Dems and Pukes both think Dean's Clinton comment is a laughable.

[Renew Deal]

I was watching inside politics and Crossfire today. Both showed Dean's comment about Clinton. All sides thought Dean's comment is laughable. Nofax instantly picked up that Dean is for big governement and raising taxes. Yesterday I heard Hannity saying that gov't has become too large as it is under Bush*. There are also studies out there saying that gov't under Bush* is larger than ever.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. The problem that Dems had with Dean's comment is that he is challenging Clinton when Clinton is considered the most succesful Dem president in 50 years.

My view, gov't is too big. The only expansion of gov't I want is related to health care and possibly crime prevention (though I would support DK's Dept of Peace or Clarks Dept. of Foreign Affairs). Otherwise I am for cuts or controls. For Dean to say that gov't isn't big enough is irresponsible and insane. How much more gov't do we need in our lives. How about fixing the institutions we have insead of building new one's? What do you all think? Also, what do you think should be expanded and cut?

Here are Howie's words...

"While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party—not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families. … I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract. We need to provide certain basic guarantees to all those who are working hard to fulfill the promise of America."

[quinnox]

1. Dean stumbles over words again

Why is this man so clumsy when it comes to the english language?

That statement is a mess, I can't tell what the hell Dean* was trying to say.

[Melinda]

5. The statement appears to be a "mess" because its quoted incorrectly

See the ellipsis?

Here is what Dr. Dean actually said, with the seemingly deliberately omitted text in bold:

While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic party not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families.

I reject the notion that damage control must be our credo. I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract. We need to provide certain basic guarantees to all those who are working hard to fulfill the promise of America.

The full contextual statement, if you care to take the time to read it, is here:

Keeping the Promise of America

[HFishbine]

50. Check with Bleachers

He apparently had no trouble understanding what Dean was trying to say -- even managed to rephrase the whole point.

[a_random_joel]

2. Sounds good to me.

Republicans don't want to end big government. They just say they want to. The govt. has grown under *.

And we do need a new era. I totally agree with the good Dr. If YOU don't need new services from the govt. good for you. 3 cheers for your prosperity, but guess what pal, not everyone is as fortunate as you.

I am so sick of the ME-ME-ME attitude. Pukes repeat it constantly -AND IT'S A BUNCH OF CRAP!!!

I especially love hypocritical pukes like one of my Mom's friends who gets money from HUD, Social Security because her ex doesn't pay child support, and works as a bartender. SHe typically pulls in 200 a nite in tips on weekend nights - tips which are frequnetly under-reported as her income. Then she complains that taxes are too high, and the government is too big!

Or my friend at work, who says the govt. spends too much, but gets financial aid for his college - even though the company we work for offers educational assistance(which is what I am using). He has the
gall to complain about too much spending even though he makes a personal choice to NOT take the private aid.

I have many similar stories about hypocritical pukes.

Nothing laughable about Dr. Dean's statement, IMO.

[Renew Deal]

7. The gov't has helped me for sure.

The credits I get for College loans and unemployment are great. I get the hypocrisy and the "Me" attitude. I recently had an argument with a woman about how welfare doesn't work, but she was laid off from the welfare admin job she had. I think she was laid off because she was ineffective. She was preaching about gov't giving away too much money but was collecting unemployment.

We need to strike a balance between supporting people and giving the house away. I think the problem here is Dean's statement. It is big and broad. That leads to broad statements about Dean being a big gov't liberal from people (like me) that would otherwise support him.

[a_random_joel]

15. The only balance that needs to be struck

is the one that highlights Republican incompetence and hypocrisy.

The problem is not whether Dean is a big govt. liberal or not. The problem is helping people understand the true nature of liberalism.

I hope Howard is called a liberal, and I hope he stands up and says - "Hell Yeah! I'm a Liberal!" As he intends to tell Southern voters, "You've been voting Republican for 30 years - what have you got to show for it?"

That's the problem here. We need to redefine the word liberal, and make sure people know the Republicans are sticking it to them.

The biggest lie is the "giving the house away" - crap. The only place the house is being given away too is corporations, cronies and 1% of the population.

