Conason: And what of Dr. Dean's record in Vermont? Documents under seal.

[Myra]

I respect Joe Conason a lot, and think he makes some excellent points. So here is a fair and balanced posting in response to the Carter/Dean post in GD:

"Late last year, a little-known Democratic Presidential candidate confided deep misgivings about his party's revamped nomination process. The would-be Bush challenger worried that by accelerating the tempo of primaries and caucuses in 2004, the Democrats would make a decision they would later regret.

In the past, when we've done this, settled on somebody quick, then you have buyer's remorse," he told The Boston Globe, one of very few media outlets interested in his opinions back then. "We've become a sitting duck for that. The candid Cassandra who issued that warning -- well before his own surprising rise -- was Howard Dean.
...
But what deserves the most attention is how little we still know about the Democratic front-runner -- and what we are only beginning to learn about him. Only lately, for example, has the news media examined Dr. Dean's draft record during the Vietnam War, owing to the discovery of his late brother Charles' remains in Laos. After winning a draft deferment due to a disabling back condition, the young Dean spent the following year on the ski slopes of Colorado. His snappy response explained little: "I took a physical, I failed a physical. If that makes this an issue, then so be it."

And what of Dr. Dean's record in Vermont? ...the former governor seems determined to prevent reporters and opponents from looking at the state documents he placed under seal in 2002. That may protect him until the primaries are effectively over. But how will he criticize Vice President Dick Cheney for meeting secretly with energy-industry lobbyists, if he won't release the records of his own meetings with nuclear-power executives in Vermont?..."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16126

[cigarstore]

1. Clinton sock puppet

[Jim Sagle]

3. Unfair cheap shot. But Joe does have a blind spot.

[Tansy_Gold]

40. Why do you say that?

Why is Conason a Clinton sock puppet? Why is there always a ready insult for anyone who dares -- DARES -- air any kind of criticism or even raise a question concerning Howard Dean?

How can we have a reasonable, rational debate about the Democratic candidates if we aren't allowed to ask questions or discuss what other people have said?

I don't get this. I just plain don't get it.

[molly]

52. A truly SCARY statement

"What deserves the most attention is how little we still know about the Democratic front-runner."

[Andromeda]

54. Because the "Dean divers"...

are swarming into Vermont going through Dean's records as we speak. Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit---which is nothing new since Larry Clayman sues everybody including his own mother---to make Dean's records available for viewing.

Clayman is known for representing plaintiff's like Kathleen Willey and other bimbos whose names escape me in lawsuits against Bill Clinton. Clinton will be sued by Clayman until the year 2035, or until he's too old to get out of bed.

Incidentally, much of brouhaha about the records is just so much hype. There is no "there", there since a lot of the records have already been opened. We haven't heard about that though---must not be very interesting. I'm sure the "divers" are disappointed since they really want to dig up a scandal or two, or more.

The fact of the matter is that Dean has not hired a lawyer, yet. I also heard him say on CNN or MSNBC, can't remember which, about a week ago that the judges are going over all the material and after they finish digging through those mounds of papers and files, THEY will decide which records can be made public and which ones can't.

Judical Watch got involved in this so it's really out of Dean's hands now. I'm sure there are some personal and confidential documents in those files that nobody will get to look at.

That doesn't bother me in the slightest. This really isn't anything new either---it's just so much saber rattling of Dean's detractors.

It will be interesting to find out what comes out of all this. Something politically embarrassing could be found, and maybe not.

[JailBush]

2. I find this deeply disturbing.

What's Dean hiding? Even if he has a clean record, keeping his sealing records sets a very bad example and compromises him in so many ways. It's also going to cost him votes - even if George Bush is even more secretive.

[JNelson6563]

4. Oh Joe, you're such a wit!!

Only lately, for example, has the news media examined Dr. Dean's draft record during the Vietnam War, owing to the discovery of his late brother Charles' remains in Laos.

Oh yes, it was because they found Charlie that the meme "draft dodger" and the otehr lies have cropped up. It wasn't because of the GOP smear machine and their willing dupes on the left have been hammering it home or anything....:eyes:

Joe, Joe, we hardly knew ye...

