Paul Krugman on "Tearing down Howard Dean"

[dajabr]

Who's Nader Now?

In the 2000 election, in a campaign that seemed driven more by vanity than by any realistic political vision, Ralph Nader did all he could to undermine Al Gore — even though Mr. Gore, however unsatisfying to the Naderites, was clearly a better choice than the current occupant of the White House.

Now the Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in the race for the nomination who seem more interested in tearing down Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush.

The truth — which one hopes voters will remember, whoever gets the nomination — is that the leading Democratic contenders share a lot of common ground. Their domestic policy proposals are similar, and very different from those of Mr. Bush.

--snip--

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?ex=1073624400&en=ad95bae4b759c899&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

I predict that Krugman will become vilified at DU quicker than Gore did.

[wndycty]

1. My favorite line. . .Clark may be more electable!!!

-snip-
But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark.
-snip-

[WillyBrandt]

2. Krugman is the King

He likes Dean, thinks Clark may be more electable.

Just as I see it. Is he (are we) ever wrong?

[wndycty]

5. Listen to Krugman he knows what he is talking about. . .LOL

:kick:

[caledesi]

28. Agree. Krugman is "da man." nt

[CWebster]

91. Were Clark the frontrunner...

and was attacked around the clock, not only from the dirty doings of the Right and their media mouthpiece, but from resentful Democratic rivals seeking desperately to muddy his chances, don't you think Clark would be the target of that "unelectible" drum-beat?

Krugman's point is none are immune from damage.

[Raya]

53. Worked for Jerry Brown '92. Know "Take Country Back" Didn't Come From Dean

If Governor Dean was a genuine "Take our Country Back" candidate,
I would support him to the end.

Jerry Brown helped create the environmental movement in California, he lived in a simple appartment rather that the Governor mansion to keep in touch with the people. He was ready to proposed radical and
controversial ideas if he believe it was good for the nation.

Jerry Brown spoke on any issue straight from his heart, no notes, no prompter.

Howard Dean is no way, no how, anything like Jerry Brown. It is
a horrible travesty to see him mouth the words, many of which I have
heard before, and know deep in my heart that is not for real.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

55. Do you still feel that way

After Brown, as mayor of Oakland, allowed his police force to fire on antiwar protestors with rubber bullets?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/12/iraq/main549056.shtml

If Dean is, as you say, nothing like Brown, then you've given me yet another reason to vote for him. Thanks!

EDIT: Added link

[stickdog]

67. Oakland mayor Jerry Brown stumped for Arnie.

Thank God Dean is better than that.

Also, Brown's 92 campaign manager seems to strongly disagree with you.

[BootinUp]

84. Seriously?

Brown was my governor way back when. I never could quite figure him out. Did he really do that? Anything on-line you could link to?

[dajabr]

9. It was a toss up due to paragraph # constraints...

Between including Krugman's allusion to Clark's slightly better numbers vs. Bush in some polls, or including that priceless last paragraph and last line...

[WillyBrandt]

13. I think it's clear he respects both of them

And he thinks that Clark and Dean come with their respective strengths and weaknesses.

And who can disagree with that assessment?

[mouse7]

25. I don't. n/t

Krugman nails it.

[MIMStigator]

35. I liked when he said Clark was the most electable too

eom

[Larkspur]

61. The word "possible" means that it's not a clear fact that Clark is more

electable than Dean.

If one looks at the polling history over the year, Dean rose from an asterick to the frontrunner. Clark's media hyped entry into the Prez race in September eclipsed Dean's lead a bit, but when it came to hard nose campaigning, Dean retook the lead over Clark in many polls and in the early primary polls.

Dean is an expert campaigner with his pulse on the Democratic electorate and an eye on the general election. That is why he is beating the pants of the Establishment Dems and that is also why Dean will prevail over Clark in the end.

Clark is a horrible campaigner. Saw him on C-Span the other day and he was pathetic.

[Scott Lee]

3. Ouch - that hit Kerry and Gephardt right between the eyes!

"This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president."

[dodgerartful]

6. Krugman has a tale there

and hits a few out of the park. I think its all over.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

4. How right he is

Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.

More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

absolutlely correct.

[LuminousX]

11. Dean's remarks

might also have been said to indicate that he won't be giving up his list of donors to the nominee. I for one am not a commodity that can be transferred. Dean gets my money because of who he is. All the others need to earn my trust and faith like Dean has done. I cannot be transferred.

Sorry to hijack the point of the thread.

Krugman. Woohoo.

[Skwmom]

64. Earn your trust and faith?

With the dishonesty Dean has displayed to date, how has he earned your trust and faith? Have we set the bar so low in this country?

