Interesting article from this side of the border about Dean, which provides ample ammo for supporters and detractors alike.

Dean honed his skills in Montreal

I'm famous. Actually, just a huge dork for caring about such things -- but still the official Dean blog mentioned me by name. Granted it's one of the most common first names on the continent -- but they meant me. It's the little thrills that keep me grinning.

Hope to see some of you on Tuesday or at our booth at Market Days this weekend.

[ August 04, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: MCMikeNamara ]

Well, did anyone else catch Mr. Dean on Larry King? I though he was just excellent. Bright as the beam that shines out of the Luxor casino in Vegas. I loved the question about him being "too liberal". His reply, "well, if wanting a balanced budget is liberal, thats fine with me"!!!! I think Howard has a great smile too.

You know he's doing well because Joe Lieberman is doing W's job and attacking Dean from the right!

Washington Post: Lieberman warns Democrats of leftward tilt

I thought he did an excellent job -- he handled all of the questions very well. I wish the charisma that he displays in person would have come through more on TV -- probably would have made more sense for him to be in the studio face to face -- but, all in all, I was impressed. Even the little dodging on the gay marriage thing didn't bother me -- too much.

As for Leiberman -- he is through -- finished. I am even beginning to read some articles in the mainstream media placing the blame for Gore's defeat squarely on the guy's shoulders. Thinking back to the Cheney debate -- there basically was no difference between them.

Dean for America bumper sticker went on the car today -- big step for a guy who abhores bumper stickers wink

Right on. I need to get ahold of one of those stickers too! Agree with the comments about Lieberman. I think he is employing desperation tactics against Dean early, that or he is jealous of all the attention Howard is getting.

[ August 05, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

A quick question for you Dean-o-philes: Is your man a liar - or merely just an idiot - on the issue of Liberia?

He's all hot to send U.S. troops there. Doesn't explain why. Doesn't explain why "troops in Iraq - bad - troops in Liberia - good." But that's OK. He's just hot to do it. What I find interesting is his claim that troops would only need to be there for seven or eight months. Seven or eight months??? Is he INSANE?

We would be going there in an exercise of pure nation-building. Only problem: there's no nation there right now. No infrastructure. No nothing. We'd have to start from scratch. Several years later, we still have U.S. troops in Bosnia (getting killed there too, not that you'd hear about that from the quagmire-obsessed U.S. liberal media establishment). Why in the world does he think we can build a nation from scratch in seven or eight months?

Is he that delusional on issues of foreign affairs? Or did he just reach for an empty soundbite that would sound good to his target audience?

[ August 05, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

But, uhhhh...isn't your boy Bush all hot on committing forces to Liberia?

And why won't you let Dean differentiate the two - aren't the reasons for the commitments different?

:confused:

CITT, I agree with you a lot, but this just seems like anti-Dean/anti-Dem kneejerk...

gj

Bush is in favor of troops in both Liberia and Iraq. There's no conflict inherent in his position. What I'm looking for is someone who is against troops in Iraq to explain why U.S. intervention in Liberia is a good thing.

And President Bush hasn't put a seven/eight month timetable on Liberia. He's actually been quite honest (relative to historic presidential standards and I'm not referring to just Clinton) that Iraq is a two to three year project, and that's with a better infrastructure and a steady stream of oil money to finance its reconstruction.

My point and I have one: Dean is hot to commit troops to Liberia and he's not given any appearance of fully understanding all that entails.

[ August 05, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Actually CITT -- it's a question better posed to the Bush-o-philes.

George W. Bush at the 2000 Presidential Debate at Wake Forest:


"Africa’s important. And we’ve got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade. It’s an important continent. But there’s got to be priorities. And the Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons as is Europe and the Far East, and our own hemisphere. Those are my four top priorities should I be the president. It’s not to say we won’t be engaged [in Africa], and working hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity [like in Rwanda]. I thought the best example of handling a [genocide] situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians; support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile."

[ August 05, 2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Short answer - and I want to keep it short so this thread doesn't veer off into Bush land given that it's already over the 200 post mark: 9-11 changed everything.

Bush and us Republicans were naive on this issue in 2000 campaign. We now know better.

One thing Dean fans fail to overlook: The Clintons will NEVER allow Dean to be successful. Never. Ever.

If Bush is seen as beatable next year, and Dean looks like he could win the nomination, DNC Chairman Terry MacAuliffe and his friends the Clintons will pull out all the stops to derail Dean. Trust me.

Several Democratic party officials and I were discussing this last weekend. If Bush looks beatable next November, the Clintons cannot and will not let any Democrat other than Hillary be the nominee, because that could very well mean Dean, if he were to win in 2004, would serve a possible 8 years, thereby pushing Hillary back to 2012, something for which she will not wait.

I'd bet everything I have that the Clintons actually want Bush to win in 2004, as that means Hillary will come to the rescue in 2008--a much more palatable outcome to them. The only way they'd be in favor of a Dem. victory in 2004 is if Bush looked beatable AND Hillary then entered the race, since this would mean she'd have a chance against Bush. (She'd never do it if Bush looked unbeatable, for her career would be damaged, possibly irreparably.)

Dean lovers can laugh this off, but believe me, big-whig Dems. that I know all despise Dean for these very reasons. These party officials all told me that the Clintons will stop at nothing to ensure Dean goes nowhere.

And let's not even bring up Senator Kerry and the alleged dirt he's got--and keeping under raps, for now--against Dean. My sources tell me that that's the main reason why Dean so conveniently ordered his gubernatorial records and other info to be held sealed for the next 10 years or so. Something to hide, Governor?

This whole Democratic thing is going to be fun! Pull up a chair and pop me some popcorn.

MIB --

While I agree with your statement that the Clintons don't want anyone to jump ahead of Hillary -- this last BS about Kerry seems a lot like all of those stories about W and the purported pics of him dancing nude drunk or high that would be released by McCain -- the oldest smear tactic in the world.

Tell your "big whig" democratic friends to get a life. They are obviously part of the democratic party that cowers in the corner afriad of the right wingers and hate mongers.

mdphl,

I have NO personal knowledge of what Kerry allegedly has on Dean. I was just reporting what has been making the rounds of many politicos. BTW, I DID hear the same thing on the radio today, too--and no, it wasn't on Rush's show, either.

I can tell you this much: Kerry has absolutely no love lost for Dean. The senator hates the guy.

Thats fine if Kerry hates Dean. Seems like everybody does lately. I guess they don't like the fact the man speaks the truth, tells it like it is, and alot of people are very uncomfortable with that!

If MIB's portrayal of the Clintons' power is accurate, I feel my lefty hatred of them fully justified. OTOH...

Oh, pleeeease. I could even wind up voting for Dean, but he's very evidently a politician. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show writers did a *brilliant* job of skewering him for his hemming and hawing on gay marriage and medical marijuana during the Larry King appearance... and then ridiculed Lieberman's criticism of Dean by pointing out that Gore and Whiny Republicrat Joe had already led the party into the minority "wilderness" he so fears from a non-Iraqi Fiefdom-supporting candidate.

Did I say he wasn't a politican? Of course he is. And I didn't seem to hear him hemmimg or hawing at all regarding the two issues that were noted. If somebody is unclear about where Dean stands, all you have to do is go to his wesbite.

Note to Dean campaign: Quit campaigning, raising money ect, the fate of Gov Dean is in the hands of Bill and Hillary, not the voters.

It must be true, MIB said so.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93902,00.html

Well i guess dean will only go on shows that give him big softballs to hit...

Remember how the NBC dude, exposed him...

Please enlighten us, PhillyFan, as to how the "NBC dude" exposed him. I think the no spin zone is spinning you.

Well how many troops do you think.....

Dean.... errrrr what... stop the war...

or as i heard him say on larry "softball" king... that's a state issue....

That's it? That was his biggest "exposure" by the great Tim Russert?

I think there is a great amount of animosity towards the McAuliffe/Clintons in the Democratic party.

The Howard Dean popularity is a manifestation of this resentment.

Whether or not this resentment has wheels (in DC parlance) remains to be seen.

But any obvious Clinton obstruction of the Dean campaign will likely backfire. To wit: Lieberman's ham-fisted protestations of last week. The press seized on him so fast that poor ol' Joe's head is still spinning.

Lieberman was such a weak VP candidate that he couldn't even deliver Florida. His lack of popularity was only matched by his running mate, who couldn't even carry his home state. That's why they lost the election: Tennessee and Florida. Not the corrupt bunglings of a loaded Supreme Court.

The Clinton proxies are all but defeated. Who will do their bidding in this respect?

Now that's the FIRST correct thing you've said all week!

Dismiss it all you want, but I'm telling you: Democratic Party strategists will NOT let Dean be the victor if Hillary could be. Again, I emphasize that the Clintons won't get involved if Bush looks like he'd win--it's too risky for them. But if Bush looks beatable, especially if his approval numbers dip below 50% next year, then the Clintons will make sure Hillary is the nominee. (Note: Bush will have to truly look beatable. If it's one of those iffy situations, Hillary will sit it out.)

Bet the farm and everything else you have on this.

Ah, but you are forgetting that unlike Lieberman, the media adores the Clintons. Moreover, to have Hillary run in a race where she has a decent chance, well...that would be nirvana for the media.

The Clintons have nothing to worry about when it comes to charges of obstructing or interfering with the Dean campaign.

One problem with this is the Democratic primaries. They're coming very early next year, and we're likely to know the nominee by the first week of February and certainly by the 2nd day of March. Bush's numbers will have to dip below 50% soon for there to be any chance for her to get in, but I'm taking her at her word that she not going to run.

That's irrelevant, actually. First of all, she can be drafted from the floor. Secondly, in the Democratic Convention, more than 1/3 of the delegates that will decide the nominee are "superdelegates." These are not chosen in the primaries; rather, they are party officials from around the country, and such officials in this case are Clinton supporters.

I know you republicans like to "win" elections any way possible without people actually voting for them but when did "Democratic Party strategists" get to choose who the nominee is? Last time I checked we still believed in people casting votes, and having them counted.

Even George Will has taken notice of Dean in his column this morning. He says that Dean supporters are more or less in "attack Bush" mode. Well duh George. How long did it take you to figure this out? That Dean has tapped into the nerve of alot of frustrated Democrats. Damn right he has, and he is doing just what he seeks to do, energize the hard core Democrats, myself included.

[ August 07, 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Raze,

You know I love ya, but I'm afraid that MIB is correct on this one...

Gator"Vote for Dean"Jamie

"Adores"??? More like "are obsessed with" or "are transfixed by." Adoration usually implies a lack of criticism; the media try to tear these folks apart as frequently as they can, though they still load up on them as soon as they can.

Speaking of Dean, he's now falling into the Gore trap of being called a "liar". The supposedly non-partisan commentator on C-SPAN this morning cited several papers picking apart his recent differing statements on age and Social Security eligibility. This is only the beginning, I can assure you.

Meanwhile, pResident Liar and his zany crewe toss out one lie after another and rarely are challenged. I mean, look at Colin Powell just the other day--he KNOWS that "Post" report was true, which is why he couldn't bring himself to quash it unequivocably. He's out of W-land, and is rehabilitate his credibility in case he wants to run for some higher office in the future.

6Iron -- excellent post -- I'm in agreement with your very insightful anaylsis.

I too hear what he is saying, and George Will tapped into this "resentment" as well, and I understand it. I too feel alot of resentment towards the Democratic party, because up till now, the only one willing to challenge Shrub and take on the other Democs is Howard Dean, and I still think he is the only one with balls. My other resentment stems from the Bush backlash, and the vanishment of any and all progress made under Clinton, from going to surplus to defecits, tax giveaways to the wealthy, relaxment of EPA rules and the degradation of our enviornment and on and on. I agree with Howard when he said "Republicans don't know how to handle money". Right on Dean!!!

I am growing tired of correcting you, razor, but I'll do so again: I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I am an Independent who leans somewhat Libertarian, but I do hold some "Republican" AND some "Democratic" beliefs.

BTW, labeling Republicans as ones who don't want to count the votes is laughable, especially considering who ran Gore's campaign in 2000--Bill Daley, from the most political family in the country when it comes to stealing votes, illegal votes--you name it. Daley and the Cook County Democrats wrote the book on that stuff. I should know. I was one of them in my younger days. eek!

Puckman, I agree with you. Believe it or not, I actually like Dean. Would I vote for him? Doubtful. But I like his chuztpah and his tell it like it is mentality. Does it get him into trouble once in a while? Probably, but so what. I may not agree with many of his viewpoints, I may not vote for him, but I admire people who have the balls to take a position, even if it's one with which I disagree.

Originally posted by MIB:
Believe it or not, I actually like Dean. Would I vote for him? Doubtful.

Are Bill and Hillary stopping you?

Raze, i would think that anyone's brain would tell you not to vote for dean, but in reading the thread... that doesnt work for everyone.