Julie

[adadem]

5. A major

problem with the Dean folks, as evidenced here, is that they cannot tolerate any critical debate with out fighting back like school-yard bullies. Bush will not be beaten with that kind of attitude.

[VermontDem2004]

6. Not only Dean folks

I once posted a negative opinion piece on Kerry (Only after the #4385843 anti-Dean post of that day) that got lots of bad reactions from Kerry supporters. Now, even if I did the same for Clark, Kucinich, Dean, etc I would probaly get around the same reactions. Now I am going to say it wasn't all the Kerry folks, alot of them addressed the points with civility. It isn't all Dean supporters either, I see lots of Dean supporters respond to a negative opinion about Dean in a civil matter. Now you say Bush will not be beaten with that kind of attitude, it is surprising you said that because Bush's supporters are the worst supporters I know. They are arrogant, they bash gays(not all of them), they are rude, etc.

[jumptheshadow]

7. You are right. These are legitimate questions.

This is a political primary. We need to know what kind of candidates we are considering for the nomination. And Conasan is correct that Dean's record is going to diminish our ability to question the secrecy in the Bush administration, Dean's credibility to speak on all things military, and our argument about Shrub's own shaky military service.

[trumad]

8. Just remember this

The media, even the Progressive Media has an agenda.... Joe slips into his agenda by stating that Dean had a "snappy" response to his deferment question.... Snappy? Actually it look like he simply answered the question.... But Joe who I love deeply allowed a little Fineman to creep in which bugs the shit out of me!

[adadem]

9. That was the point

It's going to hurt the entire party. Brutish responses will not get people to vote for Dean.

[jumptheshadow]

10. Didn't you get the message?

We have no voice any more. Dissent and reasonable debate isn't allowed. The nomination is a done deal. Why cast votes? ;)

(Stomping feet.) And I always thought I was one of The People too!

[retyred]

18. It would appear this administration

has taught the dean crowd well, to desent is unpatriotic and bad for America, even those that were once held in high regard by the same folks that now have been told they have the power. The right has bush so its only natural that the left must have dean.

The only thing dean will beat bush at, is getting back to private life, then again, he does have a good teacher in his new best friend.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[JNelson6563]

12. Oh please!

Did you just arrive here today or something? I ask this because this has been discussed at great length here. Ad nauseum even.

And about the "bully" tactics you imagine you see here...you say such would never work against Rove? hahahaha!

Have you observed anything that has occured in politics in the last decade or so?

Oy!

Julie

[Hope4]

24. Here is another big problem for him

I hope you all will think but his wife not wanting to be first lady is going to hurt. Some of her statements that she did not even know he was running can hurt. Voters are funny about things like this.

He needs to open his records fast.

I would drop this draft record nonsense. I served several tours in nam and never hold that against him.

Both sides from Gore to the bushes uses their power to get their kids out of the war. Let us forget that war.

He is covering something up or would release them. Note a concern, when confronted he said he was being like bush (a lie) and that should concern us for him wanting to act like bush.

[blm]

42. Maybe they think THEY control the media?

Reality bites.

[polpilot]

45. Kerry was beaten with 'that kind of attitude'. Gep was beaten with 'that

kind of attitude'...Lieb too...and John who?? Why change??

Dean '04...

[Romberry]

11. Judicial Watch sued and Dean said...

...fine, let a judge and the Vermont Attorney General examine the records and release whatever they will. Dean isn't even hiring an attorney to defend the suit. Those are the facts and they sound perfectly fine to me. (You really don't think the Bush campaign wants to start talking about secret records do you?)

Here is a another fact: Conason is a good guy but he isn't exactly objective when it comes to Dean. Conason is carrying water for the "annointed one" and he either lets it cloud his judgement where Dean is concerned or he uses their "why Dean is a loser" talking points as the basis for his columns. But Conason is still a good guy...

[JNelson6563]

14. Yes indeed

I agree with your entire post.

Julie

[jumptheshadow]

15. "The annointed one?"

I assume you mean Wesley Clark?

Conason blasted Wesley Clark last month for his stance of the flag amendment.

Conason is being insightful and fair.

Since public disclosure of Dean's papers before the primaries is important, is Dean putting pressure on the judge to evaluate and release the papers quickly?

