Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton's Governorship of a population of 2,350,725

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:36 AM
Original message
Clinton's Governorship of a population of 2,350,725
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 12:07 PM by WilliamPitt
Arkansas in 1990 had 2,350,725 citizens, ranking it 33rd out of 50 states. Let's toss in some perspective:

Alabama: 4,486,508
California: 35,116,033
Connecticut: 3,460,503
Illinois: 12,600,620
Louisiana: 4,482,646
Mississippi: 2,871,782
New Hampshire: 1,275,056
Texas: 21,779,893

After leaving Arkansas substantively better than he found it, Clinton went on to:

- Create the largest economic expansion in his lifetime;

- Reduce poverty by 25%;

- Add 22 million jobs;

- Thwart terrorist attacks all across the country and the world, including a coordinated attack against LaGuardia Airport, Los Angeles Airport, a major diplomatic hotel in Jordan and several holy sites in Israel, all planned for December 31, 1999.

He did these things with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, after governing a state much of the country sees as far more backwards and benightened than, oh, say, Vermont. That's not true, of course, but that impression led a lot of journalists to buy the line that Arkansas was like some jungle kingdom where anything goes, and so Clinton must have been guilty of *something*.

There are ten times as many people in Texas as there are in Arkansas. Funny how one Governor did so well as President, compared to another that has done so poorly.

Funny how gaguing potential success based on population numbers doesn't really work.

Zomby Edit: Funny how the former Governor of massively populated California went on to cover himself in glory and success after becoming President in 1981...um...(woof)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. A FUCKING MEN
*woosh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can't figure out why that other thread is still up on page 1
It's kind of like an annoying little bug you just can't squash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. it just won't die.....
it's like the energizer bunny or watching tennis. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PunkinPi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. instigator!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Perspectivgator.
Mmmmm...new word.....lllaaaaagggghhhlll...

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. exactly
Any argument that a governor may do better as president based on the size of their state, is making a quantitative, and not qualitative argument.

Consider the former governor of California who became president in 1981. We all know THAT legacy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wow, it's so not about numbers as much as....
It's about racial diversity, economic diversity, etc.

And of course, the actual person.

But haven't we talked about this so many times, LOL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Arkansas racial diversity
POPULATION

1980 population 2,286,435
1990 population 2,350,725
Rank among states: 33

White: 83%
Black: 16%
Hispanic: 1%
Asian or Pacific islander: 1%

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/states/AR/AR00.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. How'd you get that data? The search function doesn't work, and I want
to try to confirm my theory that 83% white/16% black, although 33rd in the country, is closer to the norm for American (and not that far from, say, the 4th most diverse state than it is to the 4th least diverse state).

However, this statistic doesn't even tell the most important story, which is that race IS an issue, as is class, in the south, and they are issues which are probably at the forefront of most politicians minds in Arkansas, regardless fo your own politics.

I don't know if you could make the same assumption about VT.

Personally, I want to have a president who has thought very hard about race and class throughout his or her life, and who has came to the same conclusions on those issues as Clinton and Johnson and Carter (and Kennedy, and FDR) did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I did a google search under
'Arkansas population 1991' and this was the 5th article down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Here's a better site:
http://library.louisville.edu/government/states/other/vermont/vercensus.html

This has a link to the a search engine for census 1990 and 2000 data. You can pick a couple states, and you can pick any of the hundreds of breakdowns for the data.

I picked 5 states, and breakdowns by race, median income, and a few other things.

Unfortunately that data comes out raw (no percentages) so to do a comparison, you'd have to sit down with a calculator.

