Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[FreeperSlayer]

1. Dean = Dukakis

You mean THAT divide?
Some of us are old enough to remember losing to Bush I.

[Don Claybrook]

3. How charming

I think it's possible that you completely misunderstood the point of the thread. Or maybe you didn't but you just wanted to get your dig in. In any case, since you're hijacking the thread, would you care to explain your rather astonishing assertion that Howard Dean is somehow equal to Mike Dukakis?

[isbister]

12. Re:

Dean's no Dukakis.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

35. Only worse

Dukakis had a shred of military experience. Dukakis also didn't have a novel sized book full of conflicting/shifting/evolving statements.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

52. That was the first presidential election I voted in

and I voted for Dukakis. I remember doing it too. I'm voting for Dean this year.

Contrary to popular opinion, Dean's support is not made up entirely of naive first time voters. The people I know who are voting for him span a wide array of ages and backgrounds. Many of them were old enough to vote for McGovern.

Thank you for your time.

[Don Claybrook]

2. This stuff will all do a magical disappearing act

Or at least 95% of it will. It's a function of time and deadlines. When the primaries are over, when someone has won, most of it will evaporate.

As to the why, I agree with what you've said. As to the seeming intractability, just go take a look at the I/P forum (or that actual part of the Middle East) and you'll see parallels. One side will say that THEY started it and WE'RE just responding. The other side will make a mirror claim. Luckily for us, there's an end in sight.

[Tweed]

5. Knight in Shining Armor

I use to see Howard Dean as a knight in shinning armor and a man who could lead the Democratic party. I had read only articles that said Dean was the dark horse and that Dean could really surprise some people. Then as the campaign went on, I started reading more information and actually looking into his campaign past the vocal anti-war sentiments. He was the governor of Vermont, a state that has fewer people then Vermont. As a man from a wealthy family, I don't think he realizes what it is like for the average American. Then he started making comments other then anti-war ones and he didn't come across as fairly bright. There were some serious chinks in this knight' armor. Based on the issues that this election will bring up, I know he doesn't have the background to garner support from the general public. I don't want to lose and I can't believe other people don't see that Dean has no chance on beating Bush. I think it's how much you are willing to accept and how much you can deny.

[isbister]

14. Re: Knight in Shining Armor

I have my reasons for not choosing Dean.

I read yours and could not help but wonder... how could you go through that with Dean and then, apparently, support Clark?

Clark's been a republican for most of his life, just joined the Democratic party after he announced for the nomination and has pretty much ZERO political experience. What do you think the republican machine is going to do against this guy... they'll eat his lunch.

[w4rma]

21. I wondered that also, isbister. (n/t)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. That's not an issue - it's surface. She is an issues-based voter....

I'm referring to the "Clark used to be a Republican" meme.

My top choices are Kerry and Clark because I appreciate a candidate who has a good intellect. I also like where both of them are in the issues. Clark's charisma and personality appeals to me and that gives him an edge over Kerry. I also feel that Cark is more electable for those two reasons. I do like and respect Kerry very much and would be very pleased to see him win the nom.

I admit that Dean did appeal to my "sense of fun" at first but he is not a "thinking person's" candidate.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. Yup. Good summary..

[arendt]

6. The people who created this "divide" don't want a middle ground

The last time I saw this kind of pre-emptive assault in politics
was when the Rockefeller Republicans went after Goldwater
and couldn't stop him in 1964.

It seems that the "insiders" have decided that Dean is going
to kill the party. Hence, anyone who votes for him is "suicidal"
or "extremist".

But, look at the history. Goldwater's people took over the party
by 1980 (perhaps, with a few groin kicks from Bush's ex-CIA
thugs); and, today, Barry Goldwater looks positively moderate
compared to your average Rethug. The GOP didn't die, they
mutated.

My point is that there is a movement out here on the center-left,
the most desolate spot on the US political landscape. We are
not commies or radicals. We are just people who thought the
government used to do a good job of providing education and
retirement services, and some kind of welfare before the GOP
had two decades to tie the system in knots from the inside and
shoot holes in it from the outside.

