Very interesting article....the comments by Mark Shields that were most revealing to me (directly referring to Al Sharpton's venonous attack of Dean in Boston last week) was the following paragraph:

The Rev. Al Sharpton must remember that Jesse Jackson -- after winning one presidential primary in 1984 and seven primaries in 1988 -- became, for all practical purposes, the president of black American and a major party figure with a guaranteed, prime-time speaking spot at the national conventions. News that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois) intended to endorse Howard Dean apparently sent Sharpton around the bend.

Shields also asserts, not surprisingly, that the true reason behind the other Democratic candidates being so vocal following Howard's "confederate flag statement" was in an attempt to get the AFSCME and SEIU, two of the largest, most powerful, and RACIALLY DIVISIVE unions in the country (which he describes the latter's 1.6 million members as being 56% female and just 58% white) to reconsider endorsing Howard, which thankfully has not turned out to be the case, with the joint official announcements coming today.

I also love Shields' final statement, which not so subtly questions those opponents and members of the media who have attacked Dean unfairly, when he states, "With the ethnic and economic diversity of SEIU and the union's able activists out front in the campaign, it will be more difficult for critics and the press to pigeonhole Howard Dean as the fey favorite of Volvo-driving, Chardonnay-sipping, Masterpiece Theater-watching elitists."

Well said....Howard truly comes across as a man of the people, and NOT just "traditional old school" supporters of the Democratic party either.

As Dr. Dean's campaign continues to build up momentum in the weeks and months to come, it will great to be considered one of his supporters who believed in what Howard stood for long before it became the "popular" thing to do...this is not meant to imply that there's still not plenty of room on the bandwagon for millions more Americans to come aboard, of course.

[ November 12, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

The Chicago Sun-Times' lead editorial in their November 11, 2003 edition:



[ November 12, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

When I was at the Dean meet-up the day before the voting on whether to forgo federal matching funds, a campaign finance reform advocate discussed Dean's ideas on how to change the system, and basically remove the incentive for candidates to opt out by increasing matching levels, and allowing for increased spending (assuming the candidate can raise that amount) when opponents are able to outspend by leaving the system - it is an interesting concept, although I don't know how workable.

I have often favored the "let anyone give anything, but make it all publically reportable" system. Candidates would be forced to publically reveal everyone who gave a dime to their campaign, along with when and how much. By making the contributions public, candidates could better make the argument of special interests trying to buy campaigns.

Basically it's the same theory I have with allowing discriminatory employers to recruit on campuses - public humiliation is a very effective, and Constitutional, weapon.

This is something with which I agree wholeheartedly. Even the Sun-Times in its editorial above supports this position. It is far better than what has thus far been attempted.

DEMOCRATIC RACE IS DEAN'S TO LOSE

I heard something one the news the other day where Dean's Doctor skills came in quite handy, as I understand someone from his campaign staff had some kind of a seizure, and Dean was right there to administer aide.

Dr. Dean (side note, should he be Gov. Dean, relfecting his most recent political office, or Dr. Dean, reflecting his education?) will be here in DC tonight - his 55th birthday - at the Cap City Brew Pub, and I finally decided last night to contribute to the fund-raiser and go. I am interested to see if he is as good a public speaker as many of you have reported, particularly as he will be in a relatively small space.

cpt:good for you. I was most impressed when Dean came to Spokane, he really takes command of the microphone. And what equally impressed me was that he went out into the overflow crowd we had in Spokane in late August just to shake everybody's hand and say hello.
I am also proud to report that the Dean birthday party fundraiser held in Spokane Sat. night was the only fundraiser in Wash. State that met and exceeded its goal. Way to go Spokane!

CPT -- please give us a report when you can.

