The case against the case against the case for Dean...

[DannyRed]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0827-04.htm

read it.

It's important.

We need to grow up.

[Sweetpea]

1. Very needed read

[DannyRed]

2. Indeed.

Look, I am a died in the wool Socialist.

I think that the basic fabric of American Society needs to be changed via a combination of troop revolt, general strike, and popular rebellion leading to a government by Peoples' Councils.

Really. I mean that.

Until that happens, we will continue to face the problems we face now, because the problems we face are not due to one man or one party, they are systemic.

HOWEVER, until the time is right for that, progress requires engagement.

Engagement requires compromise and thoughtful, critical, somewhat cynical support of the best that you can find.

Winning allies in the long term fight requires WORKING WITH those allies even before they explicitly or implicitly support your cause.

I am deeply critical of Howard Dean -- his stances on Israel/Palestine, on Guns, on the Economy and Trade, on Health Care, on War in General, on his statements over the future in Iraq...and many other reasons.

HOWEVER...change occurs slowly. Dean is raising a lot of money and reaching a lot of different people.

If it were Kerry doing that, I would support Kerry. If it were Kucinich, I would support him.

So, for cynical and practical reasons, I support Dean...

[KaraokeKarlton]

3. I'm a Vermonter who is very familiar with Howard Dean

You're making the right choice. No, Dean isn't a liberal. No, you aren't going to agree with him on everything. But that's okay. The reason that this is okay is because everything Howard Dean does as a leader, he does because he believes in his heart that it's what is best for the people he serves...even if it's not popular. He also is a man of principle. Special Interest Groups will NEVER own him...NEVER. American people will own him. You will always be able to count on him to surround himself with good advisors who know what they are doing and who he can trust. He will be honest and he will be humble. He won't be corrupted. Vermont raised Howard Dean to be a good, honest politician. He learned, as any who have lasted long here has, that you stay honest, make the hard decisions based on your principles and represent those you serve well, and they will reward you. You can expect fairness, honesty and dignity as well as great things from Howard Dean. This is coming from someone who usually wouldn't trust a politician as far as I could throw them. This is coming from someone who has a clear understanding of what kind of behavior the Israeli government employs and am just as disgusted by it as I am by terror attacks. I trust Howard Dean to handle the Middle East properly. I trust him on foreign policy. I trust him on everything because I KNOW he stands on principle and what is in the best interest of those who elected him in his opinion. This is a man you can and will respect a great deal...even when you don't agree with him. I hope this helps to make you feel more secure in your decision.

[bread_and_roses]

14. I respect that you believe this

but there is nothing I read about Howard Dean that leads me to agree with it. I think it is way to early for calls to "unity." If now is not the time to hold the feet of whoever will be the Dem candidate to the fire, when is? I am most dismayed by what seems to be an unwillingness on the part of Dean's supporters to accept criticism of any of his stances or views. I voted and worked for Clinton without thinking he was the second coming; I mistrust what I see as adulation and uncritical willingness to "trust" that any politician will "do the right thing" without a lot of pressure from constituents. And this is exactly the pressure that I do not see the Dean supporters willing to apply. They make excuses for a health care proposal that panders to the interests of insurance companies and a stance on the middle east that panders to Israel and a stance on the Cuban embargo that panders to a special interest in Florida. As a progressive, I am not willing to get on his train at this point, because doing so would in no way advance progressive causes.

[CWebster]

18. That's garbage

Ask any Dean supporter, and, as stated in the article, they are not blind to, or blissfully unaware of issues where there may be disagreement. Actually, it is a refreshing characteristic of Dean supporters in general in that they are very level-headed in their appraisal, while still supporting the candidacy. The same can not be said for the shrill adulation of other campaign cheerleaders, with their ancient relic snapshots as teen idol posters and steadfast denial of their fave-raves negatives. ;-)

[bread_and_roses]

21. Your opinion

...but not mine. Though I freely admit that my opinion is based on what I read here and in the press. But in what I read, I simply do not see what you claim. And I remain convinced that capitulating on progressive causes at this early date is both unnecessary and self defeating.

