Dean's real advantage...electability.

[burr]

Yes Dean and Kerry share many of the same things. They grew up in the northeast. They support civil unions for all people, they both support similar health care plans, and they were both free traders who now oppose both NAFTA and the WTO.

But what is the real difference between these two men? After all, they do come from neighboring states. Here it is, Kerry is born a loser while Dean is a born winner. Kerry is the Mike Dukakis of the party. Dean comes from the electable, democratic wing of the party while Dukakis and Kerry come from the snobbish, elitist wing of the party. Dean knows that economic populism is the cornerstone, the heart and sole of the party. But unelectable snobs like Dukakis and Kerry wish to make capital punishment and social liberalism their central issues!

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the same social agenda that Kerry and Dukakis promote. But I believe that we cannot win if Kerry tries, as his mentor did, to make them the centerpiece of our presidential campaign. Again shrub's failure in national security, reducing the deficit, and expanding the healthcare coverage..these are the issues that are winners for Democrats. Not the Kerry issues, like freeing murderers or the beauty of Boston Harbor. Try taking a swim in it!

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Of course the advantage is not to ordinary Americans

Maintaining the same policies under a cosmetic name-change as opposed to a regime change will benefit the usual corporate recipients, and of course, Ariel Sharon and his cronies, but it will not do a damn thing to make the US any safer or more secure for ordinary people.

[burr]

9. Absolutely not...

yet another reason to support the democratic wing of the party.

I am sick of those who will simply back Sharon, why Israel forces the Palestians to live like prisoners.

When will we remember, they were on our side in fighting Nazi Germany?

The least we can do is to allow the Palastians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to have a nation of their own.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. All the "majors" back Sharon - they have to, or they will lose the money

Not one of them dares stray too far from the Gary Bauer Rapture-Ready Israel doctrine, not one of them even dares to call for the repeal of the Patriot Act, let alone a Living Wage, right to housing, or to get to the bottom of things, scrubbing the whole PNAC junta.

They want to be politicians, and they will do what they have to do to get what they want.

Yes, it means more dead children, Palestinian, Iraqi, and American, but that's the way the game is played.

And politicians have bunkers in case of "attack."

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Actually, Kerry Supports Parallel Concessions

Which is more than I can say for Howard "AIPAC" Dean.

[burr]

32. You have a strange additude...

if it equals freedom for those who live at gunpoint, then it is (AI)...AntiIsrael. I suppost it is anti-American to end Jim Crow, anti-Serbian to end ethnic cleaning, or anti-Christian to renounce the crusades. This view is backwards my friend.

[DrFunkenstein]

45. Are You Against Parallel Concessions?

I find this all very interesting, this anti-Israel position you are describing. I'm not sure of the connection between the two, but I'd LOVE to hear your take on it.

[burr]

47. Very simple..

providing civil rights and a seperate nation is not anti-Israel. Why, because it is merely allowing the fires of liberity and freedom for one group of people to freely burn that should be burning for all people.

[DEMActivist]

2. You are exactly right. There's one other factor, though.

And that's GRASSROOTS.

Howard Dean has given the ignored, debased voter a voice for the first time in a long time.

The grassroots movement made Howard Dean's campaign successful and that's exactly what terrifies these unelectable politicians. They have lived by the poll and will die by the poll in the primary, after refusing to hear the voices of their constituents.

The citizens are taking back their government and they have chosen Howard Dean to lead the battle.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Actually, it is the wealthy who have decided

Dean is as the original poster probably did not intend to say, close enough to PNAC in thought, word and deed, and most especially in his rigid adherence to the Likud party's position on Palestine, that corporate types are more likely to feel that he is an acceptable "candidate" in the likelihood that elections are held next year.

He is an excellent choice for on-air talent to perpetuate the idea that there is a choice.

This is all fine and politics as usual, but the US is still one country in a world that views it increasingly as a real and present danger to the continuation of human life, and not without reason.

Putting a different face in front of the camera and implementing the same strategies, slightly respun in a few cases, will not increase the likelihood that American children will get a chance to raise THEIR children in a country that does not resemble Rwanda.

[AfricanDonkey]

7. Rwanda was terrible

Rwanda was the creation of pent up hatred from years and years of cold war. Something I see happening within the Democratic Party of the Dean supporters versus the rest of the party. I hope that the end result will not be a million dead like Rwanda.