I just watched a replay of the Iowqa Jeff-Jack Dinner from this weekend on Cspan this morning and Dean reminds me of Bill Clinton in 1992. He has the charisma to energize the party base and next year's convention will be one wild Dean Party. he might be able to win against George W. Bush as long as he continues to refine his message and keep delivering it to the voters and UNIFY THE PARTY!! AND MAKE THE CASE AGAINST INCOME TAX CUTS!!!!! They simply reduce the revenue the government takes in and creates huge budget deficits that are very difficult to get rid of!!!! I know this from experience, here in Michigan in the 1990's a REPUBLICAN Governor did the exact thing and gave the incoming Democrat a $1+ billion dollar budget deficit the past fiscal year and a $922 million dollar deficit in the current fiscal year, with a stagnant national economy on top of it, and this senario is true for the other 49 states.

[ November 17, 2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: tlkoss ]

Last night was simply AMAZING!!!! Like so many Dean supporters, I have never given money to a campaign before and never attended any kind of campaign rally, so this was both a great experience and a wonderful opportunity to hear the Governor speak. He is simply masterful at working a crowd, even though it was the 4th or 5th campaign stop of the day (and the 4th or 5th birthday cake, which I am glad to say he did not eat - we don't want to see him adopt Clinton's bad habits wink ).

Although it was bookended by a nasty credit card company (I'm sorry, I thought when the saleslady said one year with no payments she was actually telling the truth) and a dead battery (left my damn lights on) I would not have missed this opportunity for the world. I was thrilled to be able to see the Governor relatively up close, and can tell you the energy and excitement was more than contagious.

Dean was joined by several members of Congress who endorsed him yesterday (including, unfortunately, Mr. Anti-Semite himself, Jim Moran) and they were there, in addition to several other speakers, all of whom were inspiring, to introduce the Governor.

Dean spoke relatively off the cuff, avoiding his stump speech (which he had just given at a previous event), but said all the right things. My favorite part was when he compared the likely outcome of Bush's current trip abroad with the love-fests that followed Kennedy on his trips to France and Germany in the early 60s. He also took the administration to task for their duplicity in launching the Iraq war, while praising our men and women in uniform and expressing his support for the action in Afghanistan.

I am not so taken by Gov. Dean that I could not see his political pragmatism at work. Certainly every Democratic candidate since 1963 has evoked Kennedy's memory, so that is an old ploy. In addition, the Governor had several members of the unions who just endorsed him (including some members currently on strike in this area), and a lot of those members were Hispanic. He also had Jesse Jackson Jr. (who looks to be about 12, he must be the youngest-looking Congressman), the head of the Congressional Black Caucus and a locally renowned African-American minister all speak. Clearly he is trying to counter the arguments that his campaign is too white and upper class, but that is not to say I believe he is simply keeping up appearances. I truly believe Dean wants all Americans, of all shades, included in his vision.

The highlight of the evening may have come when Dean had already finished his speech, and cut the cake, but came back to the microphone to urge everyone to tip the staff at Cap City Brew Pub. You gotta love a Presidential Candidate who reminds people to tip the bartenders.

The whole evening I kept thinking about my mother's tale of seeing John Kennedy at the beginning of his campaign, in a hall so crowded she and her fellow college students sat on the steps of the auditorium just to hear him speak. I really feel like I may have witnessed a moment in history, and as Dean's message gets wider hearing, I really believe he will continue to gain support.

I put the bumper sticker on the car this morning. Dean for America!

cpt: Right on! I am so happy for you, that you had such a fun positive experience. I remember the day I saw him here. I was so excited for the whole thing! Howard Dean is the man, and its so much fun being caught up in everything that is going on with him. I am now awaiting word that a Spokane campaign office opens. Have one in Seattle already. Go Howard!

File this under Good News/Bad News: Remains of Dean's brother possibly found. Sad, sad, sad.

What's a little odd about this is that Charles Dean wasn't in the military, but he was listed as POW/MIA and has been on the list of people that the military is searching for the remains of. There was a rumor that he was working for the CIA, but that's been dismissed as untrue.