[Romberry]

17. Hey, I see what I see.

Conason took exception to a Clark STANCE last month? That's nice. He has taken exception to Dean and the Dean campaign over and over again. And yes, Conason knows which (Clinton) side his bread is buttered on. And yes, the DLC and DNC really were hoping Clark could derail the Deanocrats that are going to push their incompetent rears out of job. You may not agree with me but there it is.

Now are Clarkies gonna turn this into another flame fest or what?

[Hope4]

27. Why would we pick a fired general unless we want to lose

I do not understand clark. Not one person can explain to me how he could win (he was fired and this will be used against him) and he is not a dem and a team player of bush to a few months ago. He is from a state that proudly flies the conf flag and he never said a thing.

There is something wrong is clark and we have loyal dems running.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. who? Dean's friend he appointed- AG William Sorrell? oh....that'll be fair

not.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Ruh Roh!

Now Joe Conason will join "Bartcop" (who USE to be a DU darling) as "Media Whore" because he had the forethought to question Dean. Didn't he get the memo? That is not allowed.

[Romberry]

16. Bartcop has had his head in a warm dark place...

...for many months. He was posting comments on how we should just "glass the whole country" of Afghanistan ("glass" was his euphemisn for nuke), gave instant credulity to Steno Sue Schmidt's extraordinarily detailed account of how hero Jessie Lynch went down fighting (when the obvious question was "Really? How do you know?") and has just generally degraded to the point that all his page tends to be is links to other people's stories, links to other people's toons and a little original sentence or paragraph here or there.

I like Bart. I send him stuff nearly every day and a great deal of it gets used. But Bart is like a small child with a shiny toy where it comes to Wes Clark. "See them stars! Ain't they shiny! They twinkle so!"

Lately he's been doing the circular fire squad bit. Rather than support his candidate he seeks to take shots at another. Karl Rove just loves that sh*t. So do a lot of Clark supporters who can't seem to learn this one simple lesson: Tearing Dean down will not build your candidate up.

Sour grapes make for bad whine.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Your post

came across, IMCPO, as being jealous that Bartcop is supporting Clark. I wonder what your opinion of him would be if he supported Dean? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

But Bart is like a small child with a shiny toy where it comes to Wes Clark. "See them stars! Ain't they shiny! They twinkle so!"

Now how did that saying go? Sour grapes make for bad whine.. was it?

[JI7]

53. i don't think anyone said that

about bartcop.

[Don_G]

19. I've Said It Before

And I'll say it again.

The media has a blind eye on Dimbo and HIS records are still effectively sealed. Although at a library, it takes 10 days for the Librarian to process the request, 45 days for the Texas Attorney-General to repsond to the request and Texas is still a GOP bastion.

The Rethugs are forcing the non-issue to make the Dems look bad.

[blm]

21. Joe, you are a real reporter and hero. But Deanies will scorn you

whenever the truth is told or questions asked about their glorious leader.

It's unpatriotic to question Dean.

It's blasphemous to point to his lies and failings.

Then they'll mock you. Like Rush does.

Sounds familiar.

[Hep]

22. Conason doesn't seem to have a sturdy grasp on all of the facts

Particularly regarding his records. Conason must have been busy that day.

I love Conason, but he's gotten it wrong before.

[Padraig18]

23. AWESOME! The 255th thread on this subject!

I was worried that the 254th would be the last one, and this is SUCH a relevant matter that we can't even imagine beating it to death, can we?

:eyes:

[PatrickS]

25. LOL!

I'm waiting for #256.

[blm]

48. Because this is just the beginning of the scrutiny. Page 1...

Dean has escaped the scrutiny of mainstream media, so it will be a slow build for now. But the major hits will be to come if he's the nominee.

What makes you so certain that there is no story to tell? You think Koch brothers are honorable businessmen? Everything they do has political undertones, whether Dean was aware of it or not.

[QC]

26. I guess this means Conason is a no good dirty rotten S.O.B. now.

It's amazing how easily heroes fall around here.

Al Gore was a hero until a few days ago, when he became a failed insider. Charles Rangel is now "snotty," despite his decades of service. Andrew Young recently became, in the words of one particularly active poster, an "Uncle Tom." James Carville, once a hero, is now scum.

I think we all need to calm down and realize that different people are going to support different candidates, and, as Stuart Smalley would say, that's OK.

[bicentennial_baby]

28. Indeed

[Hope4]

29. No the problem is the selection not election

The clintons and their power group want one person (why Clark unless they want us to lose) and Gore has dean. No one cares about the other hard working dems. Let us show them and vote abcd in the primaries. Send a message to power groups.

[MIMStigator]

33. If he doesn't support Dean he is

:eyes:

[PATRICK]

30. Conason wanders into the energy spin

On that point, unless he is really up to speed and mostly on Nader's ewavelength, why is he contributing to the ever more insame Repuke spin on the Energy scandals. Clinton, Dems, everyone was working with energy development with the now exposed shady characters. The same way, I presume, they are working for their demise in putting in BBV.

If this is the focus, so be it. Just don't use it in spin context that tars the Dems with the fully brush of energy industry excesses and crimes. What the Dems thought of as progress and monied support for their economy and their party coffers(why not?) turned out to be complicity in democracy rending tyrannies and scams. This is related to weakening of positions on the environment and liberal restraints of superlarge corporate giants.

By the same brush where is Bushco? They ARE the dark and hidden things that Dean is "suspected" of having associated with on the fringes for the betterment of his state.

This is not the usual political cesspool, Mr. Conason. It is the entuire world at stake here and the issues cannot be cherrypicked or unwraveled without a great injustice being done to the main issues at stake in this election. Does anyone seriously think in their most paranoid fearful moments that any of the top contenders are anything secretly evil? Maybe compromised a bit and not up to speed, but compared to Bush their is no comparison at all.

Only the suddenly "fair and balanced" treatment of the press ignores Bush in chipping away at candidates "flaws".

[Myra]

32. Ok, let's project (& I've tried to do this w Clark issues too) to the GE

I'll just bet that Gov Dean is *not* being attacked
by KKKarlCo now because they're saving these subject
for the general election.

This is a genuine attempt to project how the major candidates
would do against the scortching attacks that await them.

So, just as they did with Clinton, they'll go after Dean
for being a draft dodger. Regardless of the my feeling
that no one should have had to go to Vietnam, Dean did
spend a year on the ski slopes after his deferment for a
back injury. It won't matter that Chimpy dodged the draft.
Chimpy will be able to claim, and the media won't challenge
him as we've already seen, that he at least was in the national guard,
and now has 4 years experience as "commander in" thief.

What would Dean say?

"I took a physical, I failed a physical. If that makes this an
issue, then so be it."

And that will put the issue to bed? No, KKKarl will come after
him big time on this.

Can they attack Clark on this issue?

And how could Dean go after BushCo for being in bed with big
business, for letting the energy companies write their energy
policies and hiding their records, if he prevents reporters and
opponents from looking at the state documents he placed under
seal in 2002.

And don't you, as voters, wonder why Dean did this?
Are those records the pandora's box of KKKarl's dreams?

We've already seen that the media won't play fair.
See sig line.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. exactly correct. It's empirical process

and we have a hell of a lot of information to work with.

[HoosierClarkie]

38. I think Dean was being honest when...

he said,"I took a physical, I failed a physical. If that makes this an issue, then so be it."

I do think rover will replay that over an over again. I cannot predict exactly what he will say, but I think it will be an issue! That is the point. Please do not get me wrong. I do not think it is fair to make it an issue, but "they" will.


Being dishonest is of more importance for me:

DEAN: Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Wes Clark at first, all of us were in favor of this resolution that was a preemptive unilateral attacks on Iraq. I was not. We all had information from the papers. They presumably had some intelligence information, with the exception of Wes, who may have had some or not. He was out of the government by them. I came to a different conclusion because a lot of what is required of a president for foreign policy is judgment and patience. If I came to a different conclusion than they did, given the amount of trouble we’re now in Iraq, given the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq now and it wasn’t there before, it seems to me that their kind of foreign policy experience is not the kind we want in the White House and mine is.

He knows that everyone was lied to about WMD. He is misleading people by that statement.(with the exception of Joe)
We need honesty now more than ever.

[Schmendrick54]

41. I, too, think Dean was being honest....

Hello Sarah.

As I noted in my reply to Myra below, I think the Bush campaign will be reluctant to get near this, but if Dean is nominated we will find out.

I agree with you that honesty is an important principle, and I would not be supporting Howard Dean if I thought he was dishonest.

In the example you cite, it seems to me that Dean is highlighting what he believes to be an example of how he had demonstrated good judgment in foreign policy in order to strengthen his claim that he is qualified to be President even though he has limited foreign policy experience. He does so by pointing out five candidates who "were in favor of this resolution that was a preemptive unilateral attacks on Iraq." Now that grammar is pretty bad, but I think the essence of what he was saying is clear: he (Dean) opposed a resolution and they did not -- he thinks his judgment has proven to be correct (in hindsight) and he should be given credit for that.

The fact that Bush either lied or misled everyone about WMDs is outrageous, but I do not think it is relevant to Dean's point here. Part of the judgment Dean made was evaluating the quality of Bush's won information and judgment.

In a primary contest, every candidate gets described by their opponents in ways that emphasize the negative. Sometimes it goes over the line, but when that happens the person making the dishonest charge usually is damaged more than the intended victim.

Many dollars have been spent by his opponents trying to associate Howard Dean with Newt Gingrich. You can argue that the specific details of the ads may be arguably true, but I hope you would agree that they are misleading. I regard those Mediscare ads as unfortunate and unlikely to help their candidate, but I would not accuse the candidate of being dishonest.

I hope you will consider this perspective, even though I cannot blame you for being resentful if you feel your candidate has been unfairly protrayed by another. I certainly do not want to suggest that you minimize your rejection of dishonesty. It's just that if we refer to this kind of behavior as dishonesty, I think we will need a new word to describe the pathological behavior of the Pants-on-fire administration.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[Schmendrick54]

39. I'll answer your questions. Will you answer mine?

Hello Myra.

You have raised two questions about how Dean would respond to some hypothetical attacks. The first is "the draft-dodging question".

You say that "It won't matter that Chimpy dodged the draft.
Chimpy will be able to claim, and the media won't challenge
him as we've already seen, that he at least was in the national guard,..."

I disagree. Yes, it is true that Bush skirted this issue in the last election. He did so by downplaying it, which the media allowed. But the dynamic changes if the Republicans are raising the issue about Dean. It is much harder to claim that what Bush did thirty years ago is irrelevant if you are trying to focus attention on what your opponent did back then. I can imagine the press conference where Howard Dean carries in a folder with his medical records from back then and offers to make them public if Bush will release his military records (which would show he was AWOL.)

I can also imagine an ad like this:
In 196x, Howard Dean was given a physical my the US Army and classified 1Y. As a result he was granted a deferment from the draft. Some are now claiming that this makes him a draft dodger. If so, here is a list of some other people they must also consider "draft dodgers" (Scroll a list of names and pictures of Cheney, Ashcroft, DeLay, Limbaugh etc.) We believe that America's interests would be better served by focusing on our real problems, and we intend to change the tone in Washington in a more positive way.

I agree that they wil not raise the draft as an issue for Clark, but I really can't see this as a topic that the Bush campaign will want to focus on. Now if you think General Clark can magically turn the media around and get them to hammer Bush about his AWOL status, that argument is weakened by your (correct) observation that they did not do it before (and Gore also served in Vietnam - though not as dramatically as Clark).

Your second issue is about the Governor's relationship with energy companies and energy policy.

Again, I do not see this as a topic that Bush will want to raise. The topic plays right into Trippi's hands. The problem Dems have with atttacking Bush and Cheney's relationship with Enron and the other energy companies is not that there is not enough data to make them look bad; it is that we cannot keep anyone's attention focused on it long enough to sink in. The moderates would look at it and say that it is just environmental zealots complaining. If Bush raises the issue about Dean, the moderates will look again and suddenly Dean will look like the pragmatic centrist, and Bush like the oiligarchic looter. This may lose a few voters to Nader, I suppose, but gain many more in the center.

Of course your opinion may vary. I am not sure how much different the situation would be with Clark in this regard. While he has not served as a Governor, I believe he has worked as a lobbyist, and I would guess that there are records associated with his relationship to clients which he would choose (justifiably) not to release. Would Rove and Co. attempt to use this to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD tm)? I do not see why not.

I have tried to answer your questions, and I hope you would agree I have done so calmly, respectfully, and without attacking the messenger in any way. In return, I hope you will answer my question.

In your title, you indicate that "you've tried this with Clark issues, too". I would like to know what issues you came up with which you feel Clark may be more susceptible to than the other candidates. I have a few ideas, but I think if you shared yours it would be more likely to provoke a reasoned response, since most folks would regard your concerns as sincere. If you care to do so, I guess a new thread may be appropriate.

Best Regards,
Schmendrick

[Myra]

46. I agree you've answered my questions respectfully, etc. Thanks Schmendrick

>In your title, you indicate that "you've tried this with Clark issues, too". I would like to
>know what issues you came up with which you feel Clark may be more susceptible to
>than the other candidates. I have a few ideas, but I think if you shared yours it would
>be more likely to provoke a reasoned response, since most folks would regard your
>concerns as sincere. If you care to do so, I guess a new thread may be appropriate.

This is so nice to actually be able to discuss the vulnerabilities
of *both* Dean and Clark. The each have some. I'm concerned about
each. I'm not done investigating Clark either.

This is gonna be a long post, but it has to be in order to properly respond
to your perfectly reasonable request for me to prove what I've said.
But I'm not going to open a new thread to answer a question.

I also think there's two separate categories of concerns about candidates:

1-Do I trust them and think they're genuine?
2-Do I think something in their background makes them vulnerable to character
assassinations from the right?

My posts about Dean and Clark address both types of concerns.

A few weeks back, in response to some of the many negative columns about Clark,
I started to have serious doubts about him. Suspected he was the Rovian misdirection
candidate we all dread. I read "quotes" attributed to him at a source I'd previously
trusted: FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Media). Here's the column that concerned me:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
(Many other mainstream media sources were also using these "quotes," but I don't
pay attention to them because, as we know here, they're the propaganda wing of
the white house.)
===
So I posted a thread with my concerns, similar to what I did with Conason's
column (since he's another trusted source):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=796281
Of course it resulted in the usual flaming and hostility, but I was determined to
research what FAIR was saying, which was that basically Clark is not an anti-war
candidate, and in fact is a war zealot.

If you read my final post in the thread a few days later, you'll see that after I was
able to find an original source that FAIR had quoted from, I concluded that
"...FAIR took quotes wildly out of context. I'm quite amazed (with FAIR)
and disgusted...If anyone can find the entire text of the other columns referenced
by FAIR, I'd love to see them."

I'm still looking for the other columns FAIR referenced, but I no longer trust them.
===
I was also concerned with a column written in the Black Commentator
http://www.blackcommentator.com/58/58_email.html
about how long Clark waited to divulge his knowledge of PNAC.
I posted a thread on that issue and it was totally ignored and I
can't find it now (honest).

So I posted about it in threads started by others, for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=806820#812394
In fact I was pretty persistent and specific about it in the above thread,
but never got an answer I was satisfied with.
I remain unsatisfied on this issue, and have posted recently about it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=884333#885919
===
I'm also unhappy about his stance on the flag burning amendment,
think it's bullshit, and wrote to him to say so, and have posted on it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=726263#728165

Excerpt:
"I wrote to his website ([e-mail]) to state my
concerns and ask for clarification on his position,
but am not aware of any clarification.

Here's, in part, what I wrote:
I've read recent media reports that you would
support such an amendment.
I'm very much against this perverse
amendment, which would make a symbol, a piece of cloth,
more important than the freedoms it represents.
Flag burning is a type of freedom of speech.
An amendment banning it would be drastic and misguided.
That piece of cloth isn't anything sacred; the Bill of Rights is."
===
Then there was the infamous smear in The Nation.
I do think it's 99% groundless smears, but here's what I wrote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136#23391

Excerpt:

"...Still, the worst part is that this "journalist"(?) waits until the last page to bring up the Vietnam war and draw parallels with the Iraq war: Finally; I think that's some valid stuff.

Looking back over Clark's comments on CNN *months before* the Iraq invasion, I don't see good evidence (like quotes) that he was consistently strongly against attacking Iraq for no reason. So he seems vulnerable on that, and if he's vulnerable on that it's a pretty big deal.