[hedda_foil]

44. Do you have any idea what kind of swill you're spewing?

Dean is the ONLY major candidate who does NOT support the PNAC agenda in any form. He most certainly is not the favorite of AIPAC, or even A favorite of AIPAC. He's the only major candidate who has called the *shits on their imperial delusions, likening their agenda to the death throes of the Roman Empire.

[AfricanDonkey]

3. I must disagree

I think Howard Dean is more Dukakis and McGovern than anyone. Kerry reminds me more of John Kennedy.And where does Kerry anywhere make capital punishment and social liberalism their central issues? Dean would be more fitting to that description.I am undecided as of yet but these mean posts about Kerry are putting me more and more away from both Kerry and Dean. And I find it funny that you would compare a liberal elitist Dean from NYC to Kerry who volunteered for two terms of Vietnam. And where does freeing Murderers and the beauty of boston harbor become his main issues? His main issues are security and the economy from what I have read on his website. Dean's main issues are healthcare and education. Your post confuses me. This post seems awfully desperate and reaching at best, lying at worst.

[dorktv]

8. Sorry dude, but Dean is no where near a liberal.

On some social issues maybe, but he is quite the fiscal conservative.

[AfricanDonkey]

11. He seems quite liberal on his website and weblog?

I have heard people critize the Governor of being a moderate and campaigning as a liberal. Perhaps he had a change of heart? I saw him give a speech where he told of how it was the presidential campaign that made him change his stances on many issues because he was talking with real voters.

[dorktv]

18. Well I have heard him speak twice, and he really did

change on some things but mostly he has stayed the same. He freely admits to NOT being a liberal. Although coming out of a major progressive state such as Vermont, he can easily be seen as a liberal.

[burr]

30. But here is my point...

Dean is putting the tactical mistakes of shrub, the economic issues, and the health issue at the front of the train. They drive the drive it foward, but the cargo and the goods being transported are the liberal social issues. They will never make it without the economic focus of Howard Dean.

[dorktv]

31. Dean does seem to be pretty focused on his main issue:

Economy! Not letting himself get super side-tracked. And he seems to be pragmatic...that is important.

[Larkspur]

20. Howard Dean is our Harry Truman

One of my favorite Vermont reviews of Howard Dean. From the Times Angus, a Barre-Montpelier newspaper http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/58611

<SNIP>
Dean, as did Truman, confronted problems and situations without precedent: In Truman’s case it was the dropping of the atomic bomb; in Dean’s case it was the emotional bomb of expanding gay rights.

The parallels run deeper: Both men won difficult re-elections in which the electorate was split over issues of civil rights. In Truman’s case southern Democrats opposed to a strong civil-rights program formed the States’ Rights Party, known as the Dixiecrats; in Dean’s case opponents of civil unions worked hard for the GOP challenger. Both men also were challenged by candidates of a Progressive Party.

Below is one of the main reasons why Dean has my full support.
The greatest bond between these two leaders, though, is that both held their offices in tumultuous times. Few governors have seen so many crises on their watch: Dean assumed office during the worst recession since the Great Depression, although he later presided over the longest economic expansion in modern history. There were devastating floods, a disastrous ice storm, droughts, near bankruptcies of the electric utilities and much more...

Howard Dean was an unknown in 1991, and he remains a mystery even after holding center stage in the longest gubernatorial run in more than two centuries. He defies labels, following a pragmatic, not partisan, path. Perhaps because he is a doctor he focuses on the immediate problem at hand, tries his best to solve it and then moves on.
<SNIP>

And my favorite bit of the column, which marks a key ingredient that Howard Dean has over the rest of the Presidential field, and what I want in a Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004
Most important, though, the man who calmed an anxious state when tragedy struck all those years ago was able to maintain calm despite an unending series of storms. Give ’em hell, Howard.
<SNIP>

Howard Dean has faced political adversity and not only survived but flourished. We need that ability to "calm an anxious populace and maintain calm during an unending series of political storms" in our Presidential nominee and in our President in 2004 because Bush has really screwed this country and blowback is gearing up to hit us in a few short years, I fear.

[DrFunkenstein]

29. I Find Comparing The A-Bomb With The Gay Bomb Distasteful

If you looked at pictures of the devastation that was Hiroshima, you would never say this so glibly.