[stickdog]

68. By always saying what needs to be said while almost everyone else

is hedging.

[mouse7]

77. Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman set the bar lower n/t

[mouse7]

27. Yep, Krugman went yard. n/t

[aquart]

7. Already emailed Krugman to thank him for a perfect essay.

[giantrobot_2000]

10. ...

Paul "The Voice" Krugman has spoken!

Clear the decks. EVERYONE knows it's Dean v. Clark at this point.

May the best man win!

[Jerseycoa]

12. I'm just gonna sit back

And watch. ;)

[chookie]

14. Krugman really nailed it, yet again

Very intelligent analysis by Krugman.

It's like Kerry and Lieberman are holding the election hostage -- that if they don't get the nomination, then NO DEMOCRAT is going to the White House.

There are those among us who have accused these guys -- perhaps unfairly -- of selling the American people out to Bush -- but gee, their tactics in the campaign really make you wonder, because they certainly are doing so now.

I used to admire these guys, but they have demonstrated incredibly poor judgement in their treatment of Howard Dean, who has excited more interest in his campaign than we have seen in this country for decades. Anyone dumb enough to piss off this enthusiastic, highly motivated base I would not trust with *any* important decision. Bad, very bad move, boys.

Dean simply has been very successful. Can you imagine how pointless this campaign would be, how pathetic it would be, if we did not have Howard Dean articulating our anger at what has been done to our country, calling things by their right names, like "lies"? Seems to me that they all took a cue from him, when they saw "the anger thing" was working, because previously they were all about getting along and being conciliatory. (I refer to the Pink Tutu Brigade, not Kucinich or Sharpton!!).

It's going to be Dean or Clark. Kerry and Lieberman better get wise and cut out this Nader bullshit, and not sabotage our best chances for retrieving the White House.

[dajabr]

16. Excellent analysis...

But I was not surprised that Kerry and Lieberman took this direction, since the DLC led the charge with their stupid attack on Dean Supporters back in July. It's a shame though, really. :-(

[Eric J in MN]

15. I didn't care the "vanity" reference to Nader in the first sentence.

Some editorial/op-ed writers create an artificial dichotomy. A candidate runs for one of two reasosn:
1) he has a good chance to win
2) vanity

There are other reasons to run for President, such as bringing attention to important issues.

If Clinton and Gore had been anti-NAFTA and regulated corporations more, there wouldn't have been a Nader candidacy.

It's one thing to say Nader shouldn't have run. It's another (bogus) thing to say he did it for "vanity." Nader has been fighting for liberal causes for decades.

[dajabr]

19. Good point, I noticed it and thought it unfair.

But, before Krugman put his sights on Bush, he was a centrist economist I believe. So, it might be a leap to think he would respond to Nader's candidacy any other way. But, on big picture B*sh Administration atrocities, he's usually right on.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

57. Krugman was never the darling of the left

The fact that he's now considered a far-left liberal by many is a sign of how far to the right Bush has pulled this country.

[spooky3]

81. Good point. Krugman is a slightly left of center moderate

who still apparently hasn't heard that using "he" to include women has been considered sexist for a long time, even in most academic circles in which he presumably interacts. This along with the absence of discussion of equal opportunity issues in his writing and what appears to be a very conventional marriage to a "trophy" wife suggests he is hardly "liberal" on many issues.

[HFishbine]

86. There can be a cost

to running for the purpose of bringing attention to important issues. How much of Nader's agenda has been advanced because of his run in 2000?

[Clark4VotingRights]

17. Sounds like Krugman, the Great Man, approves of Dean and Clark

And he, as always, makes great points.
I wonder if he'll end up endorsing either.

Among the many endoresment Dean has picked up are two
of the people I respect most:
Molly Ivins and John Conyers.
I frankly wanted them for Clark, but if Dean wins the
nomination then the approval of Ivins and Conyers will
be a huge comfort to me.

Among Clark's better endorsements:
Charlie Rangel.

Regardless, thank god for Krugman.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Maybe Krugman should replace McAuliffe

Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.

Exactly. That is the kind of thing that has to stop. Regardless of who is saying it. Such ground rules are just what is needed. That is why I believe Dean called on McAuliffe to establish them and why McAuliffe is remiss in not doing so.

More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

As Krugman points out earlier in the piece, you bet Bush will use it. And he may just be looking like the jackass he is if all hell is breaking loose in Iraq or Americans are being attacked by terrorists while on summer vacation. Since the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, it is difficult to see how it makes anyone safer from terrorists, or even how it is supposed to make anyone safer.