I'm sorry, could someone please explain to me again why they love Dean so much because he is such a straight-talker: \"Dean Says He Misspoke on Social Security\"

I could support a Dem (or any politico) who's willing to talk honestly about the impending bankruptcy of the Social Security system. Apparently, Dean was once one such person. Now he's just another panderer, although, I guess, we are all guilty of liking panderers when they're pandering in the direction we want.

dean is definately no mccain.

being a straight talker is not the same thing as being right all the time.

Senator MCCain was also having to apologize and/or amend things he said off the cuff during the campaign and Dr.Dean is no different.

I mean.. really. If you're gonna criticize Dr.Dean for his misstatements, how do you think we should evaluate the now well publicized misstatements of W.Bush?

No one is criticizing Mr. Dean for misspeaking (and since when are you liberals** so quick to forgive President Bush for his misstatements?) ...

My points are (1) that Dean is now engaged in a wholesale exchange of positions -- social security and the retirement age are one, free trade is another, and (2) he is engaged in blatantly, irreconcilably inconsist positions on the use of American force (Iraq bad, Liberia good) for which he is not being asked to provide any explanation.

That's not misspeaking off the cuff. These questions go to what the Doctor fundamentally stands for ... other than sarcastic anger about the Bush administration.

______________
** I know you consider yourself a moderate, ung, but I've read your posts. Compared to mainstream America, you're a liberal. wink I will admit that, compared to many folks on this Board, you're an ultra-conservative far right wing co-conspirator. wink

[ August 08, 2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Dean is peaking too early. He's going to stumble between now and Iowa / New Hampshire.

I don't think so. Even though Gephardt got the Teamsters support today, no real surprise, in the latest poll Dean is tied for second position, with Kerry. I think he is only going to get stronger as time passes by. More people will open their eyes and ears to whats going on in America today, and what Dean intends to do to correct it.

Sorry Charlie. But I refuse to let you redefine the meaning of political terminology long understood.

I am not a liberal. I represent the (real) republican wing of the republican party. I reject the efforts of the fringe right to recast itself as being truly conservative.

Personally I think the former General (I forgot his name) that was looking to consider running would be an excellent primary candidate with Dean being an excellent VP candidate.

Have the calmer influence as the leader and having a louder, more brash support position is a better combination.

Just gotta ask ... what do you consider the "real" wing of the republican pary?

P.S. Not trying to yank your chain, really want to know what you think.

I heard Dean bumper stickers are popping up all over Spokane -- any truth to that rumor Puckman? wink

Its true...its true!!! wink

The Dean supporters need to show me how Dean can get past the civil union thing in the crucial states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio -- all states where alot of Reagan Democrats live. They are Dems because they are blue collar, but they are Reagan Dems because of cultural issues. Bush and Rove are salivating at the prospect of Dean winning the nomination because the election will be a cakewalk, a landslide because of two words -- civil unions. There goes Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan into the Red States column. And perhaps Illinois as well. And there goes the election. If you can't explain to me how Dean can get past this issue in a way that someone who works at the Jeep plant in Toledo will relate to, then we have more political novices in here than I thought. And if Dean thinks he can brush it aside simply by saying "It's a matter for the states to decide," well, that won't work because the immediate reponse to that is "well, you passed it in YOUR state, didn't you?" People want their president to at least "appear" to be on the same level culturally. Dean can't even pass that simple test.

I saw Dean on Cspan the other day, he was in Iowa...A end of middle aged lady basicly told Mr Dean she was not a "homophob" but thought that "Gay marriage" would ruin the USA and families..
He replied along the lines of, I never sais I was for gay marriage, I support civil unions, I think everybody should be entitled to the same rights that I have. Let me relate a story to you, a few months back after a rally an elderly man came up to me and said thank you for your stand on civil unions. I was a bit taken aback and asked him if he had a gay or lesbian in his family. The man replied" I am eighty years old, I was on the beach on Day, most of my friends died there.and I am gay.
Mr Dean then said If someone who is willing to give their life for this nation can not enjoy the same rights as I , then this is not the nation I thought it was. You will not agree with me on everything, but I will stand up for everybody.
( Please note this is not a word for word..it is the best I can remember..)

I am not sure how that will play in the Jeep factory ( assuming there is anyone working there a year from now) but I would rather lose the election after standing tall than win it by not standing at all...