The wheels are coming off the bus in the Dean campaign.

New manager days before primaries in 7 states, not a single victory (even in his own backyard), asking his staff to work for free (no deficits in his campaign budget, but he's more than happy to have his stamp lickers take on credit card debt to put food on the table...nice principles).

The man thinks Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now. (The direct quotation saying exactly that is in my post upthread). That view would be just laughable if Bill W were spewing here it on this board. But Howard Dean wants to be President of the United States -- which makes such absurd analysis scary.

If he's still in the race after Michigan and Wisconsin, I'll be shocked.

And if I were one of Dr. Steinberg's patients, I'd be thrilled. She'll be in Burlington for years to come.

Edited to add . . . woohooo!!! I got the 1000th post.

[ January 29, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

CONGRATS!!! You won the "Dean for President" yard sign!!!

I was waiting for you to move from condescending to insulting; thanks, Skiguy. How about waiting for Iraq to have a new government before you start comparing? You think like a skier (Sonny Bono?). I'm familiar with Saddam's record.

Yeah, run a good "sensible" centrist-sounding Democrat, and get your ass kicked again; there aren't any more Wily Bills out there. I sometimes forget how much I hate both major parties...

Asking people to defer paychecks for 2 weeks is not exactly not paying them at all. Also, people don't work on these campaigns for cash (maybe after the election).

I still like Dean and I'd stil be happy if he won the nomination. Kerry and Edwards might seem like good options now, but all their dirty laundry will be coming out after the nomination. At least dean has already been picked apart so he can get on with the campaign.

Also, as far as replacing a campaign manager, Reagan replaced his campaign manager after the NH primary and went on to win. it's not a death sentence for the campaign yet.

Having said all that, if Dean doesn't win a state next week, he should seriously consider getting out of the race and help stop some of the infighting of the democrats. I hope after next week that anyone who has not yet won a state will leave the race.

I agree with you D.C.guy. I think of the states that are coming up the ones he would have a good chance at are Michigan, maybe even California, and from what I know about his Washington State supporters, he would have a very good shot here at winning the caucuses. If he doesn't win a state soon, the writing will be on the wall for him. I am not at all worried about unity in the Democratic Party. Once this thing is all said and done, there be no problems uniting to defeat Shrub.A.B.B!! Anybody but Bush. If man my Dean fails, I have pretty much decided I will support Kerry. If Kerry is the nominee I think an excellent V.P. choice would be Clark.

[ January 29, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

I will support the democratic nominee because I think bush offers more negatives than any of the possible winners. Clark would actually be my last choice among the top 4 right now though.

If Kerry does win, I think Edwards would make for a strong ticket. He is getting such petting from the media right now and putting him up next to the aging C. Montgomery Burns (Cheney) in a debate would visually great. I actually am not crazy about Edwards as the nominee, but since VP candidates get far less scrutiny than the actual nominee, I think he could be an asset to anyone who wins the nom.

But if Bush were to ask this of workers, you'd be foaming at the mouth over it.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Not only do I know them. I give them. One day you might be privileged to hear one.

And if your boss asked it of you, DC Guy, you'd be saying "yeah, right, later dude" to the man.

I know I would.

A.) We do not live in a democracy.
B.) I am not subject to biased votes of lefties here.
C.) I am not pessimistic or negative--just intentionally cranky as evidenced in the \"People Who Should be Shot\" Thread.
D.) I am not right-wing. Fiercely independent and pragmatic, with both liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue.

Do not accuse me of something you cannot back up. Typical of the Left, of course.

I saw his speech. It was sappy and stupid, pandering and hypocritical.

I see. Let me know just when it will reach that 300,000 to 1,000,000 threshhold.

Let's see, we are to blame for former Saddam loyalists and other assorted terrorists killing Iraqis. Those Saddam loyalists would have been killing Iraqis in any event. Why are those murders, our fault?

I remember before the war there was a UN report that said that 500,000 Iraqi civilians would be killed.

Great post Puckman - it was a great run. Dean has tremendous energy and fine ideas. I believe there are 3 fundamental reasons why his campaign is on life support. First, he allowed himself to be painted as a radic-lib when, in fact, he is more moderate than some of the others running (I took that "who is your candidate" survey" and Dean wasn't even near the top of my list and I'm a liberal). Secondly, I think some of his supporters were reckless in their enthusiasm (reports from Iowa and NH reflect that they were a bit overbearing; to say the least). Lastly, this played into the belief (espoused by MIB and some others) that the guy is a wild card. Lastly ( a fourth reason) -- he (or his 'advisors')took the risk of moving to the left with the intention of moderating after he "clinched" the nomination. This was a fatal mistake as Kerry and Edwards staked the middle ground.

