ung dear, I was raised partially in the "black church" and I ain't never heard any black minister (or white one for that matter) let out a tuneless yelp like Dean's. (Maybe at some Pentecostal churches--but Dean's wasn't in that context--or maybe it was; maybe he was catching the spirit and speaking in tongues, is that what you're saying?)

I've heard them at football games, at rock concerts, while hanging out with friends in a parking lot in the middle of the suburbs, while running down the streets of New York City high on ecstasy (when I was 19 years old), etc. It was quite a yelp. I kind of liked it. He's not the only one who's that emotional--I bet W could let loose a war cry to top that one with ease.

[ January 24, 2004, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

ok... so you got me on the "tuneless" part. No one will mistake Dr.Dean for Al Green. But still, I've heard much louder, more more raucous and much more freaky yelling... "hootin' and hollerin'" at black churches.
Gotta admit, I didn't see Dean falling down in the aisles convulsing. wink

Silly ung, dontcha know Ted Kennedy drove all the snakes out of MA ... and into VT?

Interesting editorial on Diane Sawyer's interview with HoDean and his wife in today's NY Times. The writer found Dean's wife charming, but, overall, hardcore Dean supporters can't find the piece very flattering.

Support for Howard Dean is wearing thin. Even Puckman1, who originated this thread, isn't defending him anymore.

[ January 27, 2004, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Nascar007 ]

Nascar: who says I am not defending him anymore??? I most assuredly am supporting and defending the man! Howard was the first to talk about the issues, which he still is talking about. And I still find his candor quite refreshing. How scary, a candidate that speaks in honesty, and tells it like it is.

With all your question marks and exclamation points I was expecting a blood-curdling scream at the end of this post, something along the lines of: YYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHRRRRRR!!!!! - which, as we all now know, translates into "like it is."

I watched Diane Sawyer's interview with Howard Dean and Dr. Dean. I was very impressed with what he and his wife had to say. I will continue to support Howard Dean and he still has my vote.

I found Diane Sawyer to be very "tabloidy" and opinionated. Her questions and comments came across as very accusatory and she constantly seemed to be fishing for something that wasn't there. Again, I think the Deans handled the interview very well.

I agree completely with what both puckman and jorel stated earlier today -- well said, guys!....if the media would just concentrate on the ISSUES instead of focusing on 20 second sound bites that reinforce what they WANT the public to hear then the results of every one of these elections/primaries would be VASTLY different....so many members of the public are too easily swayed by what they read or hear from the "immortal" media that they'll go along with whatever Bill O'Reilly and the rest of those biased idiots who work for Rupert Murdoch's "fair and balanced" network tell them and assume it's factual.

Anyone who has objectively listened to the CONTENT of what Dean has had to say (particularly over the past week) cannot help but be impressed....my vote and support has been with Howard virtually since the time he announced his candidacy and I have seen or heard nothing thus far that would convince me to change my allegiance....GO HOWARD!

Here's some of Howard Dean's CONTENT from the last week:
Guess what. Despite gamecock's prediction, I have managed to listen to that drivel AND remain unimpressed by Howard Dean.

Fair enough to criticize the war -- and I give Dean credit for having the balls to adhere rigidly to his view on it -- but to suggest that Iraqis are worse off in any meaningful way after Saddam's ouster is absurd.

Is there disruption to the Iraqi economy as a result of the war? Sure. But after 2 or 3 years as a US fiefdom, Iraq will surpass by leaps and bounds even the best years of the Saddam regime.

Many people who were against the war were also against UN sanctions against Iraq, claiming that all the sanctions did was starve people and choke Iraq's economy. Now those same people, including Howard, are saying that this economy of starvation was a golden era compared to what exists now.

It's nonsense; complete and utter nonsense.

Dean's status has been reduced considerably of late but he is IMO the only candidate for the democratic nomination who has stated realistic policies that show not only a vision but a path to reach it as concerns this country's and the world's sustainability.

The screeching and showboating that politics in this country both requires and punishes aside, his energy ideas are a good start for a national debate. I haven't seen anything close from the others.

Unfortunately he has allowed himself to be pulled off-message to get the nomination.

With the increasing shrinking of the world's easily available resources and the increasing interchange of materials and labor around the world, we will have to start to take the lead in setting standards for sensible development and preventing the spread of disease and international crime, etc. at every level.

I'm not convinced any of the democratic candidates fully appreciate this or think that it is an electable platform. No amount of military power will protect us from a lawless, resource-poor, disease ridden planet. And I don't expect we'll be emigrating to Mars anytime soon.