That multi-billion dollar no-bid contract given to Halliburton(the one that still wasn't good enough, so they had to overcharge)? And you're complaining about Dean's version of "Big Government?" You know how many mouths that would feed!?

[BootinUp]

3. Thing is

he doesn't really mean it...but that won't stop the repugs come the GE.

And as far as my views on the size of Government...I remember how much work Al Gore and Bill Clinton did to remove waste and fix welfare in our federal government. Well there's still plenty of fix'n to do. So basically I agree with you.

On the other hand I do want to see increased regulation on large corporations and the stock market. And I don't necessarily mean new laws, but proper enforcement of existing laws first.

Also, healthcare must be addressed, I like Clark's plan, it has been reviewed by a third party and comes out ranked at the top for how many people will be covered per cost. And it addresses the imbalance between catastrophic care and preventative care.

And do something about the mega-media bastard corporations!

[Padraig18]

4. Who were the Democrats, and what did they say?

I'm amazed that any Democrat would ridicule Dean's comments. Sure you heard them correctly?

[a_random_joel]

8. I agree.

Considering every horse in this race has a plan for expanding health care coverage, and even the Clinton's tried to pass expanded Health care...

2+2=5?

[Renew Deal]

9. Begala for one

I don't remember his words, but he went on to defend Clinton as the most succesful president of his life. There was also someone on IP that I don't remember.

[Padraig18]

11. His words matter, don't you think?

I can't believe that Begala 'ridiculed' Dean; disagreed , maybe, but not ridiculed-- no way. Nofax and Hannity ridicule Democrats--not Begala.:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

13. He didn't ridicule Dean

he defended Clinton

[Melinda]

14. "All sides thought Dean's comment is laughable"

laughable:

Causing or deserving laughter or derision.

derision:

Contemptuous or jeering laughter; ridicule.
A state of being derided: The proposal was held in derision by members of the board.
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

16. Then why did you say that the Democrat found it 'laughable'?

Defending Clinton is quite different from saying that Begala found Dean's comment 'laughable', don't you agree?

[Renew Deal]

19. I guess you had to see it.

[Padraig18]

20. Maybe, but I still don' believe Begala found Dean's statement 'laughable'

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

21. I found the name of the other guy.

He was the DLC guy: Al From (spelling). They were talkign about Dean. He also defended Clinton.

[Padraig18]

22. I would expect them to defend Clinton.

What I would not expect from either Begala or Fromm is any remark which could be characterized as finding Dean's statement 'laughable'. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find the subject line of the initial post troublesome because of the use of the word 'laughable'.

[Renew Deal]

23. That was my impression.

I didn't use quotation marks. That was the way I took it.

[Melinda]

24. Crossfire transcript:

Maybe you can find the "laughable" references cause I surely can't:

NOVAK: So, Howard Dean is preaching, the bigger government, the better. Take that, Bill Clinton. All you did was become the first Democrat reelected president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. But Dr. Dean is back to tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect -- well, we'll see about that.

BEGALA: Well, we will see. So far, he's run the best campaign of any of these candidates.

I am at a loss, as a veteran strategist, to understand, though, why you would take a cheap shot at the most popular Democrat in America, Bill Clinton, and, by my lights, the most successful president of my lifetime. I think this doesn't make sense for Dean to do this.

NOVAK: I wouldn't call him the most successful president of a lifetime. He's certainly the most successful president between the two Bushes. But...

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

(BELL RINGING)

BEGALA: But Democrats -- Democrats think that.

NOVAK: But I would say this, Paul, that Howard Dean is a smart aleck. And some day, it's going to get him in trouble.

BEGALA: Well, being a smart aleck has worked pretty well for me so far, so I'm going to keep with it.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/19/cf.00.html

[Renew Deal]

26. Thanks

You found it for me...

BEGALA: Well, we will see. So far, he's run the best campaign of any of these candidates.

I am at a loss, as a veteran strategist, to understand, though, why you would take a cheap shot at the most popular Democrat in America, Bill Clinton, and, by my lights, the most successful president of my lifetime. I think this doesn't make sense for Dean to do this.