I'm for Dean because he is the only person in the race who

1) says what I like to hear (Clark does that sometimes)

2) has not got an excessive amount of corporate baggage.
(Sorry, Clark is too thick with Stephens, Acxiom, Homeland
Security, the PNAC, etc. He is a bigger risk than Dean.)

If you character assasinate Dean, all that you do is wreck the
Democratic Party and end democracy in the US. If you acknowledge
that Dean people have PRINCIPLES, and that is why they stick
to Dean, then you might survive until November.

Do you think I'm going to send $100 to some fat-cat insider
like Kerry or some quasi-rightwing ex-military guy like Clark?
No way. But I have already done so once for Dean, and I have
been unemployed for 18 months.

Does the DLC/DNC part of the Democratic Party understand
"grassroots" anymore?


arendt

[blm]

8. Kerry is NOT a fatcat insider. That's completely untrue.

He NEVER took corporate pac money or donations from ANY special interest for ANY of his campaigns.

He was ostracized for most of his time in DC because of his investigations into BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning. The corporations weren't happy with his 10 years of work on the Kyoto Protocol and alot of people weren't happy he advocated for gays to serve openly in the military.

arendt, what you said is shameful. It isn't even close to being accurate. If Kerry hadn't stepped on so many toes of the Washington insiders, he would have skated through this primary with all of their support.

Do you even understand what happened in BCCI and how most of DC scorned Kerry for years and tried to put obstacles in his way? They are STILL doing it, arendt. The BCCI trial is finally starting in England on Jan.13 and NO WAY will BushInc. want Kerry on the national stage when word starts reaching this country. (They can handle Dean who's not associated with what has occurred over the last 20 plus years and also was fairly supportive of their actions in IranContra, anyway.)

Further, Dean's record as governor shows he is the most corporatist of all the candidates. You should also check out his statements over the years regarding the criminal justice system. they are appalling and he sounds like Bush.

[HFishbine]

9. "what you said is shameful."

As shameful as calling other candidates lying punks?

[blm]

11. Dean does lie.

And he's a mean person. There is no shame in honesty.

[arendt]

58. The only thing that is shameful here is your use of the word.

> arendt, what you said is shameful. It isn't even close to being accurate.

The only thing that is shameful here is your use of that word.

There are no dictionary definitions of "fat cat" and "insider".
This is the typical rhetorical overkill of GD-2004P. Come on,
lower the flame level a notch or two.

> Kerry is NOT a fatcat insider. That's completely untrue."

And who gets to define "fat cat"? The man is the richest man in the
Senate. Even without his wife's money, he's worth $80 Million. If
that is not a fat-cat, I do not know what is. Just because he was a
Viet Vet, that makes all his money not matter?

As for insider, the man stuck with the DLC party line. He did not
stick his neck out criticizing THIS war. He voted for the War, for
Homeland Security. This is how all the DLC insiders voted.

> Do you even understand what happened in BCCI and how most of DC
> scorned Kerry for years and tried to put obstacles in his way?

I understand that Kerry's investigtation into Drug Running by the
CIA (pre-BCCI) could have nailed Bush I, but *somehow* Kerry
never managed to pull the trigger.

A lot of people, like myself, were very ticked off at Kerry's failure there.
After that, I sort of stopped tracking him on a day to day basis; so his
personal role in BCCI is not completely clear. But the scandal itself is
clear, and so is the damage control that it got in this country.

And, like all the other good things Kerry was ever involved with, the
headlines stop over ten years ago. What has he done lately? He's
been a loyal DLCer.

Its a great story to talk about all the obstacles put in poor Kerry's way,
great excuses for his failure to follow through.

You know what people in Massachusetts say about Kerry? They
say he does lousy staff work, and that Teddy Kennedy saves his
ass on a regular basis. They don't say why, but I might guess that
the families go way back together, and Teddy is very loyal.