Is the Dean campaign dead? -- not sure. Probably.

Regardless, thanks Puck for starting (and keeping the mojo) of a great thread!!

You are welcome my friend. If Dean does indeed fall out here, I will feel the Democrats owe him alot for everything he has done. I feel I am one that was really energized and motivated by him, in a way I have never been motivated before. The passion he added to the party will not be forgotten. He will always be the pioneer or his campaign former Manager Joe Trippi will always be known as being the first to harness the power of the internet to use politically, and so effectively.

I think that's a really bad, undemocratic idea. Someone has to continue the debate within the party, and hold Kerry (if he continues to lead) to account for the holes, inconsistencies and hypocrisies in his record (ie, his ridiculous claim that his vote for the Iraq war resolution "wasn't a vote for war").

As I've posted before, we tacitly (and sometimes aggressively) supported Saddam Hussein in his first 22 years of murderous power. MIB, your dismissal of thousands dead like so many poker chips is cavalier and callous at best.

well, Bill W, I think you're equally cavalier in dismissing all the dead whose blood is on Saddam's hands.

And the fact that we supported him for many years INCREASES our responsibility to get rid of him, it doesn't decrease it.

And to what end do we need to continue the debate within the party and "hold Kerry accountable" for "holes in his record"? that's the opposition's job. Once the nomination is a foregone conclusion (about two weeks from now), continued candidacies by the others would be for vanity's sake only, and would play into Bush's hands.

Are you really that naive? Oh, right. You still think Nader's candidacy was a good idea. So you are.

[ January 30, 2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Skiguy, you got in before me. Whenenver I read somemone talking about we supported Saddam, I have to ask what difference does that make? An ally today isn't always an ally. Geopolitics aren't static and situations change.

Any support we gave to Saddam does reinforce our duty to get rid of him.

[ January 30, 2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: PCC ]

Those last two pious arguments are old ones... and a crock because saving Iraqi lives didn't have a damn thing to do with W's determination to invade.

Yes: Empire-building is possible only since 9/11, in the neocon mind.

So you guys are ready to crown Kerry the nominee with a total of 33 delegates in hand, or 1.5% of the total needed to nominate. Or, to be generous, let's say when he has 300 (15%) in 2 weeks. Why don't we let the media choose the nominee? Saves all that pesky voting. Disgusting.

Then perhaps the lying hypocrite in the White House could have actually mentioned that. Maybe the entire administration could have actually been honest with the American people, rather than deliberately inflating the threat this man was to the United States - NOT his own people.

And maybe the administration, which is riddled with leftovers from Bush 41, could have realized the truth of his concerns about taking out Saddam and the Baath-ists - it left the country with a gaping hole where any governmental authority used to be. Maybe they could have conducted the war with character and foresight, rather than being so gung-ho to get one guy.

Yes, Saddam was a tyrant, and attacked his own people repeatedly. We knew this for 20 years and DID NOTHING. And the Administration clearly knew that the American people would still be unwilling to go to war just because of those facts (and to my money, the tyrants in N. Korea are 10 times worse than Hussein - they have been starving the entire country for 5-10 years). So they deliberately inflated the threat, and claimed (knowing they were wrong) that Saddam=Al Queda=terrorist.

The point that Howard and so many others have made is not the merits of taking out Hussein, it is about being truthful with the American people. If Bill Clinton could be investigated and impeached for lying about a couple of blow jobs, then what Bush & Co. have done is more than enough for the same.

anyone see "MeetThe Press" this morning?

Dean was awesome today and did much better than his previous appearance.

I loved that Dean went back to what got him so much support in the first lace. He was a plain speaker and gave up the spinning he tried to do before Iowa.

He said many things that americans may not like to hear. But he said, "I'm being honest here. I'd love to promise you guys everything. But can't"

I love that. AND! He accepted Kerry's challenge to one-on-one debate on Meet The Press.

One thing Dean is 100% correct on is his statement that Kerry is one of the most "special interested" (my terminology, not Dean's) Senators in Washington. Dean blasted Kerry for campaigning as someone not beholden to the special interest groups.

Kerry, along with MANY other Democratic and Republican Senators, personifies the special interest senator.

I was able to see Howar Dean on Meet the Press and thought he was awsome! He was very clear in his message, came across as a very honest man did not dance around any of the questions that were asked of him. I'd love to see he and Kerry on the show. My position has not changed since the beginning, Howard Dean still has my vote.