[Melinda]

27. Again, context is everything.

You inserted an ellipsis in your first post, thus eliminating the key part of Dr. Dean's statement. Crossfire did the same thing - they cut the clip off before Dr. Dean's full statement was played. Again, the statement, with the part you eliminated in bold:

While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic party not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families.

I reject the notion that damage control must be our credo. I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract. We need to provide certain basic guarantees to all those who are working hard to fulfill the promise of America.

Now Begala said two things here, and his context too leaves somehting to be desired:

"I am at a loss, as a veteran strategist, to understand, though, why you would take a cheap shot at the most popular Democrat in America, Bill Clinton, and, by my lights, the most successful president of my lifetime."

The above was about Clinton and said directly to Nofacts.

The second part of that lousy sentence was in response to:

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I think we have to enter a new era for the Democratic Party.

"I think this doesn't make sense for Dean to do this."

That was Begala's response to that tiny blurb - and Begala's response makes little sense to me... is that the laughable part?

[demgrrrl2004]

6. Please, Please, end Dean's lead!

Dems, we've got to wake up and stop supporting Dean. He's going to be the end of our party!

[BootinUp]

10. Welcome to DU demgrrrl! n/t

[Melinda]

12. Thank you! I'm convinced now for sure!!

:eyes:

[Bozola]

17. If you define the party as

those spineless guys like McAulffie, Lieberman, and Daschle; I say the more power to him.

[a_random_joel]

18. As a new Dean convert

I am totally and completely going to assume you are being sarcastic.

If not, perhaps you are in need of taking a better look at Mr. Dean as a candidate.

BTW, whose your horse in this race?

[Kanola]

43. Oh yeah I am convinced also

that is mighty convincing rhetoric there. You may want to try and give reasons why and try to back them up with good arguments. Still, unless you possess a crystal ball you are just speculating..

[windansea]

25. more comments on this from DLC

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252272

[jonnyblitz]

29. Thanks for posting. I am beginning to like Dean more and more

if he is pissing off both the GOP and the DLC DINOS!! :toast:

[neuvocat]

63. Yeah let Dean keep it up

and then see what kind of support he would get if he were to be nominated.

I don't care at all for the DNC/DLC but they still have a lot of influence, and you know how the party treats people if they happen to lose.

Bring up the contributions from polipundit.com and he's done for.

[BootinUp]

32. Yes thanks for posting

if this keeps up Howard will do all Clark's work for him...Clark will be seen as the sensible smart nominee that also has a progressive platform and strong national sec credentials.

[govegan]

28. Fascism is not only a BIG government, as in Big Brother,

but it is an OPRESSIVE government. The government ruled by the putrescent poltroon on pennsylvania avenue is beyond big. It's goal is to smother the life's blood of its citizenry, translating the sweat of their brows into gold for corporate profiteers.

Democracy is so little valued, and so denigrated, that it is nothing but a third-rate excuse for a war sold under false pretences.

Liberty is something to be sneered at, as in "a free society has no need for weapons of mass destruction (but pardon me while I build the biggest and most nefarious weapons that my devious and cruel imagination can devise.)"

Democrats who join in the denigration of democracy are just as shameful as their neofascist counterparts.

Nothing wrong with Howie's words here.

[Democrats unite]

30. Have you all not learned yet?

There is zero tolerance about anything against Dean, facts don't matter, who says what doesn't matter, it all gets settled by it's been debunked 100,000 times already (of course with no links.)

Sound a lot like the Bush camp if you ask me.

[Sean Reynolds]

31. The only Dems that have attacked Dean have been DLCers....

If you're being attacked by the DLC, you're doing something right, IMO.

[Scott Lee]

33. More manure from the Establishment

Which makes not a whit of difference to me.

[Renew Deal]

34. That's your radio station?

The guy said Scott Lee. That's you? Is it a recorded show or is it live? Thanks

[LiberalBushFan]

35. a big Gore mistake

was distancing himself from Clinton. Most Democrats, including most current Deanies, agreed this was a big mistake. Now we do it again, but I guess since we've found the messiah it's all good.