[Larkspur]

55. I didn't say it. It was a direct quote from the columnist

and he was comparing the political ramifications of both events.

Even if you don't like the comparison, what the columnist was saying was that Dean is like Truman in that both had courage to do what was right at the time even if it was unpopular.

[Mairead]

68. What the columnist was doing was making an odious comparison

Like Dr F, I find that comparison to be insulting. Beyond insulting, really. The two events are about as worthy of being likened as someone who's stubbed their toe is to being likened to someone who's had their leg torn off. And political comparisons are of the same magnitude.

Jeez, Lark!

[Ediacara]

77. and so sending tens of millions to die in a foolhearty invasion of Japan..

is a better solution?

I agree, atomic bombs are bad, but it was the ONLY solution that would save millions of lives and end the war.

[chimpymustgo]

33. Agree, AfricanDonkey - the original post is delusional.

Twisting turning Kerry's stances - like a PRETZEL.

Kerry is an electable liberal. Dean is a centrist who has changed his positions to tap into a corner of the electorate. It won't be enough to win the nomination, much less the election.

[burr]

38. Agreed...

And if Kerry claims Dukakis and Ted Kennedy as his vision of the being an "electable Democrat", we're all in trouble! :scared:

At least Dean has the sense to know you focus on the needs of people and issues like healthcare and the economy stupid. I think he knows Clinton is the model to follow. ;-)

[DrFunkenstein]

46. Burr, You're Really Going Off The Deep End

What campaign race are you following?

[burr]

48. I think the same thing when I read your postings...

of course we can all give as much as we take.

[caledesi]

39. Dean a liberal? Puhleeze...get educated

Dean is one of the most fiscally conservative people running.

They cannot label Dean and that is what is frustrating to all these so-called pundits. And Dean is very cool about it..."call me anything you want"...in other words, labels don't scare me and I will say what I believe.

Dean is the man and will be our next president. He has been the most vocal person in denouncing *'s failed policies and the ruin of this great country.

Dean was the first to mention Clinton for all the accomplishments..yeah, all the other wimps did NOT mention Clinton until Dean did. He's the leader of the pack. Don't believe me? Pick up the last issue of Time, Newsweek, and US Work and News.....this guy has come out of nowhere because of his novel campaign (using Internet etc) and because he doesn't back down. When * makes any of his inane incoherent statements, Dean has a rebuttal online THAT DAY!

He's a winner.

No one has created this much excitement since Clinton. Remember him? Some guy from a vey dysfunctional family in a small town in Arkansas for Christ's sake....The American Dream came true for him. (the repugs are always tallking about the "American Dream" and well Clinton was that American Dream and they NEVER got over it.

[Maple]

4. You need the 3 M's to get elected

Money, message and momentum.

Dean currently has all three.

[AfricanDonkey]

6. This i would agree with

I am new here and perhaps these type of posts are common, but the original post is the most horrible made-up stuff about a candidate I have seen to date. Perhaps it is just Kerry taking his just-desert for I hear many Dean supporters complaining about the constant Dean bashing. I think that bashing a candidate in the context of this post is bad on any candidate. Can we not be more civil? I am still undecided and I want to support Dean but there are some serious questions I have about him and i refuse to give my vote to anyone until I have done the proper research into the candidate, but posts like the original will drive me away from a candidate in a heartbeat.

[dorktv]

10. So simply bad posts will drive you away rather then solid research?

that sounds a bit odd to me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Link to thread with some research inside

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=157990

[AfricanDonkey]

14. ow, thank you!

I might not be able to respond for an hour or more cause I will be reading, thank you!

[AfricanDonkey]

13. No it is not a bad post or two

Again, I am heavily leaning Howard Dean and your tone is quite insulting to me sir and this is exactly what is driving me from Howard Dean. Because I am not a purist Howard Dean supporter I am not worthy to be his supporter? Because I am asking questions and looking into everything about him I cannot grace his ranks? I find your tone distrubing. But back to the main point, I try not to post too much but I have been reading many many posts and I find the attacks on Dean horrible, which is what attracted me in the first place to see the conviction in his supporters defending him and it made me question if it was fear that made these people attack Dean so much. But then I see it on the otherside now with attacks on Lieberman and Kerry and Kucinich.

