YOU may want him to win. Many of your friends may want him to win. But the big question is: Do the party regulars/insiders want him to win? In my opinion, the answer is no, they do not.

When I had lunch with Steve Neal not too long ago, we discussed this, among other things. Steve, who is very far to the left, commented that Dean may very well come across to America as another McGovern. Neal further explained that he believed three main positions of Dean's would not go over well at all with the American electorate and would doom his chances: (1) His belief that Iraq and the world was better off with Hussein remaining in power; (2) His belief that all the tax cuts should be repealed; and (3) His civil union stance.

With respect to #1, while Dean did not support the war, this lack of support will be interpreted as his believing the world's better off with Saddam still around--something abhorrent to Americans. Regarding #2, telling Americans poor OR rich that you're now going to raise their taxes via a repeal in the tax cuts will piss them off royally. Regarding #3, while the civil union stance might sit well with a few folks, it will be with those on the left, and too many others will perceive it as gay marriage, and this may very well change some blue states to red states.

Neal's conclusion right now is that Dean might very well get walloped. And this opinion is coming from an ultraliberal.

Yes, but you have ultraliberals who also still maintain that their support for Nader didn't harm Gore's chances in New Hampshire, to name just one state. So I wouldn't take an ultraliberal who doesn't see the larger picture as my chief oracle.

Dean's positions may prove problematic in the battleground states which the Democrats must win to gain the White House. He would be optimally positioned if he had a running mate who insulated him from certain criticisms, like Wesley Clark, John Edwards or Dick Gephardt, who, I am beginning to think, may end up as a the VP candidate.

Dean could defeat W--and by a wider margin that Gore almost did--if he is paired with someone other than a real turnoff to Democratic voters and independents, like Joseph Lieberman or Dennis Kucinich (very unlikely).

from the recent (this week) issue of Newsweek

anyone gonna repeat that old hackneyed (untrue) phrase of "You're not a real republican"?

I am a true republican. and this true republican is supporting Dr.Howard Dean!

and if the Democratic establishment (DRC, DLC) is stupid enough to reject Dean because he does not play by their rules, they're simply repeating the same asinine politic that got them nowhere in 2000 and 2002. When Dr.Dean is elected pres, the democratic establishment will deserve to be subject to a house cleaning.

[ October 27, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Dean picked up his first big union endorsement today from the International Union of Painters, and Allied Trades, which encompasses about 140,000 members. Right on!

[ October 29, 2003, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

I read two interesting polls this week -- one had Dean up 40-17 over Kerry in New Hampshire. The other poll had him with something like a 12 or 13 point lead (I don't recall the exact number). Edwards is finally doing better than a blip and Leiberman is tumbling, as expected.

The Painter's Union endorsement that my friend Puck just mentioned is very significant. It shows that Dean's campaign is not marginal. The right wingers are trying their best to McGovernize Howard Dean. That shows me that they are really concerned about the guy.

With regard to the issue of "mainstream Democrats" being scared about Dean -- that is pure nonsense. To begin with, the old days when party bosses dominated the process are over notwithstanding that it is still a common practice in MIB's beloved Chicago. Howard Dean represents significant change and that is resonating loud and clear with the American people.

I was on a flight from Milwaukee to Philly on Monday. One of the other passengers had a Dean pin on her purse and a flight attendant had a small Dean pin on his tie. We all started talking and some of the other passengers chimed in -- they didn't know much about Dean but they were very curious and said that what they had heard was appealing to them. The more people hear fo Howard Dean -- the more they like him.

From the Denver Post:

Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," the buzz phrase for straight men in touch with their feminine sides, as he touted his accomplishments in "equal justice" for gay and lesbian couples.

But then he waffled.

"I'm a square," Dean declared, after professing his metrosexuality to a Boulder breakfast audience with an anecdote about being called handsome by a gay man. "I like (rapper) Wyclef Jean and everybody thinks I'm very hip, but I am really a square, as my kids will tell you. I don't even get to watch television. I've heard the term (metrosexual), but I don't know what it means."

mdphl: that is so cool that you came in contact with other Dean supporters on your flight the other day. I love hearing the right say they aren't afraid of Dean, if you believe that, I have some snow for sale in Greenland!

From The American Prospect: [Clutching pearls] A 20 year-old suit at JC Penny's? For shame!

Really, Dean should never, ever try to "connect with kids" or use pop culture references. He's hopeless in that regard.

Dean is handsome, though.

[ October 29, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Uh, yes, Dean radiates upper-class, highly educated, frugal New Englander.

There's nothing vaguely metrosexual (or metropolitan for that matter) about him!

Yesterday I typed and sent a letter to an Iowa voter explaining why I believe in Howard Dean, and why I am supporting him. Made me feel good that I am doing something. Its very easy to do this. Just go to his website and click on "send letters to Iowa or New Hamshire". You cannot send an e-mail. They want you to type one. They furnish the names and addresses of the people. Check it out, and Go Howard. I heard on the news today, that my state Washington, so far is the fourth largest state for raising contributions. Right on Washington.

After reading all the intelligent posts from puckman, DuckBoy and sonix, among others, for the past couple of years I knew that the Pacific Northwest had more than its share of intelligent, clear-minded citizens ....way to go, Washington!....and kudos to ya puckman to going the extra mile and sending those letters to Iowa voters on behalf of Howard -- nice going!....btw, do you happen to know who the three states are that have surpassed Washington in terms of raising contributions for Dr. Dean?....something tells me one of em is definitely NOT Virginia.

Gamecock, thank you for the compliment my friend. I appreciate it. Dean apparently loves it out here. Has been to Seattle now 4-5 times. Sorry, but I don't know who the top 3 are, but will do some research. I would guess California must be in the mix somewhere. Stay tuned, and Go Howard!

Howard Dean's campaign has announced that not only have they officially garnered the support or two major unions, The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) and the California Teachers Association (CAT), which combined represents nearly half a million voters but they blew past their Halloween fundraising goal of $310,000 and in only four days raised $354,891 for the campaign.

Btw, this evening from 7-8:30PM EST Howard and the rest of the Democratic candidates will be on the "America Rocks the Vote" youth forum on CNN, which will be hosted/moderated by Anderson Cooper -- that's almost reason enough to watch it just to see A.C. himself.

Howard is doing quite well, better than they ever imagined. I am sure Kerry will try to attack Dean again tonight, probably Gephardt and Edwards as well. Howard has alot of young people working for him, and I expect him to connect well with the audience. Go get em Howard!
I have now written 4 letters to Iowa voters regarding the importance of their support for Dean. More on the way soon.

Dean's opponents are trying like hell to convince the Service Worker's Union from endorsing Howard. The Union, in turn, has said that it is Dean or no one.

This speaks volumes about this campaign. The others are on the defensive and Dean keeps pounding away even with a gaffe here and there.

I was in line waiting to vote this morning and had a chat with the guy in front of me. He made the point that the number of candidates is "confusing". I think we will have a shakedown after New Hampshire with Kerry and Leiberman outta there, Kuchinich, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton further marginalized and either Gephardt or possibly Edwards (or both) surviving and becoming the main challengers.

I just watched the "Rock your vote" debate. This was probably the best so far. There was alot of energy, great questions, especially the ones about policies towards gays and lezbians, and drug use by the candidates. The one big turn off for me was Sharpton and Edwards, then Kerry once again ganging up on Dean for his confederate flag comment. I think Sharpton is an excellent candidate, great speaker, but he seems to me to be to eager to play the race card here. Howard Dean is not a bigot, and he is against discrimination for all Americans, black, white, gay and straight, and I somewhat resented the attack on Dean by him then Edwards. His Vermont record speaks for itself! I thought Kucinich had lots of energy tonight as well. Overall though, including the attack by Kerry on Dean about Dean supposedly being the darling of the N.R.A. I thought my candidate Dean held up quite well. It was also nice to hear a question about what the candidate proposed to trun the economy around too.

Here's how they broke down on the "Did you inhale" question:

Yes: Dean, Kerry, Edwards
No: Lieberman, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton
Refused to answer: Moseley Braun, Gephardt (not at debate)

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said he hadn't but added quickly: "I think it ought to be decriminalized."

Well, Kucinich just guaranteed the votes of all jam band fans.