I was in a bookstore yesterday, and I overheard some guy talking
loud on his cellphone. He said that he was voting for Kerry out of
loyalty, even though he expected him to lose. He seemed to have
some personal contact with Kerry, because he went on to say
that Kerry was OK when he had his edge twenty years ago, when
he was still wrestlng with his Viet Nam demons. But, the guy's
opinion was that he had buttoned himself down and "wasn't real"
anymore. Now, I know this is totally anecdotal; and you could believe
I'm making it up if you choose. But, this is what passes in front
of me here in Massachusetts. Sorry, dude.

From where I sit, Kerry is sort of an anti-war McClellan. He never
wins the big battle, even though he has a lot of resources. Just like
he isn't going to win the nomination; because he doesn't have good
staff work. Its not that I dislike the man. I just want a winner. I would
vote for him if nominated. He is a genuine liberal. But he has
demonstrated he can't run a campaign.

arendt

[BurtWorm]

19. Nice post.

:thumbsup:

Good point about Goldwater's effect on the GOP. I agree with you completely that Dean is--or ought to be--the future of the party, because the future of the party ought to be with the people in it, not the money that owns it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. How is he the Party of the future? He has a conservative Dem agenda

and record.

[BurtWorm]

57. Is the future of the party necessarily ideological

on the left-right continuum? I don't think so. Not in the way left and right have been construed in the last 20 years, as two poles in a conflict among the elite, between corporatists and academic intellectuals (and let me make clear that in that debate, I strongly favor the intellectuals).

I said clearly in the post above that the future of the party, I believe, lies in a shift from attending to the needs of its benefactors to attending to the needs of its members, or of the American people in general. This is the traditional emphasis of the Democratic party, but the DLC has been trying to shift it toward the money interests. As Gephardt might say, that has been a miserable failure. It's been great for the corporations, and maybe somewhat better for the people than anything the Republicans have to offer. But to create a new Democratic majority, it will be necessary to reaffirm the Democratic Party as the party of the people.

[arendt]

59. Thanks for responding to this; I forgot I jumped into this thread

Yes. My whole point is that Dean is merely the guy at the
front of a groundswell of populist, anti-Bush sentiment.
(A politician is someone who sees which way people
are moving and puts himself at the front of the march.)

People want the New Deal plus Medicare. They don't want
it dismantled. And they are mad that the DLC has just caved.

Today, Dean is leading the parade. Any of the DLC candidates
could lead that parade, EXCEPT that they refuse to adopt
the positions of the movement. They refuse to be outraged
by tax cuts, by Homeland Security, by corporate crookedness.
And I mean OUTRAGED. Continuously hammering the GOP,
instead of some wishy-washy soundbites.

BurtWorm is right that the old Left-Right spectrum is due for
some remodeling.

arendt

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. I don't get how a center-left person could be for Dean. Why not Kerry?

Dean is ultra conservative. That's another reason that the Dean supporters are illogical to me. I understand why a conservative Dem or even more moderate Dem would go for him.

Please don't go on the typical "Dean is exciting. He started a movement. His campaign is great." Explain what issues he stands for that have drawn you to him.

[arendt]

60. Because Kerry caved

He voted for IWR, for Patriot Act. He did not get in Bush's
face and say the man is a lying sack of shit.

Because Kerry tried to have it both ways.

That's why I won't vote for Kerry.

---

Why can I vote for Dean? I posted my reasons back when I
decided. I know he's a Rockefeller Republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=185435

But, like Lincoln said when asked to cashier Grant:

"I can't spare the man; he fights."

Dean has single-handedly allowed the resentment of the
grassroots to re-enter the party. Dean re-energized the
party by legitimizing the grassroots outrage.

I went to Kerry's office twice. I begged his staffers for him to
vote against the war. I got a polite kiss-off.

And you ask why I won't vote for Kerry.

arendt

[sandnsea]

63. He made me so mad

Now I'll show him. I'll vote for the Rockefeller Republican whose been shitting on Democrats for ten years. So there.