Dean is sounding much much more better now than I think any other time, much more focused too. I hear he will be in my city tomorrow. I plan on attending. This thing isn't over with quite yet. I did enjoy hearing Dean say that he would do nothing to damage the party. Very very commendable.

I watched some of the show -- I have a different view than Ung and Puck -- I saw a very uncomfortable man -- they kept showing the angle where his foot was turned up and tapping repeatedly. He obviously was trying to be more "presidential" -- but a passion-less Howard Dean looked insincere to me.

I also think it is a big mistake for him to be attacking Kerry so strongly. He will marginalize himself further if he keeps up his attacks.

He's attacking Kerry just like Kerry attacked him when Dean was leading.

Let's face it... Dean is the outsider who is not letting his consultants shape the delivery. Kerry is the washington insider (despite his protester status.... reminds me of an episode of "Coupling" on BBC where a "lefty" realizes that her party, Labour, is the one in power-the evil empire- and the "tories" are now the rebel alliance)

as for his comfort level.... have you been skewered by Russert in a studio with lights and cameras all focused on you as the nation listened to your every response?

I'd be nervous too. and so was Dean (he stumbled over his words a couple of times) But at least I know he's not scripted like a certain pres who goes out and says "gathering threat" for every question.

Ung -- I have been supporting Howard Dean and I plan on voting for him if he is still in it by the time the race rolls into Pennsylvania. However, I have serious concerns about Dean's performance. While I understand that it is refreshing that he is not scripted; it is disconcerting to me that the guy gets nervous being grilled on a TV set (and, in other contexts displays a personality that frankly is angry and mean spirited). How can I have confidence that he will be able to stand up to the rigors of the Presidency or that he has the temperment for the office?

As for the scripting comment -- I noted that Dean used the IDENTICAL phrases in response to Russert's questions that he was shown on videptape to have made at other venues. I recognize that this is part of the "stump speech" but isn't that part of a script as well?

I have a bunch of other concerns as well. All in all, if things don't change soon, Howard Dean will go down as a marginalized "has been" who ran one of the worst campaigns in modern American presidential history -- and that's sad. Sad indeed for what could have been and for the hundreds of thousands of people that he energized.

No, I think Dean will be credited with energizing hundreds of thousands of people who had grown disenchanted with the two major parties, including the Democratic Party. Many of the other candidates, including those in the lead (Kerry) and those on the razor's edge (Sharpton), have adopted many of Dean's key themes and are hammering W, which is one reason he's sinking in the polls. As TomFord has said, the Democrats can't win ONLY attacking W, but they also can't win pussyfooting around and trying to be pseudo-Democrats, like Joe Lieberman. Even if Dean does not get the nomination, his presence will have done the Democrats a great service, and one key for their success will be how well whoever leads the ticket can stay true to the best aspects of Dean's campaign, rather than stumbling into the Al Gore chameleon mode, which still got him more votes, even in Florida--and very likely the presidency--until the GOP thugs and the Supreme Court seized it for W.

Do you really mean this? Because if so, then there are a number of DREADFUL leaders around the globe we should be going after that we've been propping up for far too long, beginning with the pseudo-president of Egypt, the con man atop Israel's government (will he be forced for office over the bribery scandal? His past butchery certainly hasn't hurt him), the doddering vampire in charge of the Palestinians, the incompetent buffoon running Haiti into the ground, and on and on. We probably should also pre-emptively take out the various anti-democratic butchers we've installed in the former Soviet Asian republics; some of them are really having a field day with human rights and on and on. Then there are the anti-democratic, anti-gay crackpots running Saudi Arabia; shall we take them out now or wait?

The fact remains that George H. W. Bush was a stalwart supporter of Saddam, as Kevin Phillips has said repeatedly, using the man as a proxy against Iran and Khomeini, saying nothing when he gassed all those Kurds (yet now every Republican weeps at the thought, though back then, where was the outrage?), saying nothing when he slaughtered the Shi'ites AFTER HW had urged them to revolt...it's sickening, really. W finished off what his daddy couldn't and had all kinds of plans for that "sea of oil" (Wolfowitz), and didn't plan for the aftermess, since there was no foresight into the possibility of "a little untidiness" (Rumsfeld). Yeah, W, focus on anti-gay marriage amendments--that'll take your mind off the rest of the mess you've made!

[ February 02, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

From William Safire's column today, where he periodically engages in the conceit of interviewing his old boss Richard Nixon from Purgatory:

too late. Kerry had already accepted the invite from Meet The Press to debate Dean one on one. and Dr.Dean accepted last sunday. all of this on air

When?

Dean: I'll quit if I lose Wisconsin


So it looks like I'll get to cast my protest vote for Kucinich in NY after all...