But I wonder how many people made it thru the trashy first four pages (webwise) to see the important questions."
===
I can't find every thread where I've questioned General Clark in DU.
There are too many.
Hell, I've criticized him for having a link on his website that I think is tacky:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=837390
(So I got accused of having no sense of humor.)
===

I question Clark a lot. I question Dean a lot.
Look how hard you made me work to show it! :)
But thank you. I much prefer that to flames.

My concerns are sincere.

And right now I'm sincerely concerned because I think the media has already crowned Dean
as our candidate and has dismissed three candidates completely.
This was made very obvious by Koppel in the last "debate,"
which was essentially a 90 minute infomercial for Dean.

If they so clearly want Dean as our candidate, I think it's a big ol' red flag.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=891749

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=892260

Best Regards,
Myra

[Schmendrick54]

34. I am one Dean supporter who thinks this is a great post.

Hello Myra,

I, too, respect Joe Conason a lot. I think everyone who has not already done so should buy his book, "Big Lies" and share it with their fence-sitting friends. As a Dean supporter I think Joe raises some good questions in this article, and I hope people read the whole thing.

Here are two more paragraphs from the article which I think capture the overall tone of the piece:

"The same sages who regard candidate Dean as virtually unbeatable in the primaries often suggest that he cannot possibly win the Presidency. On both counts, their pronouncements are premature.

"Whether Dr. Dean would enhance or harm the party's mixed prospects of defeating George W. Bush cannot be determined with any certainty. He would bring strengths as well as weaknesses to a national campaign. He credibly suggests that his small donors can compete with the wealthy Republican 'Pioneers' -- and that his hundreds of thousands of dedicated supporters could eventually rival the huge ground campaign being mounted by Karl Rove."

Amen, I say.

I have read what seems like thousands of posts on DU which claim that "Dean cannot win the Presidency". I agree with Joe Conason that no one knows yet whether or not that is true. (Of cousre, I have also seen what seems like thousands of "can so" posts!)

This is the sort of question that we should be rationally discussing here (along with many others) but most attempts to discuss them are drowned out by the chorus of "can so's", "can nots", "flamebait!", and "cult-member!" posts. As a result, rational discourse is the exception, rather than the rule, I fear.

My point, and I do have one, is that we should all make a point to acknowledge and praise fair-mided criticsm when we see it. And this looks like that to me. So I say, well done, Myra.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[Myra]

47. One more thank you for this post Schmendrick, and one more comment.

"This is the sort of question that we should be rationally discussing here (along with many others) but most attempts to discuss them are drowned out by the chorus of "can so's", "can nots", "flamebait!", and "cult-member!" posts. As a result, rational discourse is the exception, rather than the rule, I fear.

My point, and I do have one, is that we should all make a point to acknowledge and praise fair-mided criticsm when we see it. And this looks like that to me."


1-Thank you. Let's try to make rational discourse the rule.
Your posts are a great start Schmendrick.

2-Just FYI, I would be posting questions and concerns about
Kucinich too...if I had any. But I trust him and can't find
anything wrong with his policies, words, or actions.


Regards,
Myra

[Fleshdancer]

36. Trivia question of the day:

A gold star for anyone here who isn't a Dean supporter that can correctly answer this question:

What is the percentage of Gov. Dean documents that are sealed?

Here's a hint: It is not 100% like so many of you incorrectly think. Care to guess?

[Touchdown]

43. 40%

:shrug:

[killbotfactory]

37. Obviously, there is no legitimate reason to seal papers...

That's why every Governer seals them...

[Myra]

49. When were they sealed? What year?

I truly don't know.

Just curious.

[molly]

51. I've read that he sealed them the moment he decided

to run for President. Anyone care to dispute this?

[Octafish]

44. Conason broke the news on Smirk being a crook, too, in Feb. 2000

His article in Harper's was ignored by the major media, then, as well. Too bad, because if Dean's the nominee, it's four more years of Bush.

[Scott Lee]

50. 1,935 ways to rehash old irrelevent issues. Nice going, Joe!

That's what I love about some of these ink pundits. They have thousands of ways you can serve the same old chipped (shit) beef on toast.

Bon apetit.