Otherwise, again as Krugman points out, if Dean isn't the nominee, the Bushies will play down and dirty with whoever is. The election will be close.

[Rose Siding]

58. Great minds, Jack

And just look at all of them now, trashing Krugman, our consistent paragon of Good Sense!

[Clark4VotingRights]

20. The actual title was "Who's Nader Now?"

eom

[mouse7]

21. I've been saying this since 1996 and the Contract on America

"It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads."

Any Dem who wins the nomination will be made out by Rove and the Neo-Cons to be way to the left of Lenin.

[chookie]

48. You're right. It's kinda a moot point

The Democratic Party could run Jesus Christ for President, with God the Father as his Vice Presidential running mate, and the Holy Ghost as the prospective Secretary of Defence -- and Rove would STILL vilify them in public.

This is going to happen. Which candidate is ready to face this onslaught? Jeepers -- if the Democrats have not already crafter a strategy to respond to this technique of lies and character assassination -- no one is going to oust these bastards! It's going to be one-party regressive aggressive authoritarian rule in America if we don't succeed at what might be our last chance to retain our heritage of democracy in America.

All this nit-picking about our candidates -- and look what George W Bush gets away with day after day after day!

Time to focus on the most critical and fateful election in American history.

[dajabr]

52. I really like this strategy...

--excerpted--

If the President tries to divide us by race, we're going to talk about health care for every American.

If Karl Rove tries to divide us by gender, we're going to talk about better schools for all of our children.

If large corporate interests try to divide us by income, we're going to talk about better jobs and higher wages for every American.

If any politician tries to win an election by turning America into a battle of us versus them, we're going to respond with a politics that says that we're all in this together - that we want to raise our children in a world in which they are not taught to hate one another, because our children are not born to hate one another.

More: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10881&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

[JI7]

22. that's fine

i disagree with what he says about kerry. i am a democrat and i support kerry for many reasons and he does a good job of answering questions and discussing the issues. i still like krugman though.

[Donna Zen]

23. Krugman's thought process:

But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark.

I hope someone is taking this seriously, because this is very importent. Krugman is looking at the demographics and the electoral map as well as the polls.

Do you want to win?

For me, it is also, do I want to elect a liberal.

[mouse7]

31. That's fine. Discussing issues is great.

We should be discussing issues. It's the crap like the Osama ad that has to stop.

[zulchzulu]

24. Krugman forgets a few minor details such as no vote has been cast yet...

The race in Iowa is pretty close and will be much closer than most are predicting. Dean has lost many percentage points in Vermont in the past three weeks; that race will be a lot closer than polls indicate. Momentum between the candidates can change as well.

Krugman lumping Kerry in as a "pro-war" candidate is simplistic laziness. Inferring that Kerry's straightening Dean's lies and half-truths and defending his record and the truth about Dean as being seen as GOP campaign scripting is also journalistic laziness.

No vote has been cast, yet Krugman thinks we all should take a vacation from the democratic process like he wants to.

[mouse7]

36. The Krugman demonizing process begins

That essay just got added to my favorites page. Expect to see quotes from it a whole lot.

...and their nothing lazy about calling Kerry pro-war. He was, and he proved it with his waffles immediately following the Kurd capture of Saddam.

[stickdog]

69. Yes, Krugman is pure evil.

Krugman eats babies, just like Gore and Ivins and Conyers.

[HFishbine]

90. Have you seen more recent polls

than the ones that show Dean with a 19 point lead over his closest competitors in IA and NH?

Iowa
------
Dean: 42%
Gephardt: 23%

http://www.surveyusa.com/2003_Elections/IA031211demcaucuses.pdf


NH
---
Dean: 37%
Kerry: 18%

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

[Cocoa]

26. he makes some good ponts and some bad ones

none very original.

But the comparison to Nader is way off. All the non-Dean candidates are spoilers? Nah, it's just an attention-getter, no real meaning.

[dajabr]

30. Really?

What other mainstream columnist have stood up against these Dem on Dem attacks in a similar way recently? Just give me a few, I'd like to add them to my bookmarked Primary 2004 articles.

[Cocoa]

51. here's a point Krugman got from me

I've made this point many times, which is why I agreed with Clark when he said it was a mistake to make the Iraq vote a litmus test:

Even on foreign policy, the differences are less stark than they may appear. Wesley Clark's critiques of the Iraq war are every bit as stinging as Mr. Dean's. And looking forward, I don't believe that even the pro-war candidates would pursue the neocon vision of two, three, many Iraq-style wars. Mr. Bush, who has made preemptive war the core of his foreign policy doctrine, might do just that.