[KaraokeKarlton]

37. Sure his supporters are open to criticism

As long as it's done in a fair, respectful way. Honestly, what do you expect Dean supporters to do when other people assume that they didn't research their candidate or don't know his stands on things? The criticism of Dean supporters on here seems to be pretty caustic and condascending, and is based on the misconception that Dean's supporters are too ignorant to know that the press sometimes doesn't tell us the truth about the guy we support. We KNOW he's not a liberal. The liberals who support him do so for other reasons.

My post was about what kind of governor Dean was. He's a damn good man and a great leader. That's why he is popular here and well liked and respected by just about everyone in Vermont who isn't a radical on either side. Oh, and we think this about Dean minus all the fiery speeches, rhetoric and inspirational speeches. People in Vermont never reacted as the nation is to Dean with the adulation we're seeing now. He never would have drawn so many people in the state for a speech. He's fed up with picking up the paper and being disgusted with what Bush is doing to our country...just like you are. So he's doing something about it and offering HOPE for people. That's what it's all about...the hope. He also has what it takes to get the things he wants passed. Also, if he gets elected president you will see all kinds of lawmakers voting their conscience on gay rights instead of their fear simply because they will know that it won't destroy their chances of holding the most coveted political office in the country. To be perfectly honest...I don't think any of the other candidates are going to be able to take Bush down. They either lack the leadership and energy to work their ass off like Dean has or they are pushing policy this country isn't ready for without the ability to sell it. Before and progress forward can be made, someone has to undo the damage that has been done to this country by Bush. Dean has a solid record of doing that, and that is what this country needs most of all right now...someone who is able to be sensible, pragmatic and make some hard calls and stand up for them even if they aren't popular. Dean can do that and pave the way for those who come after him to continue the drive forward.

[clar]

35. Yikes, let's tone down the idol worship

Dean's OK, and I believe you know that I'm also a Vermonter. I voted for him all 5 times, but he's just a guy. He rarely inspired me while he was Governor, sometimes pissed me off, sometimes amused me, but mostly bored me. As far as humble goes, that certainly wouldn't be the first thing that comes to my mind when thinking of Howard.

Having said that, I'm supporting him; as much for the community that's grown up around him and for the "open source" campaign he's running, as anything else.

[KaraokeKarlton]

39. Humble as in he knows it's the people he needs

And that he can admit when he's wrong or doesn't have an answer. I don't adore him, but I respect him. You know, as well as I do, that Vermont politicians don't last in office if they aren't honest and don't do a good job. Dean has always been fair and was always looking out for our interests...the people he served. I didn't like some of his choices either...but I never had any doubt that he made them because he believed it was in our best interest. My post was an attempt to portray the integrity, honesty and fairness Dean has. But I certainly don't idolize him. And if you look at the response I made to someone a couple of minutes ago, you'll see where I pointed out that Dean wasn't fiery as governor. He was just the governor and didn't give speeches like that here.

After the level of nastiness up here in 2000, I think Dean can handle and overcome ANYTHING Bush can throw at him. I don't think anyone else has that level of experience in the kind of election campaign 2004 is going to be.

[diamondsoul]

41. (giggling) I'm glad a Dean supporter said that

about humble not being the first word to leap to mind when it comes to Dean. I got a little chuckle over the use of it myself but didn't dare say so!

I get what the other poster meant by it, but the word just doesn't seem to fit Howard Dean to me.

Aside from that, I'm inclined to agree with DR's thoughts. I'm not prepared to leap in behind Dean just because he appears to be in the lead. It's entirely too early in the race for that. Kucinich's voice needs to be heard before he's dismissed, and that won't happen if his supporters decide to jump ship. It won't help progressives make their case, and it won't help the country make an informed choice on election day to dismiss DK this early in the game.

[clar]

44. I'm glad you got a giggle.

I can totally see how the "dean idol" stuff can drive someone around the proverbial bend.

[KaraokeKarlton]

45. I didn't mean his personality is humble

His politics are humble. He isn't under the impression that he shouldn't have to work hard for the nomination and he knows full well who is making it happen for him. He listens to his supporters and makes it clear to his supporters how much he appreciates all they are doing.

A candidates politics can be humble without their personality being so as well.

Does that make more sense? I should have differentiated in my post, I suppose, but I honestly thought people would "get" what I was saying.

This is the definition I'm thinking of: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission...or, in other words...people-powered.

[diamondsoul]

46. I understood what you meant, honest.

I just think I personally might have picked a different word. I do like that slogan, too, the "People Powered Howard" one. It's got a really good ring to it and very clear meaning.