But here's some data for comparison:

Vermont
RACE
Universe: Persons
White..................................................................554570
Black....................................................................2194
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut........................................2215
Asian or Pacific Islander................................................3064
Other race................................................................715
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989
Universe: Households
Median household income in 1989.........................................29792

California
RACE
Universe: Persons
White................................................................20555653
Black.................................................................2198766
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut......................................248929
Asian or Pacific Islander.............................................2847835
Other race............................................................3908838
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989
Universe: Households
Median household income in 1989.........................................35798

Arkansas:
RACE
Universe: Persons
White.................................................................1944393
Black..................................................................373454
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut.......................................14320
Asian or Pacific Islander...............................................12098
Other race...............................................................6460
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989
Universe: Households
Median household income in 1989.........................................21147

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. He also
Fired Jocelyn Elders at the behest of the repukes

Created welfare "reform" (at the behest of the repukes) that hurt the poor but did nothing for what is known as "corporate welfare" (please correct me on this if I'm wrong).

1 out of ever 4 jobs created during the 1990s was for under $8.70/hr. What I don't know his, how great were the other three? But 1 out of 4 is still a small ratio, 1 out of 10 would have been better...

DOMA x( (exactly how many marriages has it defended?)

NAFTA x( (the Canadians will despise us the moment there's an oil or gas crisis... I'd hate to think that the FTAA gives the US the 'right' to take the oil and gas from the 31 counties it will be applied to...)

DMCA x( x( (Need I say anything?!)

Monica. It was a repuke setup allright, but as with many other issues, Clinton merrily played into their hands, and subsequently contributed to Gore's demise (there were other factors, the Green party NOT being one of them because their numbers are so insignificant).

The man had his good points. But don't expect me to kiss up blindly, the bad things he did have proven to be hurtful as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. My perspective on that
Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.


An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101003A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmericanDem Donating Member (521 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
11. We weren't a country at war!
With the majority of our armed services committed. That is the difference between now and then.

2 Thumbs up to Clinton! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. That's almost as stupid a comment as your Dean thread was...
....if the only way to lift your candidate up is by bashing other candidates, it really doesn't say much for you or your candidate.

The simple fact is that size of the state really has no impact on anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
52. AmerDem is a miltarist for Clark not a progressive democrat IMHO
it shows more and more in every post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. I believe that you are being
unfair. Am I a militarist because I support Clark too?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scott Lee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #62
79. No, they said "AmerDem is a militarist FOR Clark...."
Which means you could be a militarist for someone else, that the two are not necessarily connected/

Come on, open them peepers and read what's written before you throw the anger switch.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. Good write up ...
I love how no one "remembers" the millenium attacks he thwarted, especially the repugs who praise * for doing absolutely NOTHING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. For a more substantive review:
The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

These are the sins of September 11.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I want you to debate that Col. Patterson asswipe
The guy who wrote "Dereliction of Duty", which is something of a bible for all the myths you cited, such as while Clinton played around with babes and booze, he ignored the threat of terrorism.

Patterson was the "nuclear football" handler for part of Clinton's tenure, and is a partisan Republican Army officer through and through, doing the doublespeak thing: "This isn't an attack on Clinton, I didn't set out to attack him, this is just what I saw, and I love my country and wanted it to know how unfit he was, blah blah, and blah."

I'd watch a pay-per-view, you and Patterson... with you armed with Blumenthal's REAL insider knowledge, and not some Army hack on the periphery armed with nothing but Mellon-Scaife vitriol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sistersofmercy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. And just when I thought I couldn't...
hate those MFs any more than I do! Some of this I knew, some I didn't. I have a question though, is Berger's dossier available? I swear we need someone like Soros to buy one of the major networks to get this info out there, repeatedly day and night, a rival to Murdoch and his piece of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
73. Another thanks.
Well, you had it coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thank you, Will Pitt!
The Deanhaterz here have been really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately for crap to throw at Gov. Dean, and the population-based argument is THE lamest one I've seen yet.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thank you Will
Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hey Will, i don't see any of the usual Dean Haters here yet! WHY?
why haven't they weighed in here? i mean, this thread has been up for a while now but they are missing? :shrug:

oh well, its Saturday. i am sure they are out shopping and will show up (eventually) :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I was wondering that myself
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. you must have convinced them!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
54. I think they're all shopping at WalMart...
(ooh I'm bad!) :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. You can count on it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I don't like Dean
But I am also intellectually honest. There is LOTS to argue with Dean about, but the size of his state is NOT one of them. If that is the best his usual detractors can do, I am going to have to step up to the plate.