CNN admits they overplayed Dean's Iowa scream speech....while CNN is obviously not solely responsible for the 633 times that cable and broadcast networks aired Howard's "scream" in the four days following the Iowa primary the actions of the media were highly questionable in my opinion and undeniably had a MAJOR impact upon the public's perception of Dean and the ultimate demise of his campaign.

[ February 08, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I'm getting a bit concerned about Howard Dean -- some of the sound bites I heard today (of his comments during the past 48 hours) sound flat out bizarre -- God forbid, but maybe MIB was right all along

Howard who?

unlike many out there who are fair-weather friends and supporters of Dr.Dean, I plan to support and vote for him as long as he is on the ballot.

I refuse to kow-tow to this unscientific predetermination of his "unelectability" madeup by media that could not even determine who won Florida AFTER the votes were cast.

Why should I believe some media gurus when they tell me even before the primaries are finished about who will win?

Because they and Kerry's campaign want to get everyone out of the way, including Edwards, because this is costing Kerry unnecessary money that he could otherwise spend in the general election.

The nerve of Dean, Edwards, et. al. to stand in the way of what has been preordained since Iowa!

Click

I too will support Dean until he is no longer in the running. He is the best man for the job.

MIB - that was hilarious!

Ung -- are you implying that I am a "fair weather friend and supporter" of Dr. Dean because I changed my views? I supported Dean financially and otherwise serving on his Dean's List. However, I have re-evaluated my support in light of his behavior and actions. Moreover, I think the guy is flat out delusional if he thinks that he can win this race or has much to add from a "movement" standpoint or otherwise. Sure he has a right to stay in the race but I also have the right to change my views as many Millions of others have also done (including his campaign manager and campaign chairman).

I don't want a President who screams, lacks discipline, flip flops in his views, can't take the pressure, is vindictive and lacks the temperment to lead our Nation. That's what I have come to conclude. I'm sure you have good reasons to maintain your support of Dean -- but why attack others who feel differently?

I firmly believe that Howard Dean has been the victim of an unfair media, who has chastized his every word and move, up to the minute. I recall reading about a month or so a poll that asked people if they felt the media had been treating Dean unfairly,in fact rather negatively, and a majority did, including myself. Dean is a fighter, and I admire and like this in a candidate, but even he has not been able to turn this thing around. Plus you throw into the mix the fact that he is an outsider, and the insiders have been fighting him tooth and nail the whole way along. It seems they and the American public in general do not want the rather drastic change that Dean has been advocating all along. Thats to bad. But Dean deserves huge credit and accolades for what he has done to the Democratic party. He was the first candidate out of the gate and he energized, and focused the party like nobody has in years. PLus he pioneered internet funding/campaigning. I heard him in an interview the other night say that if/when he does drop out of the race he will be spending time still fighting to change the way things are done in America. I only hope the Dem. party remembers everything he has done to and for the party at the convention. He deserves something.

mdphl,

I don't see what I wrote as an attack. I do, however, see people who drop out when things become tough as Fair-weather friends.
Don't get me wrong. You have every right to change your mind and support whomever you see fit. Dean, Kerry or Bush.... I don't begrudge you your right to choose and change your mind.

But as you can see from the earlier posts on this thread, the Dean campaign has been battling this perception of "pre-ordained unelectability" that the media has perpetuated.
What do I think of that? It's nothing more than people behaving like lemmings. Going where the masses go. It's like all of us, all of a sudden, wearing sweatshirts that say "Abercrombie & Fitch" because we're told it'll make us look cool. No proof.
same way the media kept shouting "Dean can't beat Bush!" before a single vote had been cast in a primary or a caucus. No proof.

But the lemmings heard it enough times and started believing it. and the people didn't want to "waste a vote" by voting for someone who "has no chance to win". Instead of voting for who they really wanted to see win, they voted Kerry.

So Kerry won Iowa. and as soon as Iowa happened, an avalanche of reaction happened because people said "look. Dean can't win. They were right. and the sky is falling too!"
The resulting mass defections became a self fulfilling prophecy.


where have you seen that Dean can't take the pressure? Did he crack? Did he go on a tirade? Did he check himself into a mental hospital?

What I have seen is someone who is battling not only the Cheney White House. But also the democratic establishment.
This is the very same democratic establishment who couldn't beat W. Bush last time when they had a very wooden, Harvard-grad, masters in Divinity, Vietnam Vet, a lot of experience in government and foreign policy candidate named Al Gore.
so for the next election, the Dems are pushing a very wooden, yale-grad, vietnam vet, a lot of experience in gov't and foreign policy candidate named Kerry...... Nice!

and flip-flopping? How about the tortured Flip-flop that Kerry did by supporting and voting for the Iraq war and now saying that he wasn't for it after all?

anyway..... nothing personal against you and I'm sorry you took it as that. But it was a general comment about those who fled the Dean camp.