[dorktv]

19. I am a girl dude. :) And I was just being honest. It did seem a bit

odd.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caledesi]

41. Very odd indeed!

<you know what I am thinking>

[burr]

15. Yes...

I want to see how the Kerry folks feel. This kind of tactic can be used repeatedly by both sides. But I can easily see shrub labeling Kerry as a Dukakis.

The point is...whether these attacks of "unelectability" come from me or from the Kerry supporters, they are out there and they will have to answered either now or after we nominate our candidate.

[Egnever]

16. Welcome to DU!

You seem to be generally here to seek information. Be prepared for a rocky road!

DU is a great place for information on candidates but you have to wade through a lot of bs to get to it usually. I find the best way for me to get information from here has been to go into some of these bashing threads (you will see many of these till the primary is over) and listen to what the supporters of the candidate being bashed have to say. Often the people posting the thread originally are either ill informed or wildly spining or just plain wrong.

If there is one thing amazing about DU its the ability of some of the people in this comunity to dig for info. If someone said it DUers will find it. You cant really hide the truth from these people.
Just look to latest breaking news for example. You will read about stuff there that you wont hear about for weeks on mainstream news if ever.

Dont be discouraged by this stuff. Its politics, right now everyone is trying to promote thier guy but overwhelmingly over and over the common theme in the end is we will all Vote for the last one standing.

Again welcome to DU hope you enjoy your stay :)

[Tinoire]

78. Cool signature graphic! Really cool! n/t

[AfricanDonkey]

79. thank you

very much, i look forward to this game :)

[Maple]

27. Welcome African Donkey!

Well no candidate is perfect, or someone in whom everyone in the party can agree with on every single item 100%....but the purpose here is to defeat Bush, and put a Democrat back in the WH.

So go with the candidate that is electable.

Even if you don't agree with every tiny thing he says.

Kerry is the establishment choice, but Dean is kind of a grassroots phenomenon. One of those fascinating political fireballs you see maybe once in a lifetime.

Can he sustain it? Dunno.

But at the moment he has those 3 M's and no one else does.

[Mairead]

69. After you've been here a bit longer

you'll discover that 'Dean supporters complaining about Dean bashing' is...endemic. It bears little resemblance to consensual reality, because they tend to define any criticism, even quoting, as 'bashing'. It's become a sort of sour joke around here, like the screams of 'anti-semitism! anti-semitism!' you hear from a certain right-wing segment of the Jewish community. Nothing is too good for their boy, so obviously any criticism is ipso facto unjust.

Welcome to DU!

[chimpymustgo]

34. Well the election isn't today. Let's see where things stand come

January. Or even October for that matter.

[caledesi]

40. VG Maple...the 3 Ms!

[Kahuna]

17. LOL! You should be a comedian telling jokes like that.

A lot of democrats don't think he's electable. How do YOU come to that conclusion?

[burr]

21. Thanks, I used to make money telling jokes in college...

actually I call it comman sense. :crazy:

[ryharrin]

22. I come to the same conclusion because

Kerry is incredibly boring. Who gets fired up over Kerry? Nobody that hasn't been following politics for a long time at least. Dean is exciting and is not "business as usual." He is changing the way things work. His fundraising has skyrocketed, and there is a good chance his total for the next quarter will be even more unexpected than for the last quarter. Will Kerry do the same? I don't think so.

[dorktv]

24. I have never meet a non-paid Kerry supporter.

and I have meet about 200 Dean supporters who have been begging to volunteer.

[burr]

25. I need a second job...

Any Kerry positions?

[dorktv]

26. Hee hee...I suppose...

They have two outside Arizona people already here so...

[George_Bonanza]

53. What?!

I'm a Kerry supporter, and I don't even live in the States, much less be paid by the campaign. And as a Dean supporter, I doubt you'd look very hard to find dedicated, non-paid Kerry volunteers.

[Nicholas_J]

35. Dean electable. thats funny all available polls give him the....

Lowest electability ratings against Bush out of all major candidates in all polls.

[dorktv]

37. Not the stuff I have seen recently.

[Nicholas_J]

49. If you look at polling report and Bush vs. Dean is at the bottom

OF every poll in which they compare percentages Bush to Whoever.

Dean is lowest:

Latest Fox Polls have


Bush Beating Dean 55 percent to 27 percent

Bush 54, Kerry 35


Wall Street Journal/NBC News

Bush 52 Dean 30

Bush 49 Kerry 34


Newsweek

Bush 50 percent Kerry 42 percent


Bush 53 percent Dean 38 percent.