Of course, I am not the "usual" anything on here. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. FREEPER!
:D

lol. ROCK ON ZOMBY!!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. *sputter*
YOUR ASS CRACK MADE ME DO IT!!!!!! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. my ass crack can make you do ANYTHING!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I HATE YOU!!!!
*gotta keep the spirit of GD "debate" alive*

:beer: Can it make me get a beer? :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thanks for kicking my thread, you assclowns
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. this assclown says
your welcome :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Quit dissing asses!
They happen to be my favorite part of the male anatomy! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. you ain't shit
'Til you've been threadjacked by the BEST! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. got THAT right brother!
not even Pitt is exempt from our evil ways! :D

oh well, at least we are keeping his thread kicked for him

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
36. ZombyEdit!!! LOL
Well, yeah, no doubt he did, but my comment was actually designed to back yours up about the fallacy of equating state size/governorship/presidential quality. Those of us who see Ronald Reagan with less than rosy contacts consider his presidency one of the most disastrous and corrupt in modern memory, no matter how effective or successful he was implementing his agenda. I still remember how low his approval numbers were at the end of his 8 years, and thinking "it's about time people realized that". Then Rush and his crowd came along, and the Alzheimer's revelation - and bam! A double whammy of sympathy and Goebbelsian Big Lies 'rehabilitated' his legacy, and now they're talking about putting the diaperhead on a dime. But I know you know this, because you regard Reagan with as much contempt as I do.

So, uh, have some pie? :D Woof?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. My Issue Isn't About The SIZE of Vermont
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 02:34 PM by cryingshame
and I've never contributed to that discussion. My issue is that Dean's Right of Center record as Governor in a Left leaning LIBERAL state is 180 degrees different on some important issues than what his platform currently is.

Let's also include here his cutting comments, while Governor, about the Democrats in Congress who were trying to get money to the states such as Vermont.

I've heard it said that running Vermont is different than running the US so Dean HAD to change his positions (to become more Liberal). I've yet to here an argument that really makes this case...

If running Vermont (a LIBERAL state) is so radically different that it requires Dean to change his stance on important issues (he has become more Liberal), than why should I believe that much of what he did in Vermont is even relevant?

As Governor Dean:

Believed in limiting patients rights to sue HMO's
Affirmative Action should be based on Class not Race
Wouldn't officially recognise an indigenous American Indian Tribe
Raising age requirements for Social Security

Why was it appropriate or necessary for a Democratic Governor in a LEFT LEANING state such as Vermont to have these positions?

It's not like he was Governor of Arkansas.

Seems that Dean wants to run on his record as Governor- BUT ONLY SELECT PARTS.

I've listened as people on this forum say that Dean is the TRUE representative of the Left in this race and yet... there is a case to be made that his changed positions are merely held for political convenience.

Leadership isn't about saying whatever it takes to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Why was he re-elected, and re-elected and...
... if he was so out-of-touch with the 'ordinary' liberal Vermont voter? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Why Don't You Address The Points I Make?
rather than changing the subject?

Perhaps the reason Dean kept on winning is becasue the GOP ran lousy candidates...
Maybe the GOP didn't bother running a candidate against him since he was far enough Right of Center.

But that is beside the points I was making...

Why should we ignore Dean's reversal on key issues?

Why is he considered Leadership Material if all he does is change positions for political convenience?

The only reason I've read so far is half baked- apparently running Vermont is different than running the US.

But the answer never goes any deeper than that superficial comment.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. I just did.
If he was such a liberal basher, he wouldn't have been re-elected over and over again. The proof is in what the voters do, not in what your particular 'spin' on his record is..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. You Most Certainly Did NOT
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 04:42 PM by cryingshame
And stating his OWN POSITIONS is not "spin". Apparently I have hit another weak spot in the Dean campaign.