[BootinUp]

37. yep

nice summary! Onward men (picture the scene from Glory with Matthew Broderick, they are charging Ft. Sumter with great bravery but no chance for victory)

[patricia92243]

36. Dean's comments are true, Dems are to NEVER laugh at other Dems

[rucky]

38. Omygod, Dean sounds....progressive

Dean is so wrong. Let's just do damage control. let's NOT provide basic guarantees to working people.

Clinton says one era of government is over. Bush makes government bigger than ever. Dean proposes a new era of government. What's the problem with Dean's statement, here? I think you're reading too much into it.

[clarknyc]

39. They're reaching

It's Anybody But Dean at this point. Why? The answer escapes me...

[HFishbine]

53. It's emotional - can't blame them really

Think about it. You invest your time, money and energy in a candidate, he becomes a part of you. The anomosity towards Dean is completely understandable, if not short-sighted. Dems are tired of losing and at the moment, a Dean win would feel like another loss for a number of dems. (In the long run, it wouldn't be of course, but we'll get to that bridge soon enough.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. What's laughable is watching the RW's &DLC squirm.

As to your comments about "government" being too big and your desire to "cut" it.

Like what? I'd like to see massive cuts in defense and subsidies to business. Beyond that, not much. I would like to see expansions in Education, Health, Welfare, the Environment, infrastrture, etc.

"Cut Government" sounds nice. Reagan made his career blaming "government" for all the ills of America. The Goober-in-Chief is going even further, defunding and privatizing to plump up the wallets of his wealthy pals.

So, tell me, what do you want to "cut"? Do you think turning over the country to the tender mercies of the corporate bosses, like bush is doing, is a good idea?

[BootinUp]

42. What should be cut you ask

how about some pork?

how about a lot of pork?

did I mention pork?



You say you want to expand welfare. I hope that doesn't mean returning to the policy where high school girls get to decide whether to stay in school or get pregnant for a living. And don't say that isn't what it was in the 70's and 80's I saw it first hand.

I am for democratic party issues, I support most all the policies Dean and Clark have presented details on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Pork? Ok. Like what?

Easy to say. And, there is plenty of pork to cut. But, even eliminating it wouldn't amount to all that much. You said that "government was too big". What parts of government would you cut?

High school girls choosing pregnancy or school? Spare me. How many millions of HS girls are robbing us blind by living off welfare rather than going to school? That would be a very small drop in a very large bucket compared to the amount wasted on arms programs, or the tax breaks and "incentives" given to corporations so they can pay their CEO's hundreds of millions per year.

When I'm talking about expanding welfare, I'm talking about aid to people who are crippled, who need aid to rise above their circumstances, children without parents, the working stiffs in low paid jobs that can't afford to educate their kids or pay the rent.

"Welfare Reform" has taken people off of welfare and supplied them to industry to do the shit work at minimum wage. The corporations love it. They have instant strikebreakers who have to work to live.

So, what "Big Government" programs would you cut? The EPA? SEC? State? Interior?

Sure there are BillyBob congressman who want to erect statues to Dolly Parton, or put a road between Dogturd and East Flat Rock and stuff like that could be cut. It won't be because politicians have to bring home the bacon. But call such antics "Big Government" smells of Limbaugh's, or the libertarian's use of anecdotes to justify their support of laissez-faire capitalism.

[BootinUp]

59. Theres two main points I want to make

Number one, to cut pork and other wasteful govt spending takes leadership, leadership that can work with congress not divide it. It takes leadership that is not connected to special interests.

Number two, this thread was about rhetoric and how the wrong kind of rhetoric will cost us the general election. I wouldn't be here supporting a candidate like I am if I didn't believe in democratic social programs, I do, my candidate has an excellent detailed plan to Turn Around America. But when you use big government rhetoric like Dean and scare off the middle of the road Americans then this battle won't be won in the end. QuakerBill says that this is a movement that could have longer term beneficial effects. I don't know, I want to win next year.

My point about the Welfare program is valid. If you don't think that welfare needed some reforms in the early 90's, then let me tell you what I know. When I was young and moved out of my folks house, I lived in Los Angeles for a year. It wasn't the nice part of LA. I met my wife during that time. She had lived there all her life. Many of the young girls she knew from shool had made that decision to go on welfare. I asked how can they decide to go on welfare? Well they get pregnant. It was that simple. How many and at what cost? I don't have the numbers. I can tell you it was ingrained in a segment of the population in LA and surely in other similar parts of the country.