Christ! Why don't you just shoot yourself and put an end to your misery? You leftists are just so damn pessimistic and negative.

To expound upon sportinlife's excellent points, despite Dean's second place finish in NH tonight the results of the exit polls that were repeatedly run on every major network that devoted extensive coverage to the primary (CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC) all show that among those voters who ranked "ISSUES" as their primary consideration in choosing a candidate Howard was the OVERWHELMING choice....unfortunately, among those NH residents who felt that "ability to defeat President Bush" (NOT that I don't feel that is VERY important, of course wink ) was THE main component above and beyond issues or what the candidates stood for, Kerry won decisively.

Did anyone else happen to see Howard's lengthy "concession" speech Tuesday night?....I admit to being a bit biased here but that was as impressive a speech as I've heard ANY candidate give (including Dean himself) since the campaign began -- he focused almost exclusively upon concrete issues (including mentioning "equality for ALL Americans" and "sexual orientation" specifically on at least two occasions)....isn't it amazing that the "fair and balanced" media will likely give virtually NO airtime to the content of this 20 MINUTE speech which addressed issues that directly affect the American voting public after they incessantly re-aired the 20 SECOND portion of his "scream speech" last Monday ....anyone who observes the network coverage of this campaign (particularly Faux News) and can honestly say that they don't see an EXTREME BIAS in favor of the current administration must be watching it with blinders on.

In either event, if Howard continues to focus on the ISSUES with the clarity and effectiveness that he did Tuesday night and IF the media finally begins to "tell" the public that educating themselves on the issues of the candidates and what they stand for IS just as important (if not moreso) as a few seconds of a "sensational sound bite" THEN perhaps Dean still has a legitimate shot at giving Kerry a serious run for his money during the upcoming weeks....however, if so many members of the national media continue to inform the public that the race for the Democratic nomination is over and Kerry is a lock then, as we see so often with sports "fans" of newly crowned championship teams, all the front-runners will continue to jump on the bandwagon in order to prove to themselves that they were "supporting the WINNER" all along.

[ January 27, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

OMG, MIB just called someone "pessimistic and negative."
Hello pot, this is kettle.
Oh, the hypocrisy.

Dean's speech last night was about 5 minutes too long, but I was generally impressed. I still suspect he's too intelligent to appeal to the general electorate (without Clinton's strategic deviousness).

Very "best-case scenario" of you. What if an Islamic theocracy takes over 2 years after we bug out?

I'll admit that that is a possibility. However, if an Islamic thoecracy wanted to outdo (or even match) the Saddam regime in oppression, torture, and depravity, it would have some mighty big shoes to fill.

Even admitting that possibility, my oringinal contention -- that Dean is out of his mind if he thinks Iraq is worse off post-Saddam than pre-war -- remains valid. And I consider it all but disqualifying for him as a serious candidate for president.

That said, I'm a yella-dawg dem, and even if we nominate Batman, I'll wear my button, send in my $100, and put the "X" in the Democratic box.

Last night's speech by Dean was the best speech he has ever given. I was totally swept in by the unbelievaby loud crowd, and it was clear to me Howard was speaking from the heart. It just blew me away. Way to go Howard!!! And we will Howard!!

He's never said that, to my knowledge. He said the US is not safer, and I've heard most Dems agree with him in polls.

[ January 28, 2004, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."
Dean, USA Today, 1/25/04

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Howards' statement - it happens to be true. Iraq is facing massive unemployment because of the destruction of the Baathist regime - something that every single planner for the post-war Iraq stated would be a problem. And those unemployed, particularly the former army members, are believed to form the core of the insurgents who continue to target our soldiers, Iraqis who work with the Americans, Western media and contractors. The looting that happened in the immediate post-war period also added to the economic misery of the country.

Telling the Iraqi people to just wait a couple of years (and as an "American fiefdom" - which is EXACTLY what they don't want) and everything will be fine is totally bogus. We have screwed these people for 20 years, and should not be screwing them any more.

Well said, CPT. If "living standard" means daily water and electricity (and employment), many Iraqis are worse off in that regard.

Funny how the Usurper's blatant untruths are seldom seen as disqualifications (I don't mean by you, yelladawg Skiguy).

Gotcha. So the Iraqi people are better off, even though they're worse off, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for the way America has made them worse off by making them better off. Makes perfect sense.

Maybe this will help clear it up:

"The Ambassador and the General were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

Chimpy McFlightSuit Oct. 27, 2003

Bill W, you should pay more attention to the news. My quotation of Dean was exactly that, a quotation. He said, and I quote, "their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before." If you go back up to my post from yesterday, there's a link to one of the several dozen newspapers that reported the statement.