As Governor in Vermont Dean believed in raising SS Age, limiting patient's right to sue HMO's, believed AA should be based on class not Race, refused to recognise an American Indian Tribe.

As Presidential Candidate Dean now believes the opposite on these issues.

The only explanation I've heard so far for Dean's 180's is that governing in Vermont is different than governing the US.

BUT noone has yet explained WHY or HOW.

Dean was governing a Liberal state.

WHY was it essential for GOVERNOR Dean to believe that:

SS age should be raised
AA should be based on Class
Patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMO's.

What was it about being the executive in LIBERAL Vermont that made these positions NECESSARY in Vermont but NOT necessary in the US?

What SPECIFIC situation in Vermont mandated Governor Dean's positions?

What specific FACTS do you have about the electorate in Vermont that makes the case that Dean would NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED if he had NOT supported raising the SS age, kept AA based on RACE and believed HMO's MAY be sued?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. Pure sophistry!
Edited on Sun Nov-30-03 11:02 AM by Padraig18
First, show me someone whose opinions have not changed since 1995 on any number of issues, and I will show you an ideologue, rather than a thoughtful, critical thinker. Secondly, Dean is only 'conservative' in the sense that VT is extremely 'liberal', politically. Gov. Dean has NEVER described himself as anything other than a 'passionate centrist'.

What has changed? LOTS of things have changed regarding SS, AA, etc. since 1995. Get a clue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. WHY Did Dean Change?
So now the excuse isn't because running Vermont is different than running the US.

It's because SS, AA and HMO's have changed????

In the 2 years since Dean has been Governor?

How have these important issues and programs changed in the last 2 years so that Dean had radicallyswitch his position on them?

How has the nature of Affirmative Action changed so that Dean needs to switch his stance now?

How has the nature of Social Security changed so that Dean needs to switch his stance now?

How has the nature of allowing patients to sue HMO's changed so that Dean needs to switch his stance now?

How has the nature of recognizing an American Indian Tribe changed so that Dean needs to switch his stance now?


Dean was a centrist up til less than 2 years ago with certain positions as Governor in Vermont. Why isn't he running for President using the same stances?

Because the Left wouldn't support him, that's why....

Dean is an opportunist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. I guess I'm wondering...
if you've ever changed your mind on an issue over time, or after further review and new evidence come forth. It's likely that all of the Dem candidates have a list of prior stands that are now different. Are they all opportunists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. I've Listed 3/4 Issues Central To The Democratic Platform
And Dean changed on all of them. It's not like he changed 10 years ago. This was only 2 years.

He changed them upon becoming a Presidential canidate.

If he was a Centrist as Governor and wants to use his experience as Governor to legitimate his run for Presidency then we should just IGNORE his previous stances which he held up until 2 years ago?

Furthermore, as Governor Dean went out of his way to trashtalk about the Democrats in Congress. AND he was a DLC'er.

Either we take into account Dean's record as governor INCLUDING his policy positions or we Do NOT take into account Dean's record as Governor AT ALL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Interesting.
Sorry, but you are exaggerating something fierce. It's not worth my time, if you can't calm down and look at things from a broader perspective. Dean is in the lead, so, as press law dictates, he is the one to bash. If he is bashed hard enough, someone else will take his place, and the whole routine will start again. Sorry if I find this self-defeating.

I wish you a good day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. hmmmm.....
let's do the math....

Left-leaning + right of center = moderate

there's your answer....try not to use an agregate ideological dimension space (i.e. the US) for an individual state (i.e. Vermont)...less confusing that way really....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Again, Why Did Vermont Necessitate Dean's Positioins?
What was it about Vermont's situation that required Dean to believe that:

SS age should be raised
AA should be based on class not race
Patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMO's

WHY were these positions valid for Vermont (a liberal state)?

Are you trying to argue that if Dean had supported NOT raising SS age, thought Affirmative Action should be based on RACE and not Class or that Patients SHOULD be allowed to sue HMO's that HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED in the state of Vermont?

Are you saying that VERMONT has some special situation that makes Dean's positions as Governor more valid?