Feel better?

[arendt]

65. Oh give me a break. Read my reasons in the thread link I gave...

You got nothing to cover your a** with that Kerry voted wrong,
so you come up with a really lame one-liner.

A vote is the only significant thing a politician can do. Kerry did
wrong twice or more.

arendt

[kerry-is-my-prez]

50. Yes - but in reverse when Dean attacks other Dems it also hurts us

It goes both ways. Dean also attacks the Dems in Congress, Clinton, and many others.

[Armstead]

7. Pete, here's how I see it as a Dean supporter

For years liberals and progressives have been told to "get pragmatic" because the public won't accept a liberal Democratic candidate anymore. The biggest example of this is the Green/Nader flamefests, but it arose whenever the centrist corporate Democrats were challenged.

Well a lot of us have tried to take that advice, and look for ways to advance our principles in a way that was also practical. Compromise. Dean has seemed like the vehicle for that. Dean is a centrist but he also has liberal instincts and he is willing to also listen to and articulate populist progressive positions, and stand up to Republicans.

But instead of that effort to compromise being appreciated, Dean supporters still got attacked and lambasted as a foolish cult of idealists by the Democratic Washington Establishment and by supporters of otehr candidates. And Dean -- who is hardly a wild-eyed leftie -- has had his positions and record misrepresented, and eventually demonized.

It's one thing to have the usual nomination fights between candidates and their supporters. But this has gone far beyond that, and far beyond Dean's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate.

The attacks on Dean and his supporters feel more like attacks on the whole notion of change and empowerment. Thus it has taken on more importance than it might otehrwise.

We somehow need to find a way to heal these divisions. But it's a two-way street. Many of us feel like after taking that step to meet in the middle, we still get dissed and not taken seriously.

That's why from the Dean side it seems to have reached this point. It's not just about Dean, but about the willingness of the Democratic power structure and the centists to open the doors and let otehrs in.

[JVS]

13. Well said

[isbister]

15. Yeah, Well said...

....but I don't like Dean because he's a misleader and if he would stop that and was really a centrist (all things considered, only Lieberman and Bush are further right than Dean) I probably would've had an easier time accepting him.

I think his early popularity was based on his misleading people about his positions and the other candidate's positions.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Q: Is this Dean or Kerry?

A: It's both.


http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

[kerry-is-my-prez]

55. I find it hard to believe that that is Dean.

pro-NRA, pro-death penalty, tax-cutting, pro-development vs. pro- environment, Corporate buddy, pro- AIPAC.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

56. If it's formulaic like this then you get results like this

Who knows how issues are weighted? anyway... Kerry's the real liberal, along with Kucinich.

[DemBones DemBones]

61. There seem to be different versions of Dean -- the graph I saw

before had all the candidates except Kucinich, Sharpton, and CMB clustered
in the Right Conservative area, close to Libertarian. Dean was probably the farthest right but they were all up there.

Kucinich was the farthest left in Left/Liberal and close to Populist, Sharpton and CMB to his right.

Who's doing these graphs? It should be possible to get accurate ones.

[isbister]

62. Based upon promises

Apparently to make Dean appear more to the left... rather than basing it on past performance.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

54. Sorry but I don't see the "lofty" principles that Dean is supporting.

You need to explain that better. Truthfully, I have come to see him as a man who is not very honest. I think that what has happened is that all of you have projected YOUR principles and YOUR goodness onto a man who IMO is not really worthy of it. He is a very imperfect man who I think will hurt you in the end. He is out for one thing and he will do or say whatever it takes to get it.

He is pretending to be something that he is not - almost akin to being a "con artist."

Does his dishonesty, flip-flopping and hypocrisy not bother you - or do you not see it?

I'm just being honest - in truth, this is how I really feel.

[MidwestMomma]

10. I think we've fallen into the your either with us or against us mentality

First of all, I don't think you can say that all Dems who think Dean has no chance against Bush view his supporters as crazy. I don't support Dean but I can clearly see what makes others so enthusiastic about Dean, the candidate.