It's an absurd, ignorant position for him to take. There are enough grounds for criticizing the President without going to cloud cuckoo land.

I don't recall seeing the Dean quote before. But I've read plenty of interviews with Iraqis who said their living standard is worse now. Not to mitigate Saddam's imprisonment and murder of multitudes, but if you had a job, electricity and water before and don't now, your daily life is worse, no? As one citizen said, "We want to be able to talk and walk."

Nothing cuckoo about it, or saying that the uncounted "accidental" civilian deaths haven't made more Iraqis hate us. I doubt McPaper harped on those.

The full quote (I don't know why Raze and his fellow lefties think it's so bad to want to bring terrorists to justice and want to mock Bush for proposing just that, but apparently if Bush wants to do it, it's wrong, even if that means letting the terrorists have their way): "We spent time, obviously, on the security situation. There are terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill anybody in order to stop our progress. The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react. And our job is to find them and bring them to justice, which is precisely what General Abizaid briefed us on. It is a -- the people have got to understand, the Iraqi people have got to understand that anytime you've got a group of killers willing to kill innocent Iraqis, that their future must not be determined by these kind of killers. That's what they've got to understand. I think they do understand that -- they do. The Ambassador and the General were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

[ January 28, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

As I noted in my original post Bill, the war no doubt has caused some temporary disruption to the daily lives of many Iraqis. All wars cause such disruptions -- it doesn't mean all war is bad (although I realize there's a loony left that adheres to exactly that proposition; perhaps Dean agrees).

But you see the very argument you advannce -- daily life was better for many under Saddam -- excuses an awful lot. Talk to non-Jewish Germans alive in the 20's and 30's (or just read some history). They'll tell you that uncle Adolf did wonders for daily living standards.

And read a little about the fall of Communism in Russia. That had an awful lot of people pining for the good old days of the Soviet Union.

Bottom line -- all change results in dislocation. To rely on that dislocation to criticize the change itself is short-sighted at best, dishonest or naive at worst.

Regardless of whether their daily life is better or worse, as a candidate for president, Dean's a fool for saying they're worse off. The popular perception--which Dean can't change--is that Iraqis are better off for their liberation from an evil man. Americans are proud of this. To question this now is to attack something that we hold dear--that the end result of the war, for all its messy justifications, is something Americans should be proud of because we liberated the people of Iraq. He's raining on our parade. We can handle him trashing WOMD and other aspects of the war, but the more he goes on about how Iraqis are worse off, the easier it will be to paint him as an anti-American Saddam-lover. Even if he's right (and I don't think he is, certainly in the long run), it's a foolish position to take.

[ January 28, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

So, Skiguy, if this member of the "loony left" can interpret your comments, every time there is a war or major societal disruption, there is a reduction in economic standards, albeit temporarily. In other words, as TomFord also pointed out, Howard was correct about the current state of affairs in Iraq, with regards to current economic standards versus those when a stable, albeit tyrannical, regime was in power.

If it happens every time, why weren't we prepared for it? If it is that predictable, why didn't we do something about it? Oh, I remember, the administration didn't want to think about it, so they ignored the planning that had taken place, in both the State and Defense Departments, to reduce or eliminate these completely predictable problems. They refused to read the reports, didn't follow the recommendations of their own experts, and screwed the Iraqi people yet again.

Yes it is better Saddam is gone - but at this price? In human lives (American and Iraqi)? In social disruption? In further destabilizing the Middle East? In providing fodder for our true enemies - Al Queda? Those are the questions that every American should be asking themselves, and it is important that Howard makes that clear.

Once again we see the real problem with Dr. Dean - he tells the truth.

Wrong, CPT Doom. War causes temporary disruption. There's no way to wage a war and NOT cause that disruption. Can it be minimized? Sure, good planning and good luck can minimize both the severity and duration of the disruption.

But Dean didn't mean "there's temproary disruption and things will soon be better." He meant "they're worse off than before the war and likely to stay that way."

If he did mean the former, then he wins an award for stating the glaringly obvious, and it doesn't amount to much of a criticism.

If he meant somehting in between, like "they're worse off now, and the President could have ameliorated their suffering with better planning" (which is a VERY sound criticism of the Chief Ex-Coke-head), then he should go back to school and learn how to speak more precisely, because the quotation of his with which I excerpted yesterday cannot plausibly be read to mean this.

And if you really do believe that all war is bad, CPT, then you really are pitifully naive.

Since when is promoting sustainability and respect for international law and sovreignty "pessimistic and negative"? :confused: And one aspect of the "liberal" philosophy of sustainability is a "balanced budget without a deficit that threatens world economic stability.

One more reason the term "liberal" is becoming meaningless and archaic.

[ January 28, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Last evening, I heard on the BBC news broadcast that approximately 10,000 iraqi lives have been lost so far, since this war began. (Not to mention all of the wounded)

I'll be the first to admit that I do not know as much about the war as it seems most posters here do. If what we are doing is so right, I wish more countries would play a larger part in assiting the U.S and the U.K. I sometimes feel that we are shoving our way of life, our opinions and beliefs down the throats of a people and culture that are not ready for it. The word/term disruption is being made to sound like a hickup or a bump in the road. In my humble opinion, the things that are occuring in Iraq are more than a disruption. In many ways, we have managed to dismantle an entire culture and way of life, good or bad. I do not claim to know the answer(s) to what needs to be done but to call what's going on a mere disruption is an insult to a race and culture that is in dire need.

By calling what's going on a disruption clearly shows how removed we as Americans are. Hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq are in constant search of basic human needs. Needs that we here have at our fingertips. Perhaps the Bush administration is trying to do what's best for Iraq, I don't know. I just think if the changes were presented in a different way, with more participation from other countries, it would be an easier pill for the Iraqi people to swallow.

You think the human cost of the war is high?

Have a read about the human cost of Saddam's regime

[ January 28, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

10,000 lost lives is still high.

Really? The Taliban were in power for far less time than Saddam (and got only a pittance from W--remember George H. W. Bush support Saddam throughout the 1980s), but managed to return Afghanistan to the medieval era, ruthlessly slaughter opponents and oppress women and non-Islamic fanatics, provide financing and a home for international terrorism (we're still reeling from their gracious welcome to Osama bin Laden), and ramp up poppy production to further the opium trade!

Then there's good old Iran, which some Western leftists supported because of the horrors of the dictatorial Shah. Iran has exported terrorism and supported suicide bombings across the globe, but particularly in the Middle East--funding for Palestinian suicide bombers, for terrorists linked to Islamic fundamentalist actions in Europe and Africa, and so on, can be traced back to Iran, among other places; and during its first decade and a half of existence, the Islamic regime there didn't hesitate to kill opponents, reinstitute extreme versions of Shari'a penalties (such as the stoning of homosexuals or the crushing of them under a destroyed wall, etc.), the torturing and killing of women caught committing adultery, etc.

Then there's Saudi Arabia, which has extremely oppressive laws against women; homosexuals; people committing what we would consider misdemeanor level crimes; non-Muslims; non-Saudi citizens, etc. Saudi Arabia also provided the bulwark of the 9/11 hijacker-murderers, don't forget, and its dangerous Wahhabist theology, in addition to festering within its borders, has been exported all over the globe. Many formerly moderate, predominantly Islamic countries, like Indonesia, Tanzania, and Malaysia, have large numbers of young men turning towards anti-American, Wahhabist Islam. Even Europe, especially France, is having to deal with the results of Saudi Arabia's religious "exports."

I won't go on, but I think you get the picture.

[ January 28, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

But fantomas, Saddam himself was on a par with, or exceeded each of the regimes you mention. Ask the Kurds, ask the Marsh Arabs, ask anyone who dared to express any thought not permitted by the Baathists.

So say a Shiite theocracy takes hold in Iraq. I doubt it will happen, but it may. Even if they're just as bad as Iran's mullahs, or the Wahabbist oil ticks in Riyadh, the people of Iraq are no worse off than they were under Saddam.

Maybe a different subset of them wind up as victims under the Shiites than under Saddam, but it's pretty much an even swap.

And that's in the worst-case scenario that a shiite theocracy takes hold. I don't think it will. Iran in 1979 had a population with a natural and historic religious fervor, which was ruthlessly suppressed by a dictatorship that we supported for two generations.

Iraq, despite a Shia majority, has been rather naturally secular for a ,long time. And while we supported Saddam at one time (he being the enemy of our enemy), we are also the ones who got rid of him. Anti-american sentiment in Iraq is therefore nothing like what existed when the murderous and corrupt Pahalvi regime was routed.

We have, in fact, been actively courting Iraq's Shia leaders, Sistani in particular, and even if such a regime takes hold, it is unlikely to be (a) as repressive, (b)as anti-American, or © as much an agent provacateur as the pigs in Tehran.

I could be wrong. I'll eat crow if I am. But I'll be damned if I buy what the Deaniac is selling in the interim.

What happens when Howard Dean drops out of the race in a couple of weeks? Does he get to keep all of the money that the internet rubes gave him?

If so, I guess we'll soon be seeing a new 30 room mansion on the Dean homestead.

Right. The "Internet rubes" who helped scare the shit out of every tired, old typical politician.

Which is what Howard Dean has become: Dean fires Trippi and hires Gore apparatchik Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

WARNING! You are in violation of trademark rights. This is your only warning.

BTW, genius. I am never pessimistic or negative. I live in a great country, it's in a fairly decent state (despite what some on both the Left and Right might say), and my life is fine.

Tally ho!

How true. Much higher than 300,000 or 1,000,000.

Wow! Talking about low standards. I see it doesn't take much to impress you.

C'mon MIB, you wouldn't know a good speech if one hit you in the face. At least Dean has enthusiasm which is a hell of alot more than chimpy man has. wink

If I had joined this Dean cult, I'd be wondering exactly where the money went and what the campaign got out of it.

NEVER pessimistic or negative!? eek! ....care to put that up for a vote among your "constituents" on this board, Judge, and let democracy rule?....or are the opinions of the people no longer part of your right-wing agenda?

As for your attack of Dean's outstanding speech Tuesday night, had you actually WATCHED it then you would realize that your inflammatory comments are completely off base....are you accustomed in your courtroom to passing judgement and determining verdicts based upon biased pre-conceived notions as opposed to objectively listening to all the facts first?....I'll readily admit that the odds are against Dean getting the nomination now but that still doesn't justify such slanderous statements, particularly coming from someone who didn't even hear his most recent speech.

This news won't be good to Dean supporters:

Dean skips ads in 7 states

I'm still on the "Anyone but Bush" side, but if any of these guys makes it to the Connecticut primary, I'll decide who to support then.

MIB, it's 10,000 lives so far . I'm sure the numbers have already increased and I don't see this war ending anytime soon. What amount of dead people will make an impression on you. I realize the number 10,000 is lower than 30,000 and 1,000,000 but as usual, thanks for the childish and deseperate comment to try and make yourself look more superior than other posters here. With that said, the unfortunate number of people that died under Saddam's regime still doesn't make the current situation any less serious.

And that is a fraction of the number Saddam would have killed over the same period of time.

And 10,000 is an entirely inflated and inaccurate figure.

What do we make of Dean firing Joe Triipi and replacing him with a Gore ally? (Those of you who don't know who Trippi is, please keep your ignorant fingers busy elsewhere.)


Sources for your assertions? Just pearls you accept at face value from Perle?

Man, if Saddam killed at the rate you wingnuts credit him with, there wouldn't be any natives left -- that'd make it easy to flush out the Al Qaeda arrivals...

You White House shills can make the same circular "points" in the numerous American Jihad threads. Let's discuss Dean positions and news here.

I think it's a reaction to the recent results and trying to get better management behind the money he's raised. Dean owes a lot of that money to Trippi's work, but Trippi seemed to be focused on too much in the campaign and eventually would probably have been a liability.

I also read in the Post that the night of the NH primary, Dean had a telecon with several of his endorsers in congress and they voiced the opinion that current management was not working.

I wish that Trippi had stayed on as the senior advisor (the position he was offered), but it was a demotion, so I don't blame him.

Hey Bill W --

For one source on Saddam's murderous reign, scroll up to my post, which links to a UK government report on the subject. (Of course, I know in your world, they're discredited, because they're part of the conspiracy...whatever)

So here's a source you'll maybe trust more, Human Rights Watch:

"Opposition groups in exile and the U.N. reported mass arrests and summary executions of detainees. U.N. Special Rapporteur for Iraq Max van der Stoel reported that in November and December 1997 the government executed more that 1,500 political detainees in Abu Ghraib and Radwaniyah prisons as part of the “Prison Cleansing Campaign” following visits there by Qusay Saddam Hussein, the president’s son. All prisoners with sentences of more than fifteen to twenty years were reportedly summarily executed and some of the bodies returned to families were said to have shown signs of torture. . . . No details were available about the fate of the approximately 16,500 people reported “disappeared” in the last ten years. . . "

That's from their 1998 report, back when the Chimp in Chief (see, possible to despise Bush AND support the war) was still in Texas, where he belongs.

I don't know if I'd have supported the war in advance, based only on the human rights justification for it, and thanks to the Administration's prevarication, I wasn't given the opportunity to consider it on those terms.

In hindsight, though, there can be no doubt that Iraq, and the world, are better off with the monster deposed.

The Left's failure to acknowledge that shows simply that they're so blinded by hatred of Bush that their powers of rational analysis have been destroyed.

With any luck, the hard left will lose its influence over the democratic party, so that we have some decent shot at beating George Bush in November.