These are the latest figures on Bush Democratic Candidates at:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

In New Hampshire, Dean does even worse:

In the Herald poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters, Dean takes 28 percent of the vote and Kerry 25 percent while a second tier of candidates lagged behind, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut at 11 percent and U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) at 9 percent.


This places him statistically even with Kerry in the poll, but in the same poll:

Forty-four percent of voters say Kerry is more electable than Dean - only 17 percent say Dean has a better shot against Bush, the poll found.

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/poll07272003.htm


Every poll based on electability places Dean at the bottom of the four top tier candidates.

[burr]

50. Yep....

Truman was polling below that elitest, northeastern snob Dewey. You know...your type. Too good to get their hands dirty, always must take that afternoon sleep. Then it's time to sip some tea, not too quickly of course.

You can't hold office unless you are a Kerry, and remember Forbes is his middle name! Never forget that democracy means fighting back, and taking on the rightwing media. Not taking time out for a spot of cricket.

[Nicholas_J]

73. Or for

going skiing when your doctor wrote you a note to skip the war.

[burr]

42. they said the same about Clinton when the Flowers story broke...

but he was certainly more electable than Jerry Brown, and more reliable than Bob Kerrey.

[caledesi]

51. That's too bad. I really like Kucinich

Even though I am a Dean supporter. He was great on Wolf Blitzer today. Didn't back down. I like Kucinich for that.

His delivery at times just isn't Kucinich. He is screaming (trying to sound passionate, I suppose), but I saw Kucinich recently at one of those "Road to the Whitehouse" things...and he was right-on. No screaming, definitely convincing. He can "work a crowd" like no other, and that includes Dean whom I lOVE.

I don't know what's going to happen w/ Kucinich. I do think though, if Dean is the nominee, Kucinich should end up having a very good job. He deserves it.

[burr]

52. Let's make the State Department the Peace Department.

nt

[Duder]

43. Yup, advantage Dean

I agree with the essence of your post in that old "Massachusetts liberal with outdated policies" label will be applied to Kerry.

Another disadvantage is a lot of people get fed up with everyone in D.C. and so being an 'insider' hurts because people won't have the impression of change. As the LA Times stated:

To be sure, a case can be made for Dean getting the Democratic nomination and even winning. Four of the last five presidents — Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the current President Bush — had been state governors or ex-governors. No sitting U.S. senator has won since John F. Kennedy in 1960 — hardly good news for presidential aspirants John F. Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman — and you have to go back to 1880 to find a sitting member of the House who won the presidency, a discouraging indicator for 2004 hopefuls Richard A. Gephardt and Dennis J. Kucinich. Being able to kick Washington works better than being part of it.

Governors speak more directly to the public whereas Senators use legislative speak and therefore don't usually connect as well with the populist.

Some of the best presidents had no military service and so I don't think that will be either an advantage or disadvantage. Dean's choice of vp and in naming some of his cabinet would defuse any foreign policy concerns.

Dean seems more likely to be the candidate that has that "teflon" quality when attacked. I believe he will be viewed as the stronger domestic candidate and have a broader appeal in the swing states. He also gives voters a clear choice as the anti-Bush.

[DemPopulist]

54. I guess this has been said in this thread already but...

What planet are you living on??

"Here it is, Kerry is born a loser while Dean is a born winner. Kerry is the Mike Dukakis of the party. Dean comes from the electable, democratic wing of the party while Dukakis and Kerry come from the snobbish, elitist wing of the party. Dean knows that economic populism is the cornerstone, the heart and sole of the party. But unelectable snobs like Dukakis and Kerry wish to make capital punishment and social liberalism their central issues!"

Dean isn't any kind of economic populist. He's a Paul Tsongas-style New England moderate - socially liberal/fiscally conservative. He combines the economic,social and foreign policy attitudes of the Northeastern, to use your words, "snobbish, elitist wing of the party." That's the secret of his success so far, IMO. He caters to that segment of the party so completely that he's already nailed down a steady base while everybody else in the field up to this point, even that idiot Lieberman, has been casting a much wider net.

