"Democratic candidates are playing a dangerous game"

[Padraig18]

Democratic candidates are playing a dangerous game
By PAUL KRUGMAN
01/04/2004

Some suggest Bush is better than their rivals.

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 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 President George W. Bush...

<snip>


Yet some of Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that may as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. It's true that if 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 Sen. 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...

<snip>

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Lieberman and Kerry have reminded us why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel 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.

That means this is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.

@Copyright The New York Times

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial+%2F+Commentary/2E189204C98E447E86256E10003E04FC?OpenDocument&Headline=POLITICS+Democratic+candidates+are+playing+a+dangerous+game

WELL SAID! :thumbsup:

[maddezmom]

1. yes so true

just as some candidates supporters are playing a dangerous game. I think you could find a minority in all camps. :)

[Padraig18]

3. I agree.

Frankly, I believe that the vast majority of us, regardless of which candidate we support, are focused on the main issue: defeating * and his evil cabal of neo-fascists. Obviously, we would all prefer that 'our candidate' win the nomination, but MOST of us are not so myopically focused on that goal that we are willing to mortally wound any of the other candidates also in the running. In short, 90+% of us understand that we must keep our focus on the forest, and not upon individual trees.

:hi:

[cyclezealot]

4. I agree

We are approaching the age we have to worry about the 55-65 age group where your employer does not want you and Social Secutity won't give you medical coverage. That is MY Issue...Dean.s policies about jobs going overseas and health care just does not cut it..
He might get my vote but not answer my prime issues my money and time might be better spent going to "Physicians for National Heath Care," over Dean..
Not answer my prime issues, his importance has far less significance to me...Neo nazi's won't give me health care, neither will dean..Just more tax credit crap and afraid to take on Aetna and the others who steal our money and give us nothing in return.

[lcordero]

2. This is what they get for not opposing from the very start

[patricia92243]

5. Fringe candidates have the right to run-even though they are polling

single digits. Some of why they keep on slogging away has to be ego- which is alright - as long as "they do no harm". They can tear down Bush and any other republican candidate at the top of their lungs - BUT - DO NOT HARM OTHER DEMOCRATS!!

[maddezmom]

6. I agree with you

they say things that need to be said that other candidates either won't say or are afraid to say.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. this is why I love Krugman

He always "gets it".

[Padraig18]

8. Yes, he does.

:hi:

[xchrom]

9. what i like about this article

is that it's about how the dean campaign went after the bush and his admin.
it makes it less about the indivudual and more about what the grass roots are looking for and that they have remembered details from 00 and 02.
the people in the street can see there is a problem with dem establishment leadership -- it's the leadership who are not listening.

[jonoboy]

10. for God's sake Dems need to be united now more than ever

[blm]

11. Maybe because MOST of the party wants someone OTHER than Dean?

And Dean makes MOST of us cringe with his campaign built on deception?

Because Dean attacked freely for many months and now has shown himself to be a whiner when the attacks are reciprocated?

No...we don't think Dean is worse than Bush. We do think he is more like Bush than any other candidate.

[jonnyblitz]

12. and this information you are sharing is based on what?

Is there some poll you saw that sites this? If so provide us a link to it if you feel so confident as to deem yourself the spokesperson for MOST of the party. :puke:

[rucky]

13. Has ANY nonincumbent candidate ever polled over 50% B4 Iowa?

[Padraig18]

16. Who died and appointed YOU spokesman for the Democratic party?

The last time I looked, blm, there were NINE candidates, so it should hardly be surprising that Dean doesn't have 50.1% of the party's support--- yet. :eyes:

[windansea]

14. errrr...Paul..about this point

"Yet some of Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that may as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. It's true that if Dean gets the nomination the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security."

Rove could attack Clark for being a liberal...but it would be tough to call a former Supreme Commander weak on defense...

[Padraig18]

17. They'll smear anyone and everyone.

makes no difference WHO we run, the KKKarl Rove smear machine will be in high gear.

[polpilot]

15. The attacks on Dean are the result of the same minds that ran such inept

campaigns: They are not bright enough to draw a distinction between themselves and their congressional bed mates and cannot effectively attack Bush's policies. Summary: With the exception of Dean they will all lose to Bush. Bush doesn't need a complex game plan against Kerry/Gep/Lieb...just well they supported the war...supported tax cuts...and believe in me. WHY CHANGE NOW???

With Clark as the nominee it would be a bit different. The Repubs would concede a fair share of the 'Terror Votes' and in the end win 56/44.

Every day is a new day as the 'sit around the table drinking $60 scotch crowd' DECIDE the election.

TODAY the winning ticket is Dean/Clark which has changed from Dean/Graham in the last 45 days. Why?? Repubs have proven in the last 45 days that they will mount a Hitler propanganda style 'TERROR ALERT' that, I believe, gives them an additional 5%-10% of the vote firmly in their corner with or without a terror strike. They win both ways.( i.e. #1-'See there are terrorists tryin to kill ya' or #2 'See, we stopped the terrorists from killing ya'

Dean/Clark is the today ticket like it or not. I'm not pleased with it by a loooong shot but that's the way it is. The Clinton crowd will continue to roll Clark out in front of Dean with the 'I won't play 2nd fiddle crap. etc. etc. but ALL demos better grow up quick or we're looking at 4 more years.

Dean '04...

[Padraig18]

18. Kick