If that is the case, then provide some FACTS to prove your assertion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. ahhhhh....I see your confusion about Dean...
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 06:58 PM by Nazgul35
See, you assume, quite correctly based upon typical politican's antics, that Dean's policy positions should somehow be shaped by his consitituents' policy preferences...

Today, most American's have forgotten what real politicians use to be like, see they stated their positions and ran an election...today's versions take the pulse of the electorate and than decide what their positions are...

The fact that Dean held these positions in a state that was left skewed in the electorate's policy preferences shows that he is an "old scholl" politician....perhaps this is the confusion that many people have with Dean...they havent seen a politicain like this in so long they no longer recognize one.....

Oh well...those supporters of the Dean campaign who have come back after years of being disinterested understand...

And to answer your question...every individual decides what is important to them...not every issue matters or are they particularyl concerned with....That's why it is so amusing to see people getting so worked up over issues that are not even going to matter in the election...perhaps if you take an honest assessment of your choices for issues of importance and place them within the context of American's issues...than you might save yourself alot of unneccesary concern....

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #63
67. Sorry, But You've Posted A Load Of Crap! WHY DID DEAN DO 180's?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-03 11:02 AM by cryingshame
Why did Dean change his stance on IMPORTANT ISSUES?

Are you saying that Affirmative Action, Social Security and Litigating HMO's is not important?

Dean switched his stance on these issues. So, he was an "old school politician" whatever you mean by that....

Why did Governor Dean believe AA should be based on Class not race
Why did Governor Dean believe that SS age should be higher
Why did Governor Dean believe that patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMO's

Presidential Candidate Dean has done a 180 on these issues-

WHY DID HE SWITCH?

Dean supporters weakly try and posit that being Vermont's Governor mandated he hold those positions and that being America's President would require different views.

And yet Dean supporters can't make that case hold water. PROVE that Vermonts electorate or situation required Dean to hold those views. Although you'd then have to explain Bernie Sanders getting elected.

Why did Dean switch his views on important issues?

Political Expediency is the only valid answer. He will say ANYTHING to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. Clinton might not have been elected after an event like 9/11
Bush I would have likely won 1992 election if 9/11 event had occured
before that election. Bush I's resume was too strong in foreign
affairs. Probably no Perot candidacy as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SEAburb Donating Member (985 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
39. Great propaganda piece, if your aim is to be the George Will
of the left, you have succeeded.

First, Howard Dean is no Bill Clinton. Dean isn't in the same ballpark with Clinton intellectually. Clinton always had a positive message, Dean has a negative message.

For some reason you left out Clinton's mistakes (I wonder why). I guess it will be left to me to bring them up, because it is important to be even handed.

Clinton drug his feet for around a year before getting involved in Bosnia militarily, during that time tens of thousands of Bosnian muslins were killed by the Serbs. Then there is Rwanda where Clinton turned his back on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians. How about the slow response to the ethnic cleansing in E.Temor. Increasing US military presnce in Colombia, where he used the drug war as a pretext to fight leftist revolutionaries. Can't forget Haiti, when Clinton lost control of the situation and had to beg Carter and Powel to come in and bail his ass out.

This should be enough to show that even Clinton had missteps as president. The world is a completely different place today, thanks to Bush. The next president has to be able to hit the ground running. There won't be time for on the job training.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. The George Will of the Left?
Nice. Facts sting. There are some posts I made above that address Clinton's real record. I'd be interested in how you would have handled Rwanda, and Kosovo. As for Haiti, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Next time, don't start your posts with insults, especially lame ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SEAburb Donating Member (985 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. next time don't start a thread with a rosy onesided post
and I won't have to respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
40. :kick:
for that stupid other thread....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
41. Of course. If we want to go by sheer numbers,
Arnold Schwarzenegger ought to be President (keep workin' on that Constitutional amendment!). Or maybe Rick Perry (he of the good hair). How about George Pataki? Or... shudder... Jeb Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. that's why the anti-Dean thread is so stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. I agree.
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 02:45 PM by elperromagico
Of course it's stupid. Great Presidents have emerged with less governing experience than Dean. Many of our Presidents (JFK, LBJ, and Truman come to mind) never even served as governors. Eight of the nine Democratic presidential candidates have never served as governors.