[ November 19, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

The fact that he was suspected of being CIA for visiting a Peace Corp Volunteer is one that I find very credible. I really feel for, and admire, the folks entering the Corps in this day age even more.

The fact that Dean wears his brother's belt all these years just shows what a sweet guy he is. It just makes me feel that he's the type of leader that has values and cares for others.

His brother was listed as POW/MIA even though he wasn't in the military because the U.S. government has a policy of tracking down all American citizens abroad even if you're non-military. I think that's a great policy because it means your government never gives up on you.

On a side note, I thought Dr. Dean looked like a hunk in his youth as seen in the picture in today's New York Times.

Dr.Dean was and still is a hunk. But the pic in today's Times is not Howard. It's Charlie, the missing brother.

Batboy may have meant this image from the Times' online edition. A great-looking family, and a touching story.

CPT - thanks for the report. You've had the bumper sticker on your car for a few days now -- how many guys have you met because of it -- it works like magic here in Pennsylvania

I just got done reading an e-mail from the Dean campaign. In it they say that Bush is going to start his campaign attack ads this weekend,with the $200 million in special interest money he has raised, and I think we Dean supporters know how bad Shrub and the Repugs. are going to try to distort the Dean/Dem. ticket. The Dean camp is asking anyone who can to contribute what they can at this time. They hope to raise $360,000 by next Tuesday. And with our help, I know they can do this! Thank you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics...&partner=GOOGLE

Sorry there Deano's but there is the ad in a nut shell...

Hey, sounds like an attack ad from W LOL, Good thing Dean never runs on anything negative...

The ads sound much like what it is, some people have the will to lead, and some are just big wusses....

PF, did you forget that Republicans invented negative campaign ads??? If you would take the time to read some of Deans website, you would see there are alot of positives. Republicans are good teachers when it comes to negative attacks.

Sorry there puckman, but if i'm W i say that and i say that loud... I support fighting terrorism... Dean does not support fighting terrorism and making tough decisions. That ad which which you "claim" is negative is not. What has been negative is all the complaining these dems have been doing the last however many months they have been running around trying to elect the "lamb".

That position and that position alone makes Dean unelectable.

Oh yeah number 2, what political leader has ever been elected that wants to RAISE taxes?

Just a few sobering thoughts for you deano's...

We shall see who is electable and who is not electable next year. Whats really clear is Bush is very vulnerable right now.

Another perspective on Dean and gay marriage, from Town Hall on National Review online. (Sorry for long post; it's a paid subscriber site and links wouldn't work.) See also the excellent op-ed in today's NYTimes on the subject and how conservatives are in the best position to insist on gay marriage.


Politicians avoid gay marriage debate, leaving action to courts - Jonah Goldberg - 11-21-03

There's an interesting contradiction at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Everyone agrees that we are well on our way to living in a country where allowing same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and yet virtually no major national politician and neither of the major political parties supports the idea.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it is flatly irrational and bigoted to oppose gay marriage, no one was surprised when President Bush complained that the court had violated the "principle" that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But many people might be shocked to learn that all of the Democratic presidential frontrunners were quick to declare that they, too, oppose gay marriage.

Howard Dean, who is supposed to be some sort of dashboard saint of cultural liberalism, not only continues to oppose gay marriage but refused to even use the word "marriage" in his statement on the Massachusetts ruling. At least Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman had the gumption to say flatly they oppose same-sex marriage. So do both Clintons, by the way.

But Dean's statement best captures the political paralysis over gay marriage. "As governor of Vermont," Dean declared, "I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights."

Dean's dishonesty is staggering. The Massachusetts court explicitly orders what Dean has said he opposes: same-sex marriage. When he says gays should get equality "one way or another" what he's really saying is, "I don't care what the courts do so long as I don't get blamed for it." The only thing that makes this a "similar approach" to what the Vermont court did is that, once again, an unelected band of judges is forcing elected politicians to do something neither they nor their constituents support - and that's the way the Democrats like it.