[KaraokeKarlton]

47. Yeah, a better word may have been better...but I was on a roll

And I get so sick of seeing people demonize someone that I know is a good guy. I wouldn't mind the criticism if it wasn't done in such an underhanded and dishonest way. Twisting things to make it look like something far different than what it actually was in an attempt to get more attention for a candidate who isn't working like Dean is to earn that attention just plain pisses me off. Dean deserves every success he's had because he's out there busting his ass to win while most of the others seem to be sitting back and waiting for someone to just hand the nomination to them. I hate that sense of entitlement. Dean is earning the nomination, that's for sure.

[diamondsoul]

49. No problem, KK

I won't beat up on Dean except in a once in a while response to someone who is hatefully slamming my choice, Kucinich. Dean is a good guy, plain and simple. I have my personal dislikes of him and, the "humble" attribute contrasted with one of those, so it hit me as funny. Still I work hard at making sure I listen to Dean before I judge his stands, and I won't sink to the level of personally insulting him. It's pointless.

Dean has worked hard and so have those of you who support him, therefore you most certainly have earned and deserve some respect and commendation.

"Dean deserves every success he's had because he's out there busting his ass to win while most of the others seem to be sitting back and waiting for someone to just hand the nomination to them."

I think that's a mischaracterization of Kucinich's situation, but hey that happens. My position is that Kucinich has worked hard to maintain his job as a Representative, putting that before all else including campaigning. Dr. Dean steppped out of elected office to run for President, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. My personal preference is a man who commits to what is expected of him as an elected official, and Dr. Dean stepping down as Governor kind of hurt him that way in my view. Not a lot, but enough to put my support for the primaries on another candidate.

Does that make sense without being mean-spirited? I hope because that's my intent. Those are MY PERSONAL preferences and should have no bearing on your choices.

[Egnever]

4. I don't think any one of us could have imagined this first term

Now, from that starting point, imagine the next four. It should keep you up at night!

Those two lines made the article a must read.

This also is right on the money

"I am more than willing to throw full support behind Kucinich if he were setting the record for fundraising, grassroots turnout, and media coverage. All I ask is the same from you because right now that person is Howard Dean."

I would add anyone else besides lieberman

I dont care who it is really at this point bush scares me that much

[CWebster]

5. Calling all of the Left!

"...sometimes averting a political disaster is triumph enough.

Can you accurately imagine the disaster of Dubya having four years to operate without fear of reelection. He could do virtually anything he wanted. Heck, he could create laws that allow him to spy on all of us without any probable cause. He could lock up thousands of people without charging them and deny them access to a lawyer. He could make deals with his business cronies to open up our national parks to a buffet of abuses. He could invade other countries and steal their resources. Oh wait, that's his first term...

...The key is to unite. In its most crude terms, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party can be broken down into two camps: The Deans and The Kucinichs. Can we all please unite around one of them? I am more than willing to throw full support behind Kucinich if he were setting the record for fundraising, grassroots turnout, and media coverage. All I ask is the same from you because right now that person is Howard Dean."

The Republicans understand that the key is unity---there ain't no one but Shrub....Leftists talk about unity in the general but reject "borg" behavior in the primary. But IT IS the primary where the real race in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is ---the odds of us putting a better foot forward and the liklihood that we back a candidate who not only can win the general but will help heal the deep divide within and disappointment with the recent trend of the party away from the base.

[renie408]

6. Here I go...

with my abysmal reading comprehension skills again.

Could you tell me which of the eight other hopefuls is the fascist? Cause that would really make things a lot easier for me. And how does the author of that editorial make the leap from stating negative opinions about Dean to Dubya getting four more years in office? It appears to be saying that we should all choose one guy RIGHT NOW, either Kucinich or Dean, and stick to him. Apparently, the author of your opinion piece chooses Dean. If Dean happens to lose the nomination and, let's say, Kerry wins, why does that mean that Bush gets four more years and is allowed to come and take snapshots of us in our sleep?

I am completely open to a different interpretation than the one I took from this commentary.

[CWebster]

7. Obviously

Bush.

[renie408]

9. Sorry,

If I had a hard time understanding the relevance of the article mentioned, I am not going to be able to grasp the meaning behind cryptic one word replies.

The article said that in France, due to low voter turnout in the primaries because of a hated French PM, they ended up with a fascist against said hated PM in the election and then had to 'fight the good fight' to get the hate PM re-elected to avoid the fascist.

Like I said, I get the comparison in that Bush is steadily more hated here, but the rest of it lost me. If I screwed it up, I am fine with having it pointed out to me where I went wrong. I just can't figure out how 'having a case against Howard Dean' turns into nominating a fascist or someone similar. Though I feel some of them are more electable than others, I think that any of the Dem hopefuls would be much better than Dubya.

[gottaB]

8. Premature

That argument is totally premature and imo disingenuous. If one really wanted to vote for a minority radical feminist, one could do better than support Howard Dean. If one really wanted renewables, most all the Dems are backing roughly the same proposal, including Lieberman, but of course Kucinich stands out.

The analogy with what happened in France is a false one. The inevitablity of Dean's victory is a political claim. It is neither a fact nor a sound reason for voting for him. It doesn't stand to reason that one should accept that political claim and yet at the same time voice disagreements with the claimant's essential political orientation. At it's core, the argument presented here does not appeal to reason but to emotions, namely fear and despair.

I prefer to remain optimistic and support the candidate that most closely represents my views. In my case that would be Carol Moseley Braun, a minority thirdwavish feminist and die-hard liberal who supports increased investment in renewable energy, among other things. I continue to remain upbeat about most all of the other candidates, including Howard Dean. This I believe reflects the reality of the moment, and not my deepest anxieties. It works for me, it can work for you too.

[CWebster]

10. No - a victory is not inevitable

that is the damn point.

I'll tell you what--at the time I would've preferred Bradley to Gore, and I would've preferred Nader to Gore, but I voted for Gore. First and foremost, I recognize the grave and serious risk another Bush term represents, so I am going to back the candidate who is riding that crest of challenging Bush - who is working like they understand what is at stake. Not only that, but I am going to back the toughest most brazen candidate, who doesn't get ripped apart by snarling blabbermouths like hardball Tweety, and doesn't posture as a macho soldier boy in the middle of a military quagmire that he supported. No sir, I want the best of all possible worlds--a candidate who takes political risks and stands up and opposes Bush and his policies, and a candidate who has the will and best potential to win.

Come down from your ivory tower.

[gottaB]

11. So you preferred Bradley but voted Gore?

Not logical.

The Nader vs. Gore question is, like the point made about Chirac/Le Pen, a false analogy. If we're talking about the primary campaign for the nomination, let's talk about the primary campaign for the nomination. That's as real as it gets.

When you talk "best potential to win" the general, you're letting your emotions cloud your doppler--or rather you're expecting others to accept your rationalizations for your political orientation. The way you justify your choices, that's not something I want to go along with at this time.

It's like Landsend saying I should wear their newest parka because it's going to be long winter--never mind that the sun is shining and I don't need a coat. I have coats in the closet. When the seasons change I'll pull them out and wear them, and if I need a new one, I know that I can get one from Landsend, or any of several merchants. I have no fear that useful and attractive coats will sell out. So at this time, thank you, no. I'm not buying your parka.

p.s. About damnation, you're misreading my post--which is in its way a circle of hell, I'll give you that. To clarify, the argument being made in support of Dean is that he stands the best chance of winning the nomination, and therefore progressives should get behind him now, i.e., "victory is inevitable." I'm talking about the primary, not the general. That should be clear.

[CWebster]

12. Of course.

No I'm not- the evidence is there. It's Dean on the front page of yesterday's NYTimes, color photo, smiling faces, above the fold. It is Dean who made the covers of time and Newsweek. It is Dean raking in the cash and rallying the crowds. It is Dean whose support network of grassroots supporters grows by the hour. It is Dean who everyone talks about. It is Dean who eveyone challenges and imitates. It is Dean whose numbers are going up while the rest go down. It IS Dean. that is undeniable.

The primary decides the candidate who represents our party and I do not want to promote and reward a Bush appeaser to decide the course and neither do many in the base. Splitting the vote on the Left only inflates the chances of a less desirable candidate. What is Kucinich polling at-1%? Seems like you who can't see the situation clearly. The primaries matter!

[gottaB]

22. More false dilemmas masking real poltical differences

Dean vs. "appeaser" is not the only choice. I reject that and your view of where Dean stands with respect to the left/right split.