As far as I can see, no amount of political experience can fully prepare a person for the Presidency. It's a job like no other. I tend to believe this issue is essentially a non-starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
56. bite yer tongue!
Jeb??? :scared: NO!!! NOOOOO!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
45. Thanks Will.
I was rooting around for those stats to post something about Dean's fitness to be President as much as Clinton was, but I didn't have time to stick it together as nicely and coherently as you did. Thanks again. I hope everyone reads this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
49. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
53. it's not the size
of the state; and comparisons between Dean/Vermont and Clinton/Arkansas are misleading.

1. Dean is NO Clinton. Even Clinton-haters were awed by the man: his incredible intellect, his commanding presence, his charm and empathy. If you've ever met him, you know this is one very special, unique and gifted man. He has that IT (elan, charisma, whatever you wish to call it) that very few have. Sorry, Dean folks, Dean doesn't have it.

2. The repukes are going to use (exploit) war, leadership in wartime (gag) and the ability to fight terrorism (as if) as their trump cards. We know they are utter failures who have brought this mess on us but encumbency carries substantial weight and power, even more so during these post 9/11 times. Bush will be portrayed by the GOP and the fawning media as the best leader in time of war. I loathe him, but many (nearly half the stupid country) love his certitude and religious conviction (double gag). Thus with no background in this area, i.e. no military experience, no leadership experience on the world stage, Dean will be marginalized and diminished. And I fear, my worst fear, he'll lose and we'll have 4 more years of this nightmare.

3. We need to carry some red states. The GOP has successfully (wrongly) branded New England or the northeast as hotbeds of liberalism (can you hear their sneer) and moral decay (civil unions, oh my). So if you must compare VT and AK, the red state populace was more accepting of a governor of a small southern state in 1992 than it ever will be of a governor of an even smaller blue state in 2004.

Flame me as a Dean hater if you wish, but the truth is I'm not. The only candidate I HATE is *. Although smarmy holier-than-thou Lieberman is a very close second.

Anyway, I just think we need Clark at the top of the ticket to neutralize all the GOP war-terrorism BS. Clark-Dean 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. good post
You were very fair and reasonable about Dean and his chances, how the media will exploit his weaknesses, and how he lacks the Clinton gravitas. Unfortunately, even the slightest failure to fawn all over him and praise him with hosannas and hallelujahs will get you flambéd royale.

One does have to get beyond the size of the state, and the issues of each state, to determine the effectiveness of his/her governing potential, because the factors that make a presidential candidate desirable to the majority of voters is indeed malleable with time, location, and circumstance. Dean will not match any of those three criteria to his favor. Wrong candidate, from the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #53
72. A response of sorts....
You're right that Dean is not Clinton's equal in intellect. However, I disagree about the "IT" factor. The Republicans were able to make gains in Congress during Clinton's presidency partially because he didn't have the "IT" factor. Or, more accurately, his "IT" was mixed with something "not IT," which was always some question in my mind about the full honesty behind the story he offered, regardless of the topic. It's not that this doesn't come up with Dean at times, as well, but Dean just comes across as less susceptible to the "not IT" part of the equation.

Further, you may be right that the GOP will be able to hammer Dean on the terrorism subject. On the other hand, if Iraq continues to spin out of control, Dean would be in the greatest position of any top Dem to capitalize on it.

As for number three, perhaps you are right. But I think that this is overstated once the general election hits. I think we spend far too much time focused on geography rather than issues and the underlying state of the world, and I suspect that we are missing some great opportunities by doing so.