I saw last night's debate and agree with Puckman's comments that Dean handled himself quite well considering Sharpton and Edwards (surprisingly) were downright vicious and "crossed the line", in my view, in their personal attacks on Dean....but Howard didn't stoop to their levels, kept his cool and defended himself using clear, concise facts including his anti-discriminatory track record along with citing past and present support from a number of prominent members of the African-American community....while I'm certain that Howard would choose to rephrase his "confederate flag" comment if given the chance, I think that it is a relatively minor issue that Edwards and especially Sharpton blew WAY out of proportion with their heated attacks.

I'm surprised that no one has made more out of Gephardt's abscence, though....this morning's Washington Post stated that Gephardt had a "previously scheduled campaign stop in Iowa" but alluded to the fact that there may be more to it than than since "in a recent poll of college undergraduates conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics, Gephardt finished near the bottom"....using campaigning in Iowa as an excuse for his no-show seems awfully odd considering virtually every other candidate has been spending a tremendous amount of time there themselves, most notably Dean and Kerry, and I'm sure they all had ample notice of the debate in Boston to arrange their schedules and travel plans.

In either event, I think Howard conducted himself well last night and, for the most part, the audience reaction seemed to be very positive towards him....the large quantity of candidates (even with Graham dropping out reducing the number to nine) does make these early debates quite cumbersome but I'm sure that will change after the initial primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa when I expect at least two or three of the remaining candidates to drop out of the race.

[ November 05, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Howard Dean apologizes for Confederate flag remarks.

It takes a big man to admit you were wrong and do the right thing by apologizing. Howard just proved this last night. Right on Dean!

I understand also, that today Dean should pick up the endoresment from one of the biggest unions in the country. Don't know who it is just yet.

Puckman, the endorsement you are referring to is from the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), the AFL-CIO's largest union consisting of 1.6 Million members....CNN is reporting that it "is very, very likely (but still NOT official" that Dean will garner their endorsement, which is viewed as being an enormous coup for Howard, as reflected by the fact that Kerry, Gephardt and Clark all have been lobbying HARD for the SEIU to NOT back Dean.

As for your previous post, Howard did formally apologize for his "confederate flag" comment this morning during an interview with Bill Hemmer (who still looks cute as ever, especially with those new glasses wink )....he simply stated "I made a mistake..it's time to move on. The people who are most concerned about this are the people who are with us. I think we'll be fine..Certainly I'm going to make mistakes. I'm not perfect. I don't think anyone who has ever been President is perfect"....well said, Howard....I, for one, think he wisely cleared the air about this issue once and for all with his sincere apology and with Al Sharpton, who single-handedly instigated this whole "fiasco" Tuesday night (with John Edwards later jumping on the bandwagon), likely being out of the race by March I doubt it will even be an issue by the time the Democratic convention rolls around.

[ November 06, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Al Sharpton didn't "instigate" this fiasco, Dean did by making a stupid statement.

Second, if you really think that it's not an issue, fine. The Democrats will learn, as they've had to more than once, that you cannot get away with insulting either one of your core constituencies, African-American voters, or the ones they claim to want, working-class Southern whites, and not pay the price. Mark Green would be mayor in New York had he simply nipped in the bud the racist actions of a staffer, yet he thought he could take blacks and Latinos (50+% of the NYC population) for granted, and Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, waltzed into office.

Dean does not have much strong Black support as it is. These comments cannot help. And without Black support he is not going to win a number of states Democrats MUST win, like Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Michigan. He'd have no chance at all of picking the few Southern or border states like Arkansas and West Virginia which would ensure a victory. Say what you will, I hope he realizes the danger of his comments and focuses more on defeating W than on driving off potential voters.

[ November 06, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Please don't presume that everyone who posts and reads this bulletin board is a democrat. The Commission on Presidential Debates just announced the four sites of the Presidential debates next yr (include Miami, Cleveland, St. Louis and Phoenix) We don't know who the Democrat is that will survive their annual internecine ritual but for sure the GW with be there. I'll also be in NYC for the RNC (Republican National Convention) Good to see that Terry McAulliffe is such a fine leader Hot Water Brewing at DNC
Don't always agree with GW but he does understand business and high tech. wink wink

Let me finish with a couple of names: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Haley Barbour, Ernie Fletcher and next Saturday Bobbie Jindal (Louisanna) all wins by Repubs over the Dems. The Dems message is only urban and union. Sorry- just the facts..

[ November 06, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Eastsidewa ]

If I were Dean's spokesman -- aside from dooming his fate -- I would explain, "What he MEANT to say was that winning the presidency is like selling 10 million albums -- you have to appeal to some ass****s."

Like I said before, it takes a big man to say your are wrong and apologize, which Dean has done. He has put a period in it and is moving on, which is what he should do. Dean has proved this week he is human, and as humans we all make mistakes, just like the Supreme Court did in 2000, by hand picking GW. wink

Bill W.'s formulation is what I understood his remarks to be. I took it as: That demographic are actually voting against their best interests and we have to reach out to them. Here's a quote from the article linked above: I'm willing to be corrected, but have Jess Jackson and the NAACP issued condemnation statements on this? I know they don't speak for all blacks, but still.

This is just the beginning of a long, hard slog (tm D. Rumsfeld). Dean is, by all accounts, a bit of a hothead; he's going to shoot his mouth off. If my dream ticket (Dean/Clark) comes to pass, their spinmeisters are going to be working 24/7. I think Dean handled the fallout in a decent way; instead of apologizing all the time, he needs to clarify what he meant, repeat that over and over and then repeat it some more. Don't let the appallingly lazy corporate press and the rightwingnuts define the debate.

If the stupid link works--the LA Times is a registration site--here's an interesting article. Key paragraph for me:

[ November 06, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

It is being reported that Dean will get the AFSCME endorsement. They backed Clinton when he first ran and have enormous resources in Iowa.

If Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry in NH -- who is left -- Clark and Edwards?

I really question whether stereotyping working class white southerners is a good way to appeal to them. It seems to me you're more likely to turn off blacks and liberal whites (some of whom drive pick-up trucks, but generally don't have confederate flags) throughout the country.

Dean will beat Gephardt in Iowa. The Republicans are already starting to worry.

We've been trash talking about some "Mojo" on the Eagles-Packs Thread -- but our man Howard has the political Mojo, right Puck?

Actually, puckman, Republicans have less to fear from Dean than they do from Gephardt. Despite what all you guys think, Dean will perform worse against Bush than would Gephardt. And no, I'm not a supporter of any of them.

MIB, I will respectfully disagree with you here about performance. Personally I can't wait to listen to Bush stutter and stammer when it comes time for the debates. Dean will be just fine. wink

that would be something to see. the undeniable contrast between W.Bush and Dean in a debate would be like the contrast we see whenever Tony Blair has a joint news conference with Bush.

and while I agree that it was not the smartest ways to approach nor to summarize white working class southerners... to act like the images of "Confederate flags and pickup trucks" do not exist is a fallacy also.

In Georgia, we just had a governor (Perdue) elected largely based on one issue, the confederate flag. That flag, gun laws and the very things symbolized by gun racks and pickups
are very real issues and issues in the south. Many of you guys in the North may not think so. But it is.

That would be interesting. Bush trying to form coherent words and Dean going postal with the occasional profanity and vein-tightening fits of rage for which he is known.

BTW, why do you think the Democratic Party is so fearful of Dean winning the nomination? It's because they truly believe it'll be Nixon-McGovern all over again.

Dean supporters on this board notwithstanding, I have a lot of friends and relatives who are 100% Democratic, and with the exception of one or two, the rest are all very worried about Dean, and that's because these Dems find him way too liberal, as does/will most of the rest of the country if he is the eventual nominee.

puck, here's an example of just how Dean is feared even among rank and file Democrats:

Professor of Constitutional Law at Vermont Law School Michael Mello, a staunch liberal Dem., BTW, explains: "I don't trust Dean on civil liberties, I don't trust him on national security, I don't trust him on Isreal, I don't trust him on capital punishment."

Mello's single biggest problem with Dean is Dean's stance on civil liberties. In March 2002, Dean tried to ram through the Vermont State Legislature a bill (Senate Bill 298) that would have made the U.S. Patriot Act look mild. The Dean bill would have made it a crime to commit any act "for political or ideological gain. A person's membership in certain organizations would be admissible to prove that the person acted with terrorist intent."

Iowa Political Science professor David Loebsack, Ph.D., comments: "As someone concerned with civil liberties, I am very concerned with Mr. Dean's actions on this bill."

Mello continued, commenting that he believes Dean "just doesn't 'get' September 11th. He doesn't understand what happened to this country on that date."

Both gentlemen continue sharing their concerns about Dean, discussing how Dean has a problem answering tough, pointed questions, as evidenced by his performance on the various news shows over the last few months, with his temper often getting the best of him, as if "how dare the interviewer ask him a challenging question?".

[ November 08, 2003, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Dean has decided to forego accepting matching federal campaign funds, and rely on his supporters to fund his campaign. He is totally going to concentrate now on campaign finance reform, which of course the Republicans are dead set against!! I got to vote along with his other supporters. The vote was 85% no, not to accept federal matching funds to %15 yes, to accept. Right on Howard!!!!

Let's see...Dean and many other Democrats and several Republicans desire to amend the First Amendment via "campaign finance reform"--ha! there's a feel-good piece of BS if I've ever heard one--but now that their precious "campaign finance reform" has hurt themselves, they're in favor of forgoing spending limits and all. How politically expedient; how convenient.

I told ya'll some time ago that this "campaign finance reform" crap was going to end up hurting candidates. There's a reason why it should correctly be called the "incumbent protection act."

[ November 09, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Its simply the right thing to do, that should have been done along long time ago. Democrats and Republicans take share of the blame for this. I think Dean should be commended for his stance. Since we have a Repuglican controlled House and Senate, the chances for passage are slim. Too bad.

there's a point that I fail to see, MIB. and this really isn't meant to be an attack on you.

What I don't understand is that just in the recent posts on this thread, those who criticize Dr.Dean have proclaimed him both "too liberal" and "too conservative" at the SAME TIME. and yes.... these are cominjg from the same people.

How can that be? Dean is either too liberal for you or you find him to be too conservative. You can't claim him to be both.

I happen to have voted for him to accept federal matching funds. He decided otherwise. So be it.

But this thing about "spending money = freedom of speech"... whose biggest proponent is my neighbour down the street, Sen. Mitch McConnell is totally bogus.

I mean.... if money equals freedom of speech.... then .... if I have more money than you, I have more rights of free speech???? Do I havwe more rights than others because I have more money? I'm sorry. But this republican says that is flawed logic.

It was a Republican House and Senate that passed it, puck, and a Republican president signed it into law. A pox on all their houses for squelching the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers valued political speech most of all. No other type of speech was deemed to be as important as political speech, relatively speaking. Now we have a bunch of expedient politicians desiring to make it tougher for challengers and interest groups to voice their opinions, and they're doing it under the guise of "campaign finance reform." What a crock.

Is it any surprise that Dean has to decline matching funds? It's because the so-called reform has hamstrung his ability to raise funds through the traditional process.

Ung, if you've got $10 million and I've got fifty bucks, why can't you be allowed to give $1 million to your candidate of choice while I can easily give my $50? If someone wants to give a candidate $1 million of their hard-earned money, let them. If not, just what good is the First Amendment anyway?

MIB,

I see what you're saying ... if I have $10 million, why can't I spend it like you would your $500. Just as I can spend my money to buy a more expensive car or clothing than you can.
That's all fine and dandy. But how does the first amendment right of "FREE SPEECH" come into play here? To me, those are apples and oranges.

I'm with ung on this one. MIB, I don't see how you can use a first amendment argument to oppose campaing finance reform. Also, as of right now, incumbents win a grossly high percentage of political races despite the fact that most people claim they are tired of all the political garbage. So I don't see how additional reforms can be seen as an "incumbent protection act."

As for Howard Dean, he is still my top candidate for President. I like the fact that, compared to the other candidates, he is not as much a Washington insider. Yes, I agree, now that he has moved on top in the polls, he's starting to show hypocrisy himself, and his recent apology wasn't about admitting a mistake. So he is learning how to play the game. And the fact that he can be a hothead at times doesn't bother me in the least. I don't remember what questions he was asked, but I would call some of these "tough, pointed" questions by some of these journalists preposterous, and I would prefer he, and other candidates when asked these questions, would simply answer them by saying - that's a stupid question and you know it, next question. As for the claim that his stance on civil liberties is poor, why don't his opponents hammer him on that issue?

There's still plenty of time before the next election. But I have a feeling that by election day, I will be dissatisfied with both major candidates and will probably vote independent again. frown

Pat (and ung), read through the recently-approved law and you guys will see just how pro-incumbent this bill is. It's ricidulous!