If Dean actually defeats everybody but Graham and Lieberman, I'll take a fresh look and decide whether or not to jump on your bandwagon. At the moment, thankfully, my choices are not so limited.

I would never tell you that you can't see my point of view--kind of defeats the purpose of debating, eh?--but I'm begining to think you won't. If you want to refer to an objective measure of the situation, perhaps we can begin by agreeing that today is August 28th, 2003.

[CWebster]

25. Is it simply a question of ignoring reality OR

is it an inability to comprehend strategy?

If it is more important for you to support a candidate who hasn't got a glimmer of hope of being the nominee ( what is he at 1%?), considering that it IS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY that has to vote in the general and not just the progressive fundamentalist Left, fine--throw it away. It is not for me, I want our best electible choice--it is more important for me to choose an acceptible candidate, who may have broader appeal, but who I might not agree with 100%, and whose campaign is going like fireworks, than have to ultimately have to sellout and vote for a candidate to vote against Bush. not being forced to vote for the candidate who supported Bush is more important to me then casting a purely idealistic losing vote.

[gottaB]

27. Speaking of inabilities to comprehend

that's the second time you've tried to put me on the defensive about Kucinich when I've clearly stated that I support Moseley Braun. But I like Dennis too, so I'll not belabor it and make the point again that you and I have very different criteria for establishing thresholds of acceptability. Howard Dean, when compared to his eight rivals, does not meet mine at this time. He may, and I may be persuaded that he's more acceptable to me than either Kerry or Gephardt or Edwards, the so-called "appeasers," but I'm not there yet, and the bandwagon falacy isn't convincing me.

[CWebster]

28. Oh well

don't know why I bothered then. LOL;-)

[diamondsoul]

50. Or are you a sheeple with no principles of your own?

"If it is more important for you to support a candidate who hasn't got a glimmer of hope of being the nominee ( what is he at 1%?), considering that it IS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY that has to vote in the general and not just the progressive fundamentalist Left, fine--throw it away. "

WE AREN'T AT THE GENERAL YET, YOU THICK-SKULLED CREATURE! No, we're narrowing a field of 9-possibly 10 candidates. Throw what away? My primary vote? Well DUH, that's for the guy who speaks my views. My General vote is for the guy nominated to run against * & Co. "hasn't got a glimmer of hope of being the nominee" according to WHO exactly? Pollsters whose mission it is to phrase questions to get the response they want? Please.

1% of what, where and when, and why the hell would you write him off because of preliminary polls anyway? Because you're a sheeple. A wimp. A sorry excuse for a democrat who can't even participate in the process without harming EVERYONE who does, including your chosen candidate. You're a dolt, I'm a rainbow-chasing fool. Works for me, and I guess we'll both see who comes out ahead next year.

"It is not for me, I want our best electible choice--it is more important for me to choose an acceptible candidate, who may have broader appeal, but who I might not agree with 100%, and whose campaign is going like fireworks, than have to ultimately have to sellout and vote for a candidate to vote against Bush."

Oh give us all a break already. It IS for YOU. YOU want to be on the socially acceptable *winner's list*. Electable according to who? The public or some corporate sponsored pollster? Yes exactly. Anything else to back up the claim Kucinich "can't win" besides your insistance that Dean is so far ahead some 15 months before anything is over? No, I thought not. Be a sheeple, sell out before the race has even started, but don't you DARE attack others for having more guts and determination than you.

*hateful, most satisfying insult deleted before posting*

[CWebster]

51. sigh....I must be getting old....the middle path beckons

I'm not going to hit alert, but I will let your post stand on its own for its sneering " hateful, most satisfying insult" mentality as an example of the ethical, compassionate, fair-minded progressive you must idealize yourself as.

[renie408]

52. Maybe...

>>It's like Landsend saying I should wear their newest parka because it's going to be long winter--never mind that the sun is shining and I don't need a coat. I have coats in the closet.<<

More like Landsend telling you to wear their newest parka because everyone will be, dahling. Even though it is summer and the parkas aren't even ready to be worn yet.

I am really liking the parka analogy, can you tell?

[bread_and_roses]

15. No one is voting yet

so why is it "Ivory Tower" to support the candidate who most closely represents one's own views? As others have pointed out, the call for unity is premature. Now is the time to pressure the Dems.

[Larkspur]

13. Excellent article!

This is exactly how I feel, except that Kucinich never interested me.

I'm working on an Op ed to the Hartford Courant explaining why this NOW member opposes the NOW endorsement of Carol Braun. I sent a feeler to the Hartford Courant yesterday and the editor was interested in my views. I won't be blasting either NOW or Braun. I will be trying to explain that there is a bigger picture involved, like blowback is acclerating in Iraq and Afghanistan and unless we unite behind a candidate who understands this and has the executive abilities to deal creatively and assertively with crisies -- Howard Dean -- we will be in BIGGER trouble next year.

[helleborient]

16. Some of My Interpretation of the Article...

Is not so much that everyone should jump to the support of Howard Dean, but when we discuss the candidates, can we do more of promoting our candidates instead of tearing down someone else?

I'm tired of hearing about who is shorter and who is taller

I'm tired of hearing about mythical corporate media pushing a Democratic candidate

I'm tired of hearing that we can only elect military candidates when we just recently twice elected a President who avoided the draft

I'm tired of hearing that any particular candidate is "just like" some other candidate in a past election

I'm tired of hearing candidates are unelectable because they have an ethnic name (We just elected a Governor Blagojevich...most of his supporters can't pronounce it!)



I want to hear about innovative campaign ideas...Kerry with the battleship, Dean's Meetups, the Kucinich guerilla campaign (at least in my area), Clark mopping up the free publicity from his "Will he, won't he" situation, etc., etc.

I want to hear about how each candidate will get the media AND the general public to listen to their true alternatives to Bush policies.

I want to hear about whomever we elect being a step toward a truly progressive national government!

[Mairead]

17. And here I thought 'Common Dreams' was that nasty commie, Dean-hating rag

Guess not, huh.

As to the thesis of the article? Sorry, no sale. We're worth more --we NEED more-- than Dean is offering, and I'm holding out for it.

If people want unity, then they need to switch their votes to the candidate whom all can support: Dennis Kucinich. It is he who has the policies that will turn the nation around, not Dean; it is he who has the stronger backbone, not Dean.

Don't sell out.

[CWebster]

19. true believers

will stake all on a lost cause only to lose all in the end.

[Mairead]

20. and 'pragmatists'

sell out before the end is determined.

[CWebster]

24. Nope

Didn't particularly care for Clinton, but I voted for him. Twice. The second time was a vote against the other guy...The first time because of the issue of Choice. Folks tend to forget what an explosive issue that was before Clinton--I know, I volunteered at clinics to escort and protect women from harassment - while your wonderboy was casting his vote on the other side. I went to that hugh pro-choice March in Washington, and I have been to alot of demonstrations, but never anything on that scale. You couldn't move and had to hold the hands of the people you were with or you risked being swept away in a sea of women in white. I voted for Gore, and now I would more readily vote for the man he is today rather than the how I felt about him when he was the candidate.

Without hesitation I will vote for Dean and be hopeful about his shot. But if I am forced to vote for Kerry---now that will feel like a sell-out. Dig? ;-)

[indigo32]

38. Problem is

not all can support Dennis Kucinich...so you're making a false assumption. :shrug:

[Mairead]

48. Probably a problem

for Republicans and their fellow-travellers, I suppose. And for people who don't care about the issues. And for those who can't or won't grasp that 'electability' is in us, not in the candidate.

I can't imagine who else wouldn't be able to, though. :shrug:

[Desertrose]

23. Holy s**t!

Someone telling me I need to unite around another candidate...wait...not even my candidate??? I don't think so.

#1 Its too soon

#2 Since when did we decide that campaign $$ and media coverage is the determiner of a candidates qualifications?

#3 Are we supposed to be lockstep repubs? Not me

#4 I wouldn't want this even if it were skewed to Kucinich...the process is just starting here folks!

I do find it curious that this is not the first of suggestions that everyone dump their candidate and get behind Dean...whazzup with this?? Maybe they should be more worried about getting people out to voet...73%...now there's a worthy goal!!

This articles' ideas are bad enough....but Dannyred, your suggestion to grow up? What are you talking about?? So because we all think for ourselves we are NOT grown up?? This is crap and again...sounds like one person wants to think for all of us...well not yet my friend.....