He message of 'you have the power' is very appealing to a group of people who were powerless to stop the selection of Bush in 2000. People who want to believe that if they can just get the right candidate elected to office that we can actually have a voice in our government again.

But the problem is that you have a large group of Democrats who are more pragmatic about who can 'have' the power and don't want the 'power' as much as they want a return to some semblance of sanity in our country.

If you asked those who don't support Dean...Do you think we have serious problem within the party? Their answer might be yes. But they might also tell you that now is not the time to concentrate on 'fixing' the party. That now is the time to the fix the country.

And this is the ideological divide...the Dean supporters seem to believe that Dean is our last chance to fix the Party. It seems they believe the only way to fix the country is to restore the Party to what it used to be. Meanwhile the Dean non-supporters think we need to fix the country first and the party second.

That's what I see as the Dem divide. Please let me know what you think.

Edited for clarity

[isbister]

16. Re: I think we've fallen into the your either with us or against us

Just think where the party would be if Clinton kept little willy tucked away while he was in the Oval Office.

[Eloriel]

24. I'll tell you what I think

Dean doesn't offer just ONE of those options, he offers both: take back the country AND take back the party. There are plenty of us who feel that not only are they best done at once but that may be the only way to do them both. After all, Bush ass-kissing didn't get us very far in 2002.

Further, if you put the question to Dean supporters,across the board, "Would you rather fix the party OR oust Bush?" the answer would overwhelmingly be oust Bush. I mean probably 99.9999%

IBut i's just NOT an either/or proposition, even if you don't see it that way.

For Pete: I don't understand the purpose of your question. I really don't. Further, forgive me, but I am used to your posts having a somewhat ulterior motive, so I'm naturally looking for the hidden agenda here. Am I wrong about this one? If so, could you please be more explicit about what you're asking?

Eloriel

[tedoll78]

17. I have been a member of both camps,

so I do have some experience with both viewpoints.

Dean supporters largely seem to think that they can indeed change the American political process. Their mode of operation seems to include bringing new voters into the process as (a supplement to charging-up a long-demoralized base), unusual campaign tactics, locally-controlled campaign branches, etc. There seems to be widespread conviction among Dean followers that an ordinary campaign will not unseat the Chimp.

Clark supporters largely seem to think that they can win by reaching-out to the middle (rather than spurring-on some brand new turnout that might or might not show-up on Election Day), campaigning more traditionally, sticking to a carefully-controlled script, etc. When I think of the Clark campaign, I think of a generic, less-exciting, textbook campaign for a candidate who has a damn good resume - a very impressive resume.

I'll clearly note that it isn't as simple as "Dean is a liberal/Clark is a moderate" since there are compelling arguments to be made that Clark is actually more liberal than Dean in many instances. This is purely my opinion, but both camps have really good arguments, and I hope whomever our nominee is can find some way to masterfully combine both strategies. Both candidates are excellent men whom I both see as very capable of winning against Bush.

[sandnsea]

18. I don't see it and it makes me sad

I don't see how I can ever get past Dean slaughtering the Democratic candidates about the war when he supported Biden-Lugar which was a war resolution. All I see is somebody who used the serious threat of George Bush for his own political gain.

And I know the Dean people have placed all their faith in Dean as the anti-war candidate and have decided to lynch the rest of the Democratic Party. And they won't change.

I don't see how the two sides can come together.

[w4rma]

22. ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise

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
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=769599

[sandnsea]

26. a war is a war

This is a resolution authorizing a war. Anybody who can't admit Howard supported war under the same circumstances as Kerry is intentionally blinding themselves. It is and has been a smear tactic. There's no more to it than that and I refuse to debate it any further.

Kerry is obviously the best choice for President in this election and everybody knows it.

[frustrated_lefty]

20. The middle ground is a balanced budget.

Dean offers the potential of a balanced budget with universal health care.