Thanks for chatting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. thanks, too
Clinton had/has much more than intellect, for surely Al Gore is Clinton's intellectual equal but lacks his commanding presence and charisma. The IT factor helped Clinton overcome and defeat a popular war-winning president in Bush 41. What happened with the Congressional losses (that dastardly election of 11/8/94) was about HATE, GOP hate. They hated him (see Joe Conason and Gene Lyons The Hunting of the President) and with a complicit media, especially hate radio (recall that's when Rush Limbaugh gained such ascendancy that the GOP Congress on being sworn in 1995 made that bastard an honorary member ... kinda syays it all, doesn't it) they threw everything and the kitchen sink at the guy. Anyway, Rush and his ilk filled the airwaves with vitriol about Clinton, gays in the military, Hilary's socialized health care scheme, you name it ...

As, Will pointed out above, those of us on the left sighed with relief when Clinton won and then went on holiday, leaving him vulnerable to the relentless barrage of attacks and fabricated scandals. He never had a 100 day honeymoon. The repukes hated him so much because he was such a threat to them by virtue of his intellect and presence (his IT) that before he even submitted his first budget to Congress in 1993, then Senate minority leader, Bob Dole, told him that the GOP would not vote for it. Sure enough the Omnibus Budget Bill of 1993 which ushered in the era of Clinton prosperity and about which the GOP predicted dire consequences passed without a single repug vote. They wanted him to fail because he had the audacity to defeat Poopy (typo intended) and thus their lock on the presidency which they felt frigging entitled to! That's just one example not of Clinton's IT failure but rather of the depth of GOP hatred and obstructionism to anything democratic and Democratic.

Yet and still, despite the constant GOP mugging, Clinton did remarkably well. It took more than intellect to do that. I daresay the man exhibited such qualities as equanimity under unrelenting duress and grace under fire. He never stooped to their level. And he left office with high popularity ratings.

Well, I have gotten sidetracked, but my larger point is still that Dean is No Clinton, and as much as I like Dean, I fear that the-even more-empowered-GOP-hate-machine of 2004 will destroy him in ways it could not destroy Clinton and cannot destroy Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. OK.
I don't disagree with you on Clinton. And, while I think Dean's strengths and weaknesses may differ, it's difficult to say outright that he's "no Clinton." What he has accomplished thus far is no small feat. He does have the IT factor for a great many people, and, in fact, has already garnered the various reactions of those who fear him on the right. Simply, I think he is one of the two most electable of the Dem crew, and I prefer him over the other member of that twosome (Clark). I may be wrong, but looking at the entirety of the picture, that's what I see.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
59. So I guess size doesn't matter after all.
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 04:49 PM by quaker bill
Sorry, I just couldn't pass on the opportunity.

If governing the largest group of people is the qualification to judge, GW Bush* is 'governing' 280 million. (Given of course that you can legitimately call what Bush* is doing 'governing')

I still believe the chief executive experience is a step closer to the job of President than legislative experience - regardless of the size of the State. It is the individual decision making / responsibility aspect that makes it most similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
60. ehem
First, Howard Dean is no Bill Clinton. Dean isn't in the same ballpark with Clinton intellectually. Clinton always had a positive message, Dean has a negative message.

Dean's message is overwhelmingly one of hope. If you don't know this your'e not paying attention. Bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug Decker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. This mistake can't be accidental...
I see this all the time. I don't blame the poster, the news is full of this garbage.

Dean isn't running against Clinton, he's running against *.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. I would agree that a reality check is in order
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 07:01 PM by Frenchie4Clark
we are not in 1992...and we do not have a Perot to syphon votes away from the competition. We have a war on terror raging in American's minds with proof called "where the Twin Towers used to be". We have 3,000 dead and a media that marches locks step with the inferior president. We have a war in Iraq with 130,000 troups and 150 billion dollars missing or invested (maybe that's our GDP jumped up...as a wartime economy will boost manufacturing...but I guess the media won't point that out either). We have just about all of Europe pissed at us....in fact make that the world.

We have an uneducated electorate that believes in the media like they do in God for the most part.

Bush has cut taxes and the economy is rebounding.

We have the "trump Card" that will be played and it wont be Bid Wis.