[ February 17, 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

what Kerry said recently per the Wash Post.

Huh???? When did he do all that? and if he was "leading the charge, how come I don't recall a single bit of Kerry's leadership during Iran-Contra gate?

In my opinion, people are too easily swayed by what they see on TV. Howard Dean has remained the same and been the most consistent of everyone. He is the most passionate, honest and sincere of all the candidates. In addition I think he can absolutely stand the pressure of this race. He's still running, even though many supporters are leaving his side. His biggest mistake was being himself. The media took his "scream speech" out of context and completely overplayed it. People in this country fell for the media lie and that was that.

Dean is the most real and most "regular" person running, his speeeches don't give you the run around and he's easy to understand. I trust him. Kerry is always talking about his 30 years experience but to me that just makes him another politician. Says what we want to hear, looks the part and acts accordingly. I look forward to reading more about his affiliation with special interest groups. I really don't care about who he's sleeping with. Anyone without a skeleton in his/her closet needs to get a life. How can you learn or grow without making mistakes.

Lastly, I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your mind or your opinion. Just make sure your reasons for changing are based on facts and not media rhetoric or what the competition wants you to believe.

Lastly, I truly respect everyone here just for the fact that you're all interested and being active participants in this process. Long live democracy.

I'm a Dean supporter and I saw something on TV two days ago that was very telling. They were talking about the remaining candidates and they showed 3 short clips of Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Kerry and Edwards were both show smiling and shaking hands. Dean was shown in a church where someone was standing singing almost in his face. It was very awkward and not something a campaign would want to show, plus he was paying attention to something and not mugging for the crowds. I just feel that this is the way he's been shown throughout.

Ung - appreciate your comments but your view on the Dean candidacy is narrow. I remember when everyone said (including the Media) that there is no way in hell that Ronald Reagan could EVER be elected (that he was another Goldwater). But Reagan stepped up to the plate and hit a home run with a campaign (particularly in 80) that had consistent themes, discipline and a message (like it or not) that resonated with Independents and even some Democrats.

Agreed that many in the Media have portrayed Dean as a warmed up Dukakis, but Dean wasn't skilled or disciplined enough to withstand the Media onslaught and his campaign has withered. Likewise, he has run a poor campaign squandering 41 Million Dollars, sending legions of people to Iowa who were perceived as harrasing Iowans, a campaign staff at the highest levels in disarray and mutiny mode and an unsteady message -- not to mention the flip flops involving his Wife's involvement in the Campaign which cost him dearly with Women voters.

Jorel also made some excellent points. It will be interesting to see how presidential election history treats Howard Dean. I'm afraid when all is said and done (and after the Republicans master the web for their own purposes), Dean's campaign will be reduced to "the scream" much like Edmund Muskie's campaign is remembered for "the cry".

Either because you weren't paying close attention at the time, or because your memory cells need to have their batteries recharged, or some combination of the two.

Refresh your recollection at the following links:

Kerry Commission Report

summary of newspaper coverage of Kerry's role

Kerry even got Jesse Helms on his side on Iran-Contra

I got to thinking just what the Democratic Party could do for Dean and what they owe him, and it occured to me that I feel he would be perfect in the role of head of the Democratic National Party. I can once again see the insiders who wouldn't like this a bit, but I think Howard could do a ton of things for the party nationally that he has been doing as a candidate, namely energizing the party, attracting both new voters and disenfranchised voters, and continuing the fight for change on a national canvas. But I can still see the insiders most of them wouldn't like this a bit. Personally I would see him as a much better candidate than current leader Terry McAuliffe. Incidentally McAuliffe was in Spokane yesterday to coincide with 3 Shrub cabinet members who were also in Spokane yesterday. He was asked about the Shrub awol story by a local Reporter. Terry said he did this in response to attacks by the Repugs on Kerry. He said further any time Kerry or the party is attacked they will hit back harder.

[ February 18, 2004, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton!

Or him too Bobby. Oh, the Repugs would be besides themselves, wouldn't they?

Bill Clinton is already the head of the Democratic Party. Terry McCauliffe is a titular head only.

BTW, why so eager to get Clinton as the "official" head anyway? He didn't do much in the way of getting more Democrats elected in 1994 and subsequent years, when the Dems lost control of the House and many governorships.