Maybe I'm wrong. Everyone I know is concerned about the budget, Dean seems to offer a way to balance it without starving the beast. Balancing the budget while insisting upon universal health care...we haven't seen that since the days of FDR.

That screams to me his first objective is responsibility, his second is humanity, and I think he plans to intertwine the two.

[Eric J in MN]

23. a compromise position. Taxes is the biggest issue.

If Howard Dean comes out with a great tax-plan which lowers taxes on most workers, raises them on the rich, and which is revenue-neutral or revenue-increasing overall, then he stands a chance.

If he doesn't come out with a great tax-plan, Dean doesn't stand a chance.

[sandnsea]

27. Other candidates already have

Why not support one of them instead of having to try to defend Dean's wiffle-waffling positions. It doesn't matter what he does anymore. He's blown it by being all over the place on every single issue. If he waffles on taxes, it'll just be one more time Dean has changed. Nobody will vote for somebody they can't trust.

[Terwilliger]

25. middle ground

Perfectly reasonable Dems who think Dean has no chance against Bush look at Dean supporters like they're crazy (or politically suicidal).

Perfectly reasonable Dean supporters feel that anti-Deanies are deaf, dumb, and blind to a bona fide political phenomenon.

Perfectly reasonable Dems that think Dean has no chance

VS.

Perfectly reasonable Dems that think Dean is a "political phenomenon".

There's no give in your position, Pete. You think horribly of Dean and his supporters. You don't understand why people aren't supporting Kerry (or Clark) and you're trying to find a way to make people give up their Dean fancy.

Assuming Dean is the bogeyman you suggest, you can't explain why Dean is receiving all this support.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[elsiesummers]

29. Why I have a trouble liking Dean

It's not about electability - though I don't think he's as electable as some - but who knows - that's a crap shoot - mostly about uncontrollable circumstances come November.

First - I started watching the possible candidates, carefully, before they were running. I remember a specific MTP appearance when I warmed to Kerry as he defended Bob Kerrey. I also saw a Kerry speech against the tax cuts - and I liked his approach - defining the trade offs of lower taxes.

I also remember a 2001 MTP appearance by John Edwards where he spoke against the first Bush tax cut - John Edwards was FANTASTIC. Evan Bayh was more of a dissappointment - I mean he was ok but sort of blah blah like Lieberman.

I was EXTREMELY dissappointed when Joe Biden didn't enter the race.
Have been a Biden fan for a long time. On a shallow note - he's also a snappy dresser.

Then I saw Dean. The first time he intrigued me - I had read about him on the internet and I like his sparkplug like quality. But when I saw him on Charlie Rose (over a year ago I think) he said "I appeal to those who think there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats." This was a big turn off because I blame the Nader voters for 2000 and he was saying he represents them. No. Thank. You.

Then as I follwed his his campaign he often spoke of how he was against the Washington Democrats. The Democrats he was speaking against - well they are my Democrats.

I'm really trying to forgive Howard for all the nasty things he's said about some of the leaders of my party. It's hard, but I hope that if he is the nominee I will find a way to pull the lever for Dean come November.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. It's largely beyond logic now

Belief is an awesome thing.

The intoxicating ride of the underdogs is at once heartening and terrifying. From seemingly nowhere, Dean rode the anti-war and establishment-disliking wave with a cultural swell rarely seen. The big question is this: is it enough?

Yes, he's an absolute phenomenon, but will the unenthused be swept along with the current? Some will, but some won't.

I repeatedly return to religious terms, because his cause is fueled with the same spirit. Even when faced by proof of a moderate-to-conservative record, real lefties forsake other viable candidates who are MUCH more socially progressive with a vehemence that's astounding. Like true believers, they seriously can't accept that others wouldn't come into the light if they were really exposed to it.

He makes repeated, dangerous gaffes. He's made so many already that there's plenty of ammunition to cause him real trouble in the general election even if he manages to control his runaway mouth from now on. This makes no impact on his supporters. He plays mealy-mouthed establishment ward-healing politics (witness the god crap)like a Tammany Hall Boss, yet his believers still see him as a straight-shooting, honorable outsider.

High on anger, many of his supporters are oblivious to the cold hard fact that angry politicians lose. It really is a hubris springing from success, and the partisanship is so strong, that to question his worthiness as a standard-bearer is akin to blasphemy.

Scorning history as the stuff of the stuffy, many of his supporters raise the time-honored and always disproved cry that "things are different now", and that the old rules don't apply in this brave new world. I can only sigh. He will galvanize the enemy, sway some of the crossovers, irritate many other crossovers and energize non-voters. Will it be enough non-voters? It will need to be a momentous turnout of Biblical proportions to overcome all that. His very hopes are pinned on the support of people who habitually don't vote. Hell of a business plan, huh?

If nominated, he needs to simultaneously watch his mouth and fight like hell. It will need to be a titanic struggle to have a chance. Perhaps it will work. Invariably, it will be all the fault of those of us who want a different candidate, because we will be dismissed as not having fought hard enough. The chance of reality being accepted by the fold should he be nominated and fail is nil.

Middle ground? I don't see it. I can see him being elected, although I see his chances waning of late. November IS a long way away, though, and all sorts of things are possible.

I think people need to take themselves out of the equation more, and do what's best for the country and the world. The need to "be right" or "pick a winner" is dangerous, counterproductive and tiresome.

Many Dean supporters can't see any logic or morality to opposition. The entire focus of their world is Dean, therefore support of a different candidate is really a cipher for Dean-hatred. Actually liking a different candidate is some astonishing form of denial of the true light. It's like explaining agnosticism to the devout: they still don't understand why you hate god. The rest of the hopefuls are corrupt and weak, and embracing one of them is tantamount to a scarlet letter of loserdom. It's maddening, and it leaves a vulnerability that's downright scary.

Hey, who knows? Junior can easily get himself into such a pickle (just imagine her icky smile, but I digress...) with the economy or Iraq or any number of perils that ANYONE could beat him. Dean may very well win. Then again, we may very well need the candidate with the best chance of winning, and that's NOT Dean.

Thanks for the thread, Pete.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Purity, once again you have hit the essence of the issue.

Can you submit this as an article? You raise essential points that every single Democrat should take a moment and think about. Thank you so much.

[tedoll78]

32. Wow.

I'll be sure to tell that to the many other Dean supporters I know. They'll be surprised to find this out about themselves.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Whether sarcastic or not, you probably should

I presume that your response is a gentle and sarcastic rebuke, but it would be enlightening for you to run this by your chums. The results might surprise you.

There's a problem with firebrands: they effectively tell the rest of us that we're scumbags, idiots or cowards. Even a truckload of that kind of vinegar isn't going to get this little fly.

It's exhilarating to hear the words of outrage vent forth from the mouth of a popular candidate, but they ricochet with some very powerful negatives; to ignore that is a worse sin than political pragmatism, caution or even centrism. It really is like a religion. I can say all this day in and day out, and many will agree, but the true believers will hear all of this and look back and say "but he's good" or "he's the only one who gets it" or some permutation of that sentiment. Reality means nothing. Gaffes piled upon gaffes piled upon distortions and served up with slathered globs of privilege and presumed moral superiority are sheer poison.

But...this one goes to eleven...

[salin]

45. Admit that it is pretty presumptious

and rather insulting. I am not behind a particular candidate but do a lot of watching - both on the boards and locally. Some very senior elected officials locally - who are not spittle spewing fanatics by a long shot - don't quite fit the image that you conjour up.

How about doing an equal analysis of those who are not just cautious/wary about Dean (as personally I think we should be cautious about each candidate)... but who are as fanatical in their hatred of Dean and absolute disgust with his supporters.

I personally find the two phenomena flip sides of the same exact coin.