We have Senate seats all over the South that will be vacated by Democrats and if cannot be won, will leave us in the worst shape ever that a party has ever been in since the Confederates lost the civil war.

We don't have to worry about the size of a state.....no, we have much, much more to worry about.

Whatever Dean supporters think about Dean's organization and money raising skills. Know this. Whatever Dean raises, Bush will raise that much more. We cannot win because of money and organization. It sure helps....but helps is all. We must win based on the candidate we offer, period. Voters of all stripes will be needed for this one. Voters will need to want to vote for our candidate; it is insufficient to think our candidate will win because people will vote against George Bush, a sitting wartime incumbent President. This is not like 1992...it's more like 1984..and I mean the book.

Many counsel that we should never forget our history. No one said cross your fingers and hopes it happens again.

Much has changed since 1992 and even since 2000. Connect your dots or else be damned to 4 more years of BushCo.

Read this WP article and keep thinking that a Governor with no foreign policy and military experience (running a war, no just being in one) who wants to raise taxes on the middle class, is a rich white boy from the North who has as much charisma as his followers have given him and the media free momentary ride will win. Keep thinking that most voters will want to vote for that platform and taht experience. And don't begin to even touch on organization! Remember that Bush has everything to prove in this election, as he was not duly elected the last time. we must not underestimate our opponent. They are counting on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=93380

2004 Is Now for Bush's Campaign
Early Advantage in Funds, Voters Sought
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20936-2003Nov29.html
snip

Bush's campaign Web site already has signed up 6 million supporters, 10 times the number that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has, and the Bush operation is in the middle of an unprecedented drive to register 3 million new Republican voters. The campaign has set county vote targets in some states and has begun training thousands of volunteers who will recruit an army of door-to-door canvassers for the final days of the election next November.

snip

The Bush team hopes to build on techniques first employed in 2000 and honed in 2002 through what is called the "72-hour project," which is shorthand for mobilization operations during the final days before the election. Democrats acknowledge these techniques proved highly effective as a counter to their mobilization efforts in earlier campaigns.

snip

The RNC has set state-by-state goals for registering voters, based on a formula that attempts to determine Bush's maximum potential vote percentage, all with an eye toward turning states that he narrowly lost or won in 2000 into winners next year.

In Oregon, which Bush lost to Al Gore by about 7,000 votes in 2000, the national committee's goal is to register 45,000 GOP voters by next year, enough to provide a cushion in a close election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
65. Just a KICK from
ARKIELAND!!

:bounce:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
66. Exactly
And we Democrats need to understand that our candidate is going to be attacked no matter where he or she is from. Michael Kinsley wrote a great piece about this phenomenon the other day on Slate. If we nominate someone from New England they're going to be called liberal and "out of touch" with "mainstream" America. If we nominate someone like Clinton from Arkansas they will be labeled the "failed governor of a small southern state." Remember that line from 1992? And if we nominate someone from the west coast they will be called "out of the mainstream" and "left coast liberals." So let's just ignore all that nonsense and nominate the best candidate possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
specimenfred1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
69. Bush & Ridge Were/Are Prolific Killers
So, maybe it's not "how many people were governed" but, "how many people were killed under the governance of" that should be the question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
70. Gracias! This is exactly what I said to Sherman Alexie...
Edited on Sun Nov-30-03 11:10 AM by HuckleB
when he went off on Dean supporters at the Northwest Bookfest in October, saying support for a governor from such a small state was tantamount to support for Bush himself. I love Sherman, his writing and Smoke Signals (sorry "...Fancydancing" didn't do it for me), but sometimes I think the desire to entertain gets in the way of fully thinking through political statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. I've never been into Alexie's books anyway...
Now Doyle, on the other hand...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I love Doyle, too. But Alexie's latest is a masterpiece...
Regardless, of his oratorical excesses outside of serious fiction...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhosNext Donating Member (315 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-03 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
80. To play devil's advocate, Vermont isn't nearly as diverse as Arkansas
Has Dean ever had to deal with racial tensions, failing schools and other things required of governing a diverse state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC