Ted Rall: Boy, was I wrong. This year is different.

[ramblin_dave]

Ted Rall says he doesn't regret voting for Nader in 2000 based on what he knew then. But he admits he was wrong given what has happened. Now he says we must vote strategically and go with the Democratic Party candidate who seems most likely to win:

HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT

When you're at war for your future, you can no longer enjoy the luxury of picking the ideal candidate or the perfect party. Under normal circumstances, third parties like the Greens and Libertarians deserve the support of like-minded voters. But, the fact is, only the Democratic Party can defeat Bush next year.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I just hope and pray we get behind the right person, and that when that person emerges we put aside our differences and put our full effort into getting that person elected.

[Terwilliger]

1. this was posted yesterday

don't worry...pruner is on the case!

[ramblin_dave]

3. I didn't see it yesterday and maybe

others didn't see it as well.

[Terwilliger]

4. then you should kick the duplicate

then they'd see it

[ramblin_dave]

6. I didn't know there was a duplicate to kick.

I did search back a few pages and saw nothing, so I went ahead with this post.

[Southsideirish]

7. Why are you telling us what we "should" do?

Last week you were telling me I should't make a certain post - who are you to be telling us what to do?

[Terwilliger]

15. My own brand of malcontent

its still a dupe

[Atman]

2. I think we're effed either way

The stories are just now starting to surface about Dean's "medical differment" during Viet Nam, after which he went skiing in CO for 10 months. This effectively robs the dems of the chickenhawk issue, and the GOP will use it, you can be sure.

That leaves Clark, who suddenly seems to be the media's annointed candidate, is just a placeholder for the republicans; hedging their bets, if you will, in case Bush actually is vulnerable.

We're screwed either way.

[ramblin_dave]

5. The chickenhawk argument against Bush hasn't stuck

so far and likely would not have been used anyway. But if Bush attacks Dean on this, then Dean could counter with Bush's much more blatant draft avoidance and his subsequent dishonorable service. Don't see how the media could avoid revealing Bush's record if Bush attacks Dean.

[realFedUp]

8. I doubt this will stick...given the chickenhawks running the show

I know you'd like to think that we're screwed....

[pretzel4gore]

9. the difference is: Dean is ANTI WAR!

(especially the idiotic VietNam ie iraq, one)....whereas the 'chickenhawks' were all for it. Also, Wes Clark may look like he's the 'Pukes's 'ace in hole' but don't overestimate the Puke's wit, foresight or intelligence; i think anyone as morally bankrupt as a republican is plain stupid (c'mon, is there ONE Puke in the land who really glad bushinc succeeded in their coup?)...
like them punks in jail, the repukes are scared OF EACH OTHER (see 'Babbitt')....never forget that.

[realFedUp]

10. Dean isn't anti-war

He supported Desert Storm...I don't know if he supported
going into Serbia. He was against invading Iraq without
UN support.
He's for a strong defense but also using force when
absolutely necessary.

[pretzel4gore]

14. anti goofy war maybe...

point is, dean isn't one of that bunch who sing patriotic songs from the safety of home...iow 'pro war'
even the most ardent left politician must go along with tides that are gonna come in or go out regardless....

[karlschneider]

12. They probably will, but don't forget Dean was -rejected- in a military

physical exam. He did NOT ask for a deferment. I'm not a Dean fanatic, just wanted to remind about this...

[liberalmuse]

11. This is good news..

since some months ago Rall was saying Dean was a non-factor, or something along those lines. The main thing the 'pubs are going to try and get Dean on is the issue of gay marriage. I think it will backfire. Only the most bigotted in our society would disagree with Dean's argument for civil unions.

[vi5]

13. BASED ON WHAT HE KNEW THEN?

Don't we laugh out loud at this when Senate and Congressional Dems say this in regard to the Iraq war? "Well if I had know then what i know now...." Well why DIDN'T you know then? I knew then.....millions of others knew then...and we are just non-political peons. So why didn't you know.

Same thing applies to Nader voters. I knew George Bush was a right wing extremist who would advance an anti-choice, pro-gun rights, isolationist extreme world view agenda and lead this country down a horrible path. Millions of others knew it as well. We knew Gore wasn't perfect but we knew he was much better than the alternative.

Why can't people admit when they are wrong? If Rall wanted to say "Wow, I made a mistake" or anything of the sort then I would accept that as a response. I would even respect him more if he were unrepentant. But to say he didn't know or "If I knew now what I knew then." is a full on load of bullshit.

[ramblin_dave]

16. Rall is admitting he made a mistake.

At least that's how I read it when he says "Boy, was I wrong."

He is recognizing that what he knew then was not the complete picture. Others knew, or were able to infer, more than Rall did. He seems to recognize this.

[billyskank]

17. To be fair

this Brit could easily see three years ago that Bush was very bad news indeed, but nevertheless since then he has surpassed my worst fears.