I am with you in the battle against huge corporations that only take care of the CEO's the board of directors and don't give a sh*t about their workers. I am with you on taking care of our disabled. I am with you on raising Americans out of poverty. The bottom line is it takes tough decisions and leadership to get it done right. Rhetoric by itself ain't worth squat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. So, you're saying that the difference between Dean & Clark is

the rhetoric used? I became a Dean supporter because of the rhetoric he uses. As I see it, he is the candidate who attacks the republican BS head on. I have nothing against Clark, or his programs. And, if he should win the nomination I will most likely support him. Just as I will "most likely" support Dean if he wins. So, it seems, that we merely have a disagreement on which candidate is more likely to beat the dipshit-in-chief and what strategy to use.

As for the H.S. girls opting for pregnancy over education in L.A. it sounds more like an urban legend. Somewhat like Reagan's famous "Welfare Queens in Cadillacs". I was born and raised in L.A. - all over L.A. - and, I'm sure that there are girls who do just what you say. But, I'm also sure that they are a miniscule portion of the girls there. And, if questioned, they would have a plentitude of further reasons beyond "I'm going to get pregnant so I can go on welfare." In fact, I would think that the problem lies not in "too much" welfare or "too many government programs", but too little support for education and opportunity.

I don't believe that the American people are all that dismayed by the truth and will support a candidate who unapologetically tells it.

[BootinUp]

62. For the most part yes

Dean and Clark published policies are very similar or have very similar goals. I understand why Dean is doing well with many democrats. But I also know that Fox News and MSNBC, and most other News organzations are going to pull out videos of our candidate during the general election and this stuff is going to be used against him. It is important that the candidates don't kill their chances of winning by their statements in the primary season.

On urban legends, I would just say that I am not trying to create one, but that there are people who abuse social programs, and that for the programs to help the right people there needs to be in place the right kind of controls. On opportunity and education issues I think we agree.

[quaker bill]

41. This is a poorly informed critique

"Some Democrats have accepted the Republican notion that the Social Contract cannot be preserved, let alone made stronger."

See the above post for evidence.

[Renew Deal]

44. I said it.

I put this out before all of the Dean\CLinton articles started pouring in. Dean needs to learn how to control his mouth. He is about 10 SAT points higher than Bush on the English part.

[arewethereyet]

45. it was poorly worded

the concept was OK but the presentation was, as is typical with him, flawed to where it hurts him and muddies the message.

the guy needs to at least co-write his speaches with a professional. He can still be pissed off but will stopp putting his foot in his mouth.

[Julien Sorel]

46. It's clumsy, but I will give him credit for actually

adding some kind of teeth to his formerly empty rhetoric about being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and Bush-lite and all the rest of his crap. If he hadn't destroyed my trust a long time ago, I would actually think he's turned a new leaf; however, he did destroy my trust. Moreover, he has to know this stuff would never get past a Republican-controlled Congress anyway, and floating legislation he knows has no chance of passing the legislature is
an old Dean standard. Why should anyone believe he wouldn't pull the same trick during a primary?

All that being said, if he puts this kind of plan front and center in his campaign, gets the nomination, and goes down swinging, then at least he will not have been nominated in vain -- he would actually end up having stood for some values, some blueprint that the party can stand behind for the future. Without such a blueprint, a Dean nomination would be Goldwater without conservatism: a big defeat in exchange for nothing.

So I, for one, will give him half a credit for this. It's simply too bad the guy's too untrustworthy at this point to read much into it.

[quaker bill]

47. Goldwater went down swinging

But spawned the Reagan Revolution, the adverse effects of which we are still dealing with today.

The intent of the campaign is obviously to win. I am not sufficiently prescient to predict the results at this point and do not buy into anyone's armchair analysis of how all this will turnout.

Dean's concept of activating the base and recruiting very large numbers of volunteers/contributors is sound. It is also their clear intent to share the wealth (money and volunteers) down the ticket. The campaign intends to change the political dialog in this country. If he wins, he clearly wants to take a lot of people with him.