[dajabr]

54. Um...are you a mainstream, nationally syndicated columnist?

Good for you if you are!

[Cocoa]

56. the candidates have made that point

Gephardt comes to mind, says Dean is exaggerating the war vote issue. Kerry has probably said similar.

[HFishbine]

92. Krugman reads your posts? (n/t)

[Eric J in MN]

32. I agree. While I'm no fan of Lieberman,

I agree. While I'm no fan of Lieberman, and don't like his recent anti-Dean remarks, he has a better chance than Nader at the Presidency.

And none of Kerry's criticisms of Dean were out-of-bounds.

Kerry rightfully points out that an amendment Dean supported would have permitted the Iraq War.

[mouse7]

42. Except... Kerry wrong. Dean didn't support Biden-Lugar

I have all kinds of pages of transcripts set to favorite to disprove that claim. Go ahead. Make that claim. Get your evidence ready.

[zulchzulu]

45. Dean DID support the Biden-Lugar amendment

Thomas Oliphant at the Boston Globe writes:

"One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later."

Story

Show me your transcripts that deny this story.

[mouse7]

79. There is no Dean quote in the Oliphant piece

I'll have no probs announcing that I was wrong about Dean and Biden-Lugar in a special thread just for that if you can produce a QUOTE from Dean that shows Dean supported Biden-Luger and a link to it. However, I've never seen the quote. I've seen Kerry claim Dean did with no quote. I've seen an LA Times article that claimed Dean supported Biden-Luger, with no Dean quote to support it. Now I've seen this article with no quote.

If you can show me the quote, fine.

Until I see the quote, it's just misleading spin off the 9/30 Face The Nation quote where Dean clearly said there was no imminent threat and was using a 30-60 day deadline in reference to if Iraq refused inspectors and the US had UN/NATO support.

[mouse7]

39. No real meaning? BWA-HA-HA

You're kidding, right?

[Cocoa]

43. fine with me

if you find value in a comparison between Ralph Nader and the non-Dean candidates, go right ahead, I think it's jibber jabber.

[stickdog]

70. It's not that all the non-Dean candidates are spoilers. It's that pro-Bush

Democratic criticisms of ANY Democratic candidate are sickenly and utterly dishonest.

[mzmolly]

29. Great article

Thanks for sharing.

[MIMStigator]

33. Favorite line, "it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero"

eom

[Hep]

75. It would be nice if I had a pony.

BFD

[KittyWampus]

85. Your Having A Pony Would Have No Effect On Election 2004

EOM

[Hep]

89. How do you know?

I could ride my pony naked through the streets of Columbia SC. That could change things.

Point is, it would be nice, but it's far from necessary. Far from vital. We'll win anyway, and the doom and gloom bitterness of Dean opponents doesn't cut through our energy, conviction, and perserverence. As you ought to well know by now. In fact, I'm kinda surprised that the Dean Opponents haven't gotten it by now. Maybe they all need to play a thousand games of tic tac toe at a high speed.

[CWebster]

94. it would be nice

If Clark had a political history and record in the Democratic party before launching a presidential bid against the very lowest Repuke life-form, for which he had glowing praises for just months ago.

[paulk]

34. Paul Krugman is my favorite pundit

but that doesn't make him right all the time. It upsets me that he feels candidates should start dropping out before the voters have spoken.

I'm really disappointed by this article.

[Eric J in MN]

37. Krugman doesn't say they should drop out, just that they

He doesn't say they should drop out, just that they shouldn't call Dean "unelectable" or imply that Bush is better.

[MIMStigator]

38. he called Clark more electable but didn't say Dean is un-electable

nt

[dsc]

40. actually he called Clark

possibly more electable.

[dajabr]

41. Krugman included the word "possible" in relation to Clark...

But why quibble with the guy's ACTUAL words?

He endorsed Clark too, right?

[paulk]

44. he implies it in the last sentence

He certainly seems to be saying that only clark and dean have a chance.

[stickdog]

71. Of course you are. Because he didn't say that, and because you know that

what he actually said was 100% accurate.

[cindyw]

46. What is Krugman referring to in regards to Kerry?

He ties Kerry to Lieberman, but only points out comments by Lieberman.

I have heard nothing by Kerry that was not a simple pointing out of differences.

What is really sad is that Krugman broke a journalistic rule and one that he strictly adheres to. He makes repeated claims that Kerry did something wrong and yet he offers no examples. Very sad.