People forget, but Dean wasn't quite the proud pioneer on civil unions he now claims to be. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to write and pass a civil unions law. Dean signed it in his office, privately, away from the cameras.

Dean and the other Democrats see that the courts are moving toward a position that is unpopular with the majority of Americans, but popular with the base of the Democratic Party. Allowing the courts to do what you're afraid to do is a profile in cowardice, but a shrewd one.

Meanwhile, Republicans, while a bit more honest about their opposition to gay marriage, are no less squeamish about doing anything about it.

Until now, the White House has largely taken a do-nothing policy toward gay marriage and a moderately pro-gay stance - by conservative standards - in other areas, appointing openly gay officials and treating gay Republican groups with respect. But the White House understands that aggressive opposition to gay marriage is as dangerous for Republicans as aggressive support of gay marriage is for Democrats.

It's a funny stalemate. The Republicans can't afford to be seen as too "anti-gay," lest the Democrats demagogue them with tolerant suburban voters, and Democrats can't afford to be seen as too "pro-gay" lest the GOP demagogue them in Southern and rural states.

So both sides stand there, circling each other like sumo wrestlers, hoping the other side will make the first move. Normally, I would celebrate such inaction, because it would give all sides the opportunity to ponder the issue more. One of the reasons I favor civil unions is that I believe they would forestall gay marriage while at the same time doing right by gays and society on a host of public policy issues.

Though a great many conservatives disagree, civil unions strike me as the right balance between principle and tolerance. Marriage has a specific meaning: a union of a man and a woman. But the state shouldn't bar gays or anyone else from naming heirs or sharing property as they see fit.

But the federal and state courts are blazing ahead of the public and any chance of such compromises. As with abortion and affirmative action, both parties are so scared of seeming "divisive," they'd rather have an unelected judiciary make the tough calls for them. There's no easier dodge for a politician than "It's out of my hands." The end result is a public policy fait accompli, crafted and implemented without democratic input at any level.

In a healthier polity, the Massachusetts legislature and the U.S. Congress would explore impeachment proceedings against the judges who've exceeded their mandates while at the same time displaying the necessary courage to deal with these issues themselves.

Actually the Massachusetts decision does no such thing. It doesnt explicitly order anything. All it said was Massachusetts under its current Constitution can not deny gays the right to marriage being that there is no law. The legislature has 180 days to decide how to interpret that, either by clarifying it as a civil union, or leaving it as is--which would then allow for marriage, yes.

I lost the link, but there is a good legal article on CNN.com about the MA and NJ decisions, you may all wish to read.

By the way all...got my "Bush Scares Me" pin from the Dean campaign this week. Even though it goes along with Halloween I still like it!

[ November 23, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: DallasUNC ]

Let's remember that the W definition of "fighting terrorism" is invading the country of any tinhorn dictator whose army we can defeat militarily, in the total absence of evidence of an imminent threat or collaboration with the terror networks that perpetrated 9/11. ie, to fight terror is to engage in activities that motivates flocks of new terror recruits. Nineteen-f**kin'-eighty-four.

Bill, how right you are. Who is next on Shrubs hit list? Mumomar Khaddafi?? Then who? Its ridiculous? Shrub is totally out of control in way to many areas, including foreign and domestic policies. We need somebody with sense, who can restore Americas vision and standing in the world. That man is Howard Dean.

Do you mean who wants to raise taxes and admits it? Or who knows that at some point he'll have to do so and has the courage to do so? Because Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton ALL raised taxes, and only some of them told the truth about what they were doing. Perhaps few politicians WANT to raise taxes, but if they're not irresponsible, like W, and launch wars that need to be funded, then they'll raise taxes if need be to fund those wars. As it is, this character is gouging our future and those of subsequent generations through these massive deficits, thefts of the Social Security surplus, giveaways to industry, and massive borrowing --as well as the steady toll of serious injuries and deaths among the military in Iraq and Afghanistan--to reward his greedy, privileged friends.