Also, Dukakis didn't "wish to make capital punishment and social liberalism" the central issues of his campaign. It was the Republicans that made those the central issues. That happened because he had a record that was very vulnerable on that score, just as Dean does with his civil unions signing, his flip-flopping on the death penalty, and some of the statements he's made during the campaign (ie. "I suppose it's a good thing that Saddam was removed from power"). And this stuff about how Dean is a fiscal conservative...so was Dukakis! His whole campaign was about the "Massachusetts Miracle", how he had balanced X number of budgets as governor, how he was such a penny-pincher that he used the same snowblower for 27 years, how the Reagan-Bush administration practiced "borrow-and-spend" economics - the same line Dean has used this year. Now, I'm a short guy myself so I'm not going to play the height card and point out the similarities between the Duke and the Dean in that regard but I've listened to Dean speeches and thought his voice actually sounded like Dukakis.

Kerry ain't much of an economic populist, at least in comparison to some of the other candidates, but in comparison to Dean he is. He's calling for middle-class tax relief, like a payroll tax holiday. Dean isn't offering anything that's directly beneficial to the working class because he's got that anti-Keynesian, old-style Republican obsession with the deficit. Some of the Dean supporters amaze me with the level of projection involved in their take on his candidacy. Because you're an economic populist supporting Dean don't make Dean an economic populist.

[burr]

57. I think we better review the definition of populism.

From Thorndike and Barnhart...

"populist - advocated goverment control of the railroads, limitation of private ownership of land, an increase in the currency, and the income tax."

Kerry supports maintaining some of shrub's cuts in the income tax, opposes limitations in the private ownership of land, supports subsiding privately owned railroads, and hopes to decrease amount of currency by increasing interest rates through deficit spending with the payroll tax holiday.

Dean supports eliminating all of shrub's cuts in the income tax, supports a universal healthcare system, increased environment protection, and will increase amount of currency with low interest rates by balancing the budget and paying down the national debt.

[genius]

56. A lot of lifelong Democrats won't vote for him. D/S's and Greens

won't vote for him. Is his electability supposed to come from a fraction of hte Democratic Party and the Republicans? Guess what. The Republicans are voting for Bush.

[burr]

58. That's what they said about Truman...

the liberals would vote for Henry Wallace and the south would back Thurmond. Well Truman won most of the south, and he would not of won if was not for the support for the liberals and union members.

And Truman did not blindly follow the polls or the will of the Republican Party.

Was Truman considered electable in 48', hell no!

But that is what made him a damned good President.

[dsc]

59. I totally disagree

Kerry is no Dukakis. He is able and willing to fight back and appears willing to take advice neither of which Dukakis was good at. I prefer Dean but Kerry is no loser.

[burr]

60. What do you think about postings attacking Dean's electability?

nt

[dsc]

61. They are wrong too

and I have argued about those with their authors.

[burr]

62. And your points have been well made...

One purpose of this thread is to place that same burden on the Kerry posters, and to see how they defend Kerry or if they simply continue to bash Dean, Kucinich, and others.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

63. I think Kerry

can handle national security just fine, considering that he is a decorated vietnam veteran.

[ryharrin]

64. I would imagine being an enlisted soldier is a bit different from

coming up with policies that would protect us from threats to our national security. I'm not saying he'd be any worse, but how would he be any better?

[Mairead]

70. He was a commissioned officer, not an enlisted soldier

[Nicholas_J]

74. Yup

A good lieutenant coers the asses of his non-coms, and a good sergeant makes sure NOTHING happens to that officer. Officer takes care of the troops, and the troops look after that officer.

The absolutly WORSE, most dangerous position to have been in during the Vietnan War was a lieutenant. THey were the officers who lived out in the jungle with a bunch of guys living in tents for six months at a stretch, blowing up a bridge, waiting for the Vietnamese to rebuild it, and blowing it up again. The job sucked and everyone spent their time scared shitless.

[ryharrin]

65. I would imagine being an enlisted soldier is a bit different from

coming up with policies that would protect us from threats to our national security. I'm not saying he'd be any worse, but how would he be any better?

[jdspatriot]

66. The Progressive Case for Dean

The Progressive Case for Dean
By Nico Pitney

I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing him to a crowd of several hundred when he visited Santa Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and, of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views most closely mirror my own.

Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will go to Howard Dean.