[dsc]

47. Kerry called Dean's judgement

lacking for claiming we were not safer after Saddam's capture. I don't recall the exact wording but it pretty much called Dean unfit.

[dajabr]

49. "pretty much called Dean unfit"

And, didn't he actually say earlier in the Campaign that Dean was, "Unfit to serve" as President? Not good.

[zulchzulu]

50. Krugman's journalistic laziness is the feature in the article

Krugman lumps Kerry with Lieberman even though Kerry's views on the IWR were not nearly as hawkish as Lieberman's (or Gephardt's).

For someone who seems to distill the notion that Kerry defending his record against Dean is merely GOP attack material, he comes across as someone with the same journalistic tendencies that a Newsmax shill might spew.

[Rose Siding]

62. Comparing Paul Krugman to a "Newsmax shill"?

Alex, I'll take least likely remarks on DU for 800, please.

[zulchzulu]

63. Krugman's playing the "Don't Attack Dean" card...it's so last year

Anyone who plays the "Don't Attack Dean*" card because Bush will use that for his attacks is completely missing the point.

99% of the time, it's Dean's own mouth that gets him in trouble.

For Krugman to play the DAD* card is putting himself in the same journalistic sandbox as any Newsmax shill, imo.

[HFishbine]

93. And the answer is...

The Daily Double!

[stickdog]

72. Krugman is pure evil. Did you know he eats babies, just like Dean? (nt)

[KittyWampus]

87. Of Course, NOONE Said Krugman Eats Babies

and yet, this is the 2nd time in this thread you've posted this rather than rebute a valid point.

[mouse7]

80. No, you seem to have negelected reading it

Krugman lumped them together because Kerry and Lieberman attacks on Dean after Saddam captured and Dean said US wasn't safer were out of bounds, inferring Dumbya was a better candidate than Dean because of Dean suggestion that the capture of Saddam (by the Kurds) didn't immediately solve all the world's problems.

Lets not forget Ridge was on the platform within 7 days elevating the national threat level making all the neo-cons, Lieberman, and Kerry look like complete idiots.

[robbedvoter]

59. Glad you like it. I am sure you saw this paragraph too:

That's not to say that a candidate's qualifications don't matter: it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero. But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark.

[dajabr]

60. Yes I did...

I'm sure you'd like it better if the word "possible" was not there. :-)

My post on why it was not included in the original post is toward the top of the thread.

[Polemonium]

65. Krugman as usual puts it better than I would have

What is a house divided? Hope we all come out of the other end of this together.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Nope

I always respect what Paul Krugman writes, and I can't say that I find anything in that article that I disagree with.

I bet he doesn't get vilified nearly as quickly or vehemently as Josh Marshall was here on DU.

[stickdog]

73. Marshall is obviously a Clark supporter.

Krugman is simply stating the obvious, as usual.

[KittyWampus]

88. Prove Josh Is A Clark Supporter

[flpoljunkie]

74. Krugman gives Dean a pass for oft repeated derisive remarks...

To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.
__________________

How can a remark that Dean has repeated endlessly be considered to be "careless"? Let's not forget Dr. Dean's lumping his opponents in with the "cockroaches" in Congress and frequently referring to them as "Washington Democrats".

Krugman is bending over backwards to protect Dean from his own mouth--an endless task, in Dr. Dean's case.

Weak, Mr. Krugman.

[Hep]

76. Nice!

Now watch the Dean opponents try to poke Krugman's eyes out.

[demsrule1]

78. What we need to do as a party

is to stand united. We can't expect to win this if we mud sling each other! All the candidates have one thing in common- they're better than the shrub!

[Le Taz Hot]

82. (Hijacking thread for a sec.)

Welcome to DU, demsrule! :hi:

[newyawker99]

99. Hi demsrule1!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[demsrule1]

100. Thanksnewyawker99!

Glad to be here!

[BootinUp]

83. The article's ok, as another effort

towards party unity. Seems that's what everyone is concerned about these days. Even though the convention is way off in the future. IMHO, the attacks by Kerry, Gep, Liebermen, have been less than pretty. But when you have a candidate like Dean who has mastered the art of the spin (with regard to his positions vs. his opponents) then you are going to have these kinds of battles. So I see it as a two way street.

[bloom]

95. Anyone who wants to vilify Krugman is probably in denial

about themselves.

[Armstead]

96. Kirugman does it again

From the article:

"It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along...."

Unfortuntaly the other Democrats are playing along with Rove.

[John_H]

97. Villify? Why? He says Clark has a better chance of winning! Paul is right

As per usual.

[quaker bill]

98. Your prediction was correct

Shoot the messenger time.