I can't believe this writer above actually says that appointing openly gay people to posts makes the administration pro-gay. I guess discrimination is the only answer for these jerks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

Dean supporters should look forward to spending some part of 2005 reading "Bonehead: How I Ran to Lose" by Dr. Dean.

drudge... smudge......

So, Mssr. Dean wants to protect the First Amendment by limiting it, eh? Scary.

Puckman, you've really got to stop disregarding a political news story just because it's reported by someone whom you do not like. I don't read Drudge. I pay no attention to him, but in cases like the above referenced story, Drudge didn't make anything up. All he did was report a story reported elsewhere.

BTW, since we're on the subject of Dean, feel free to bookmark my statement here so you can either compliment me for being correct or criticize me for being wrong 12 months from now, but: If Dean is the Democratic nominee, Bush will win handily, probably in a landslide (barring any unforeseen serious problem developing between now and then).

I know this will be hard for a lot of Dean supporters here to accept, but politically speaking, Bush will fare much better against Dean than he would against some of the other Democratic candidates.

If one was a Bush supporter, I'd be praying for a Dean nomination victory.

Dean's campaign is reminding me more and more of the Carter 76 campaign (this comparison has been made since Dean entered the race). There is a strong grass roots organization, lots of excitment and a great deal of anger at the out of touch incumbent. In 76 there was a backlash against Ford for Watergate; in 04 there will be backlash at the failed war in Iraq. While I acknowledge that there are many obtacles ahead for Dean -- I certainly wouldn't paint him as "unelectable" at this point. In fact, he could very well win the election by conceding the South, carrying the same states that Gore carried and add Ohio, West Virginia and/or a few others. It will only take one to put him over the top.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]BTW, since we're on the subject of Dean, feel free to bookmark my statement here so you can either compliment me for being correct or criticize me for being wrong 12 months from now, but: If Dean is the Democratic nominee, Bush will win handily, probably in a landslide (barring any unforeseen serious problem developing between now and then).

I know this will be hard for a lot of Dean supporters here to accept, but politically speaking, Bush will fare much better against Dean than he would against some of the other Democratic candidates.

If one was a Bush supporter, I'd be praying for a Dean nomination victory. [/quote]I think that's true. I also think most of the Democratic intelligentsia feels the same way, hence the outright fear some of them have of Dean. As Dean shows himself more and more frequently to be not quite ready for his closeup, they are realizing more and more that a Dean ticket will probably result in an electoral landslide for the GOP.

Maybe its just wishful thinking on Howie's part, but this is from his appearance last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews:

"The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union . The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons."

I might be mistaken here, but I think the Soviet Union no longer exists. I'm sure that this is a sign of Howard Dean's brilliance.

[ December 02, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Soviet Union. Dean should take some of his outrage at Bush and direct it inward.

The solution to the problem of Russia giving nukes to Iran is to buy the nukes from Russia. Wonderful. Because those wily Russians won't turn around and sell more of the same to Iran.

I wonder if his solution to the drug problem is to buy drugs directly from dealers so we can keep them off the street.

He's insane. Pity the Democrats.

If anyone deserves pity its Shrub. Mark my word, and you can bookmark me here if you wish, Bush's undoing in 2004 will be his misadventures in Iraq.

Can you even IMAGINE the howling and laughter that would be heard in here had Bush made those statements?

"What an idiot! Chimp is too stupid to know the Soviet Union no longer exists!"

"Shrub's a moron! There IS no Soviet Union!"

*insert similar quote here*

GOD puckman, i hope that the USA hockey team can beat those damn soviets from the USSR in the olympics the next time around too!

Only if American voters truly believe that the Democratic nominee has a better solution.

I do, however, agree with your general belief that foreign policy will be the issue in next year's election. I have said long before the economy started rebounding that this time, it ain't the economy, stupid, to paraphrase the familiar saying. Quite the contrary, it will be foreign issues that decide the 2004 election.

Well PhillyFan -- you didn't mean to but you made a very valuable point. Don't count Dean out, he may be the USA hockey team of 2004. George W. Bush is a helluva lot more vulnerable than that Russian hockey team that got beat in Lake Placid.

How sad that our President now has to sneak into foreign countries -- Puckman may very well be correct -- Iraq could be the man's demise.

dean-o's=myopic folks.

You just don't get it, do you??? It's for frickin' security reasons!!! Jesus H. Christ, how many times must this be emphasized?!?

Again, I suggest you go back and look at another presidential "secret" visit, by FDR to Casablanca during WWII. FDR did just what Bush did in terms of keeping his trip a secret.

I get it - George W. Bush is a big pussy!

You just don't get it, do you??? It's for frickin' security reasons!!! Jesus H. Christ, how many times must this be emphasized?!?


Here's what you dont "get" MIB, its the irony of the whole situation. Remember how the repugs told us if we went to Iraq we would be greeted as "liberators", you know the "dancing in the streets" and throwing flowers at the troops fairy tale?

Now a full 7 months later the place is such a mess the conquering hero has to slip in in the middle of the night, get his photo snapped holding a turkey and then head back to Texas.

I totally disagree. As a Dean supporter, I look at the other candidates and see no one who even has a prayer of winning. I start fromt eh assumption that beating Bush is a long shot to start with. By choosing someone like Gephardt, Lieberman, or Kerry, the average voter will not be able to tell the difference between him and Bush and will naturally vote for the incumbent. We have to run someone who has varying positions ont he hot ticket items, not the other issues that while important, do not carry voters with them.

At this point, I think a Dean victory against Bush is unlikely, but it's time for a hail mary, and this is the best one that could succeed in my opinion. If he gets Clark on the ticket (now that Clark's campaign seems to have found its ideological footing) maybe something great will happen.

By the way, I believe peoiple would be saying this about any Democratic frontrunner just because Bush has enjoyed such high ratings. i'm sure if Kerry were the front runner, republicans would say that they're glad he's the front runner because other Democrats are more dangerous. It's just the run of the mill election argument.

I'm sighing like Al Gore right now. I assume big, bad Bill Clinton ditched Secret Service and just roamed the nation and the world with no security, safe in the knowledge that he's good enough, he's smart enough and gosh darn it, people like him. I'm not sure of the exact history of the Secret Service, but I think pretty much every President has had a security detail of some sort. You guys are getting pretty desperate when you attack the President for taking security precautions. Will Howard Dean have security guards once he gets the Dem nomination? What, he can't travel America without being scared? What a pussy. (I thought that term was degrading to women, but since I know none of you enlightened liberals would use offensive slang, I assume its okay.)

William I haven't a clue as to why you are so uptight about security as it relates to Shrub or Dean.
D.C. Guy I agree with you on your thoughts about Dean. Several of the other candidates are nothing other than half baked Repuglicans in Democrat clothing. We need a candidate who offers a clear alternative to this current mess of an administration, and that candidate is Howard Dean.
William and Phillyfan, I would ask you if you guys know of the status of the investigation going on as to the CIA leaker, that we were told would be "fully investigated" by the administration. Its been so quiet now with no news on this for the longest time. Gee what a surprise!!!!

[ December 03, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

What is his message? Other than "i hate bush".. that's all i hear him say...

Well.. other than he wants to raise taxes... and quacks about the "soviet union".. Or talks about his record in VT, but wont let anyone see the records...

The casual voter does not respond to "anger and bitching".. thats how you win folks.. not by pandering to you crazy way out of line pinko's.

DC's anaylsis is directly on point with my thinking.

And Bush isn't the only baby (William, you are right - I shouldn't have used that word)-- his VP spends most of his time in a bunker.

I can't imagine Wes Clark hiding.