending anti-war rallies (and marching with striking laborers) is also worth several points. (There are of course other issues that score points but war, occupation and the Israel/Palestine conflict are the most non-negotiable for me).

Rhetoric is too cheap these days to give it any creedence. That's my 2 cents before going to bed.

Peace and welcome

[corporatewhore]

348. great response !!!

and welcome to DU

[Skwmom]

352. How can Dean ridicule other Democrats for voting for the war

when he is on record supporting a unilateral attack against Iraq?

[zulchzulu]

365. How can Dean say that?

A: Because Howard Dean is a con artist. Based on how he lies about his original views on the IWR and how he supported the war in Afghanistan as well as the first Gulf War, that is the only conclusion that I can think of.

Dean will say anything (usually wrapped inside a gaffe) to get attention. I'm becoming more ABD every day.

[molly]

378. I hate Howard Dean - and it started here on DU

I actually was considering him until his supporters - brain-washed by Mr. Trippi - started posting dirt about other candidates - things like the Philly Cheese Steak fiasco with John Kerry. It didn't stop there -- it spred like wild fire when Clark entered the race. It seemed that anyone that had a good chance of winning the nomination was fodder for this "hate-fest".

I hope and pray Howard Dean will not be the DEM candidate.

[adadem]

384. I hope

and pray with you.

[diamondsoul]

364. Dan, you are just a DREAMY guy!

:loveya: :pals: :yourock:

Welcome to DU! BTW, I'm dlmom3 from K4P.

[windansea]

368. wow....a home run with your first post!

welcome to DU & good luck on the 19th :thumbsup:

[Desertrose]

377. welcome, Dan Clark and thanks!

what a great first post....

looking forward to many more :)
(hint hint)

Kucinich rocks and so do you!!
:yourock:

Peace
DR

[ThirdWheelLegend]

390. Welcome!

Great post Dan!

Welcome to DU!

TWL

[mitchtv]

374. what a tempest in a tea kettle

it seems Someone forgot who the enemy is. I am not a Dean Supporter, I am a Democrat. I will not sit still and watch so called democrats attack any one of my candidates. To the General ,I say "welcome to the party, keep it clean" the venom i see here is atrocious, shame on anyone who cannot realize that any one of our candidates is a million times better than the Nitwit in office. Take your venom somewhere else.Dean was there whether you guys like it or not., any one who says they will not suport "the nominee" is as big a nitwit as the one in the WH.

[ErasureAcer]

381. WILL A MOD PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS THE POST ABOVE...

IS NOT AGAINST BOARD RULES.

The person calls all DU posters that are not ABB "nimwits".

What the hell!

Can I call all NBD DUers "dimwits"?

I've already hit the alert button twice on this...yet this post is still around.

What gives?

[Desertrose]

388. I'm amazed this thread is still around...as in "not locked"

I mean they call people dimwits and nothing happens and other threads get locked for excessive punctuation?????????????????????????????

WTF%$@*&!*&$%??

sorry...that still gets me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Maybe the mods can't wade through the bazillion posts?? :shrug:

makes ya wonder EA, don't it?

Peace
DR

[ErasureAcer]

389. I've alerted them TWICE during the day...and then my previous KICK post

They've heard me...they've had plenty of time to do something about that person's comment.

while I'm sitting here with 2 warning already this year...as this person gets off scott free.

It does make me wonder. :mad:

[ErasureAcer]

391. still waiting for a response from the mods on post 374

justice will not be denied.

are you guys really going to make me hit the alert button for a 3rd time?

[Name removed]

393. Deleted message

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

[ErasureAcer]

394. More personal attacks

please mods...give this guy a warning...I'm sick of his attacks...I can do anything I want with my vote. There is no fucking rule that says you have to be ABB.

This person has called me a "nimwit" in his previous post...and now he is telling me to grow up.

Will something please be done about this person?

[maddezmom]

395. the sad part about this whole fiasco

we are all going to need each other to beat bush*, if that is the ultimate goal. And unless all the candidates and their supporters can respect each other and their feelings, we are going in the wrong direction. None of our candidates of choice are perfect.

One more thing, since I'm on a roll..........I think ABB might be too much to ask of DU. I'm ABB, but wouldn't hold it against anyone that felt they could not vote for the nominee. We all all have our lithmus tests. :)

[ErasureAcer]

396. exactly...

people can do whatever they want with their votes...and this guy is calling everyone who is not ABB a "nimwit"...a personal attack...name calling!

The last time I checked that is against board rules.

Get off your asses mods.

[adadem]

400. Put him on ignore then

they heard you and didn't agree. Let it go.

[jpgpenn]

397. jus call him "Mr. I'll Say Anything...

for a Vote"!

[jpgpenn]

399. Wonder why Kucinich didn't call Dean on this

during tonights debate? Show him for the LIAR he is!

[adadem]

401. I was very

disappointed that Dennis didn't bring this up. He had every right to stick the flyer in his face and demand a retraction.

[jpgpenn]

402. yea i agree

I guess during the heat of the night, when others are controlling the tempo, somethings get passed by.

[revcarol]

403. Don't believe it would have been good then...

as much as I would have liked to have seen it.

Almost every candidate was going after Dean with something or other. This would have "looked" petty, like he was just after Dean. Ya know, "image" is everything.

So he passed it by and "looked" Presidential, instead of mean and petty.

Smart move, DK, but THE NEXT TIME, and there will be a next time, let him have it!!

[Renew Deal]

406. He might be saving it for the NH debate.

It has less impact in Iowa.

[DarkSim]

407. Dissing..?

There is nothing new in the Dean's advertisement. Sure its wrong to do such a thing but its what politicians have been doing since the dawn of time.

[Renew Deal]

408. Looks like there is a pattern

of nastiness coming from DFA.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

409. This issue should not go away..

so kick, although we really need a new thread... this one is a bit long.

So far this topic has had two 400 reply threads.

TWL