[MuseRider]

33. That was very well

thought out. The only thing I would say is that there are many of us supporting other candidates who would also fall into the same category. You are exactly right pointing out that it is OK to believe but to not question and never believe that others might have a point or simply are not enlightened enough to understand is dangerous. My personal thoughts are that the right is going to paint some awfully nasty pictures of any of our candidates so why go for the one that we are already having to defend this much? If we have to work this hard to convince ourselves then how can we possibly hope to convince others?

[chimpymustgo]

34. "If we have to work this hard to convince ourselves..."

"...then how can we possibly hope to convince others?"

Great point, MuseRider.

[MuseRider]

41. Why thank you

I can occasionally think of something worth saying! Seriously, I have been really concerned about this. The general public will not vote for someone they do not trust and do not know that much about but they WILL vote for someone they do not trust who they do know (Bush*).

[blm]

39. Bows to the master....

damn, you're a good writer.

[Leilani]

64. That was an amazing analysis

You have it really nailed down..

Dean supporters cannot understand why we are non-believers, & it is this utter devotion to his cause, while rejecting any other belief as heresy.

And I think his supporters are seeing what they wish to see, rather than the reality.

[TexasSissy]

37. I think the problem is that perfectly reasonable Dems just don't like Dean

I'm being sincere. As much as Dean fosters genuine worship from his supporters, he has an equally strong negative effect on others in his party. I really think that's the major problem. More so than Dean not being able to beat Bush (but of course the unlikeability factor factors into the not being able to beat Bush---if many Dems don't like him, it's reasonable to assume that many independents and moderate Repubs won't like him).

People tend to vote for and overlook problems with those candidates that they like and respect (among other things). Remember how we all knew BEFORE we elected Clinton that he had a sex problem. But we overlooked it. He was, among many other things, just a very likeable candidate, which translates into votes.

Dean cannot be a middle ground, I'm afraid. It seems to be part of his nature. That'd be okay if Dems were in the majority in the country, or maybe even if most independents were very left leaning (but they are predominantly right leaning, I've read several time).

[blm]

40. Saw on CNN, his national negatives are at 39% right now. Not good.

Especially with all that exposure he had had.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. He is a bona fide political phenomenon

within the Democratic primary. After that he's toast.

[salin]

43. MIddle ground? Looks like instead the discussion went straight to

polarization. A few thoughtful comments, a few comments (still thoughtful but not on topic), a few backhanded insults and lots of high fives. Just another day in GDPRimary... where pouring the fuel on the flames to ensure that in the end folks will be so disgusted with one another that they won't be willing or able to do the yeoman's work of getting the eventual nominee (whoever that may be) elected. Pete I don't think this was your intent, but it was predictable. Nobody wants to take any ownership of how their own behaviors effect the dialogue... nobody wants to attempt to empathize the views of the others - but lots of people like to 'mindread' by putting their (often derogatory) spin on their own interpretation of what are the views and intents of others.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

44. I don't feel that their main concern is beating Bush. It's for Dean to win

I not saying that everyone is like that - but I feel that many feel that way.

[KoKo]

47. After listening to Al From tonight? No, there's no middle ground. At one

time I would have been with you here on DU trying to get folks to come together to work for the "common good." I've been that way mostly in the whole time I've been on DU.

Times have changed though. I've grown and seen that the Democratic Party IS SPLIT. And I've gone with what "Dean calls the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

Too much watching of Daschle and Corporate Dems on the Lobbyists payrolls selling us down the river, and then there's that thing about the "Ivasion of Iraq." And there's the Telecommunication Give Aways of l996 and NAFTA and GATT and a few other little items like the Democratic Party not supporting Al Gore when the Repugs went to Florida and played games and corrupted the ballot process.

No....I could have forgiven my party if they had just come out against what happened it any of the above actions. They've left me. I will go to the NEW Dem Party whichever way it comes out.

[edzontar]

53. From is a turd, and his tactics are incredibly hurtful...

I turn the sound off when he comes on the TV.

But I can still smell his bullcrap.