Challengers are saddled with having to raise money practically on their own, with little or no help from PACs or other interest groups. Incumbents have the power of their office, where they can solicit funds, be swayed by lobbyists, and use a bully pulpit. Look at President Bush as one example. Like Clinton and every other sitting president, he has the deck stacked in his favor. Air Force One alone is his most potent campaign tool, and a big attraction it is, too, believe me. Do you think Dean has such wonderful luxuries? Of course not, and the new bill does nothing to help him.

Another example: A candidate cannot run political ads within a certain period of time before the election--60 days, for example. However, the incumbent, who is already an elected official, CAN be on the news with his speeches, town hall meetings, and everything else "related" to his current office. A challenger can't do any of this, or barely any of it. Advantage: Incumbent.

I am not opposed to campaign finance reform per se; instead, I am opposed to it in its present form. Ask yourself this: Do you REALLY and HONESTLY believe Congress would pass a law that would make it EASIER for them to lose their jobs, EASIER for a challenger to defeat them? Of course not. Why do you think Congress passed this incumbent protection act? To ensure their continued existence and power.

You mentioned giving money as not a form of speech. Of course it is. Participating in the public discourse, whether it's through actually speaking, marching, protesting, writing letters, giving money, passing out flyers--all this and more is sacrosanct and must be protected at all costs by the First Amendment. Our Framers would have it no other way.

Madison and company must be rolling in their graves over how the Bill of Rights is being chipped away in the guise of "campaign finance reform." However, I'd rather tolerate some corruption and abuse with the First Amendment left intact than to have our freedoms cut back just to satisfy some need to clean up government.

It's very similar to the argument used against the Patriot Act. Too many Americans are eager to give up a little privacy or other rights just to stop terrorism. "Terrorism and violence has gotten out of hand" is a common cry by Americans who willingly forego some basic rights.

Well, I'm sorry, but I am not one willing to sacrifice my liberties just so the government can try to nail an additional terrorist, for as Ben Franklin so aptly said, and as we've paraphrased him so often, "Those who choose to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."

I agree with ya MIB about the Patriot Act.

going back to Campaign Finance Reform Legislation.... I have read it. and despite its flaws inherent.... believe me. I have enough first hand experience and knowledge with the fact that no matter what(!) the incumbent ALWAYS has a huge advantage.... whether under present, past or future conditions.

But all that would be irrelevant if this really is a matter of freedom of speech. I would not care if it guaranteed 100% fair elections if I feared this would infringe on our freedom of speech rights. That one consideration would be an overriding factor subverting all else.
The fact that those opposed to Campaign Reform are getting embroiled in other knick-knacky issues besides Bill of Rights issues is (for me) proof that this really isn't about Freedom of Speech. It's about keeping the gravy train rolling.

So why make it more difficult for an incumbent to lose, which is what the McCain-Feingold bill does? There are ways to reform campaign financing, but this bill wasn't one of them. Too bad it has become a case of "see, I told ya so" as the bill's opponents had said to the bill's proponents.

Here's a very intersting perspective on the whole "flag flap". Appears this was not the first time Howard used the reference to the flag. I'm not pleased Howard used the reference, I think it's also clear where he stands on supporting discriminated people of all kinds. I think what's the most disingenous thing about all of this is the attacks by the challengers at this point in time...why not mention it before? I think Mr. Shields hits the nail on the head...it's got a lot to do with the union endorsements. Read the article...it's not long, and casts an informative light on the subject that has not received much attention.
CNN's Inside Politics

PS: I gave a donation to the campaign last quarter--first time I've ever donated to any politician--and I plan to donate again.

Interesting piece jt. Ah, politics. And way to go as far as contributing to Dean!!

you know what? People can pick apart the confederate flag and pickup comment all they want. But I saw nothing wrong with it. When when one is elected president, one is president of all the people. Not just to the middle-classed pretentious. not just to those of the upper east side. Not just to those with whom you agree politically. A president is the president to all whether you agree with their beliefs or not.

I see nothing wrong wit Dean saying he wants to be the president of those who disagree with him.

JT'n Carolina, that's an interesting article, because the context in which the statement is made makes it sound very different than what I originally read. As I read it here, he's not endorsing the confederate flag but saying that working class white southerners stand to gain from the democratic agenda. I still think the confederate flag thing was a clumsy, stereotype-reinforcing way to express that thought, though.