The attempt has so far taken a more or less nationally unknown Ex-Govenor of small state a very long way. Does it have the gas to go the distance? We will see.

Your concern about a republican congress is valid for any democratic candidate, should they win. Clinton suffered under a cloud of complete BS because of this. The republicans in congress will attack any Democratic victor in many of the same ways, given they remain in power. The reps have worked redistricting hard to give them the best chance of retaining control. Only a grassroots revolution that defies all their predictions for turnout and swing voter behavior could pull it off.

This sort of election result is not unprecedented, just rare. Political scientists call them 'realigning elections'. Writers well versed in this science suggest that the ideological divide in the country is sharp enough for such a realignment to happen. The better writers I have read suggest that this type of outcome is entirely likely and that the demographics and polling stack the odds somewhat in our favor now.

As volatile as the environment is, most caveat their conclusions heavily and refuse to even attempt to predict the outcome.

I see Dr. Dean's attempt to redefine the terms of the debate as a potentially powerful step in this direction. It has the brashness that Gore's campaign lacked. The theme 'These are our ideas, we are going to run on them and not apologise for them or repackage them' is solid.

[SahaleArm]

48. Too late - He's already in backtrack mode...

Dean on Damage-Control Mission:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/politics/campaigns/20DEAN.html?ex=1072501200&en=73b3d4a80d5f0e84&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Dean Affirms His Ties to Clinton:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems20dec20,1,5870676.story?coll=la-home-politics

[robbedvoter]

51. I am sure his followers will find "guts and glory" about it too...

It's only called flip-flopping when it comes from candidates W doesn't want to run against

[robbedvoter]

52. As a Big Dog supporter, this groveling cheers me up:

The campaign also said Dean had supported Clinton's presidential agenda, fought for the Clinton health-care program that was soundly defeated, and that Dean had already declared that if elected, he would ask Clinton to be his Middle East envoy. The campaign distributed on-the-record statements Dean had made lauding Clinton, reaching back to 1998 and also offered three more recent examples, and three recent statements Clinton made speaking well of Dean.

[quaker bill]

54. oops, poor reading of the article and speech.

"I reject the notion that damage control must be our credo. I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract."

The context is different, the time is different. There is nothing about the speech that says both approaches, the one used by Clinton at the time and the one proposed by Dean now are not correct in their respective social/political contexts.

It is not 1992 anymore. Change is appropriate.

The sort of analysis and understanding that dictates that there are 'absolute truth' policies that are inviolate for all time is silly and absurd. The statement "I believe what we must do now is this' does not imply 'What we should have done back then was that'.

As usual, the critique does not bear up to logical scrutiny.

[SahaleArm]

55. What are you talking about? Dean's in post-speech spin control mode n/t

[Julien Sorel]

61. So it's just Dean being Dean again.

What an utter charlatan.

Here was a line I found interesting from the NYT article:

On Friday, Jeremy Ben-Ami, a deputy policy director in Mr. Clinton's first term, called former colleagues to say that he had written those lines for Dr. Dean and that they had been misinterpreted.

Yet you will hear people claim Dean writes his own speeches, has no handlers, blah blah blah. As with almost everything else that comes from that camp, such claims turn out to be arrant bullshit.

In all honesty, after reading the original speech, as poorly-worded as it was, I was ready to cut Dean some slack: I don't really agree with what he was saying, but at least he had some kind of policy agenda that backed his rhetoric, some kind of vision, something besides negativity to offer. Watching him frantically backtrack just makes me despise him all the more; seeing how all these claims about him writing his own speeches are false makes me laugh at his supporters for their naivete and/or disingenuousness.

[robbedvoter]

49. *D is the uniter! Getting R's and D's to agree on clinton? Wow!

I am impressed. Trully!

I bookmarked this. All the "attaboy"s followed by the final surrender! I can't wait for the rationalizations - why this was gutsy, and honest and admirable!

[Auntie Bush]

57. Clark is on C-Span now (9:50 AM EST)

[LizW]

58. They don't agree on Clinton

The DLC and the Repugs share fear of a Dean presidency. Another reason he's getting my vote.