Yes, I've read the unfavorable commentaries on Howard Dean by writers whose opinions I greatly respect, like Norman Solomon and Alexander Cockburn. And yes, I know that I disagree with some critical components of Dean's platform. Progressives should be well aware that they're going to disagree on a range of issues with every individual who has a chance at being in the White House two years from now. Our choice is not between Howard Dean and the-even-better-candidate-who-has-a-shot-at-winning-the-Democratic-nomination-and-defeating-George-Bush; that other candidate doesn't exist. Neither Kucinich nor Al Sharpton nor Carol Moseley Braun nor any Green will be President. Progressives should incorporate these realities into their electoral strategy, however disappointing they may be.

In a recent column, Norman Solomon criticizes "liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy," and then argues that Greens are practicing the reverse strategy - "principled idealism" without a coherent electoral strategy. But in the same column he remarks, "Few present-day Green Party leaders seem willing to urge that Greens forego the blandishments of a presidential campaign. The increased attention - including media coverage - for the party is too compelling to pass up." If this latter analysis is accurate, the impetus to run a Green presidential candidate has come not from principled idealism but a rather inconsiderate self-indulgence.

In any case, the role of ideals in the voting booth is hazy. Voting Green isn't necessarily the most effective way to achieve Green policies. More importantly, supporting and voting for Democratic candidates is in no way a personal affirmation of the Democratic Party platform. It is, in part, a recognition of Duverger's Law - one of the few reliable "laws" in the social sciences - which states that American-style, winner-take-all, plurality voting systems produce political structures intractably dominated by two parties. Moreover, it is a recognition that the Democratic Party is simply one network among many (albeit an incredibly powerful one) through which those seeking fundamental political change in the United States can act. Progressives ought to engage the Democratic Party in the same way that we engage any powerful institution; we should creatively test the limits of reform and attempt to produce change that will assist us in our own wider struggles.

The goal of progressives in the coming months, then, should be to continue what we're doing now - organizing, developing alternative social, economic, and environmental programs, and working to raise the national profile of our allies in the public sphere - while supporting Howard Dean and helping him win the primary and general elections. We have to keep close in mind what our country and our world will look like if George W. Bush's administration captures another term and can carry out its agenda without being restrained by reelection considerations. In what will likely be the most divisive and bitterly contested presidential election in decades, let's not use our precious energy and resources on candidates with no chance of defeating Bush. Rather, let's make sure to elect a candidate who, like Dean, at least supports publicly financed elections, instant run-off voting, and a constitutional amendment declaring that political contributions are not free speech, so that we directly strike at the structural stultification of our electoral system that forces us to limit our choices in the first place.

More here: http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

[tedoll78]

67. I think his electability exists within his near-universal appeal.

I want to WIN, and that will depend on us carrying states that Gore didn't.

Guns hurt us badly in 2000. Dean addresses this, putting many states within our grasp.
Greens can help us greatly in 2004. To some extent, Dean addresses this and bolsters our ticket in crucial states.
Fiscal responsibility? We are the party carrying this cause. Dean epitomizes this.
Trustworthiness? Dean seems personally squeaky clean, untainted by scandal.
Bringing new voters back into the process? Dean's proven that he can do it. With just 5% more turnout - most of which would go into Dean's column - our chances of victory JUMP.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

72. Guns didn't hurt us badly in 2000- WE WON!

Guns are not even an issue this year. In fact all the 2nd amendment whackos hate Bush and Asscroft for supporting the assault weapons ban.

[Nicholas_J]

75. Dean only has near universal appeal to Dean supporters.

Thereare millions of democrats he does not appeal to at all.

AN the ARROGANCE of his own supporters deciding that Dean has NEAR UNIVERSAL APPEAL, is one more element against Deans electablilty.

Dean is NOT our Truman, he is DEFINITELY OUR MCGOVERN.

as a matter of fact, to many Democrats, Dean is not even ours

[LuminousX]

71. Supposed to be a Dean thread, but attacks Kerry

This is why Dean supporters get a bad name. The title of this thread should be 'Is Kerry the Dukakis of the Election' as nothing in the original post has anything to do with Dean.

Kerry has proven he is electable, many times.

[Nicholas_J]

76. AS a matter of fact

REcent info about Iowa indicates that more often than not, the people at the top of the polls in the summer drop to the bottom by january.

A recent article indicated that by January, 75 percent of Iowa Democrats change their choice between July/Augist and the caucuses.

[polpilot]

80. Dean's real advantage: A true stateman with brilliance and a devoted

public servant.

Dean '04