Peace
DR

PS. as to doing things by increments...we don't have time...the US constitution is going down w's dumper real fast..... we can't afford him and we can't afford not toget a president who will reverse some of the insanity...if you can show me how Dean can do that, I might listen

[Octafish]

26. Dean is no Liberal, hence not from "Democratic wing"

The line was the trademark of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, one of the leading Liberals in the US Senate. Soon after Sen. Wellstone's tragic plane crash, the line was picked up by Howard Dean and used without attribution, until Wellstone's staff director pointed out the irony, to put it politely.

While Dean's oratory tells people he is a progressive (like Kucinich in the article), to date, Dean has done little to distinguish himself as a Liberal or a progressive. The record shows he's sided with the developers over the environmentalists and the Ashcrofts of the right over civil rights. And the NRA gives him an "A," too.

So, please don't listen to the baloney about being from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Check out the facts and see who's really DONE something for the good of ALL the people. The real Liberal, with a 19-year track record to prove it, is John Kerry.

[Doomsayer13]

29. Wellstone took that line from a CA state Sen

I forget the name of said State Senator, but Wellstone took that line from him.

[DannyRed]

30. Clearly a number of you did not understand,

The point is not who is better, the point is not tearing down.

The point is not abandoning your candidate, the point is NOT bashing the other ones.

The point is ALSO recognizing that one of the candidates has a lot of momentum right now, and we should be applauding that momentum...even if you are working FOR someone else, don't be working AGAINST a democrat with momentum.

Now, to snarl back at some snarlers...

I could rip each and every one of the candidates a new a$$hole in a few short paragraphs, and lay out the case that in fact we should not be voting for or working for ANY of the candidates, including Dean, including Kucinich, including Kerry.

I could post all KINDS of data, position stances, votes in congress or stances taken while in office...that would show that each and every one of the candidates we have to look at does NOT deserve the attention or support of a true progressive.

And you know what (desertrose) I would be right about each and every one of them (how about abortion and choice, desertrose? how about the yes vote on the Afghan War desertrose?)

I could even rip Wellstone a new one...a couple of articles from a few of the lefty sites...a congressional record check...doink...no saint wellstone.

WHO CARES??!!

the point is not sniping, the point is not holding your candidate out to be "the one"...this is not the freaking MATRIX, this is real life.

Which is why I say...time to grow up.

Support whom you like, be be an adult about it.

If I wanted to argue with, politic with, work with children...I would be a republican.

[bread_and_roses]

31. Disagreeing does not equate

to lack of maturity or incomprehension. It means that given the same set of information, people do not come to the same conclusion.

[helleborient]

32. Thank you

[renie408]

36. I understand the point better...

>If I wanted to argue with, politic with, work with children...I would be a republican<

That is patronizing and unworthy.

I see your point, but in the natural conversation of discussing why you like this guy over that guy, some negatives are bound to surface. I completely agree that it is best to keep the discussion on a friendly footing and to keep in mind that none of these people are the devil. Bush is the devil. I try to explain, without heat, why I get bad feelings about different candidates. I have preferences for some and negative feelings about others, but I will support whoever wins the nomination without fail. Therefore, it doesn't do me any good to hate any of them too much.

[Desertrose]

40. clearly I did not understand then, DannyRed...

and my post was aimed at the article, except the part at the end addressed to you about being grown up...

I read the last sentence in the piece to mean we should throw in behind Dean because he was ahead....am I the only one who read it this way?

"I am more than willing to throw full support behind Kucinich if he were setting the record for fundraising, grassroots turnout, and media coverage. All I ask is the same from you because right now that person is Howard Dean."

as for snarling...obviously the written post does not translate well in to the spoken...you miss the tone of voice which tells much and explains much....passionate, yes...snarling, no...

Whats with the reference to the DK abortion & Afghan war vote? Did I bring up I thought my favored candidate was perfect? So if it isn't important, why bring it up & throw it in my face?(wasn't your point not to bash?)

sorry if you felt my post was aimed at you...it was my frustration at yet another article telling us we need to get behind the frontrunner. I say it is the time now to work for the candidate we want to get the nom....time will come when we need to unite behind whoever actually gets it.

But yeah,in the meantime...we do have to consider that the words coming out of our mouths now may not be so tender if or when we have to eat them....and yeah, I really am aware that this is real life.

Peace
DR

[PROGRESSIVE1]

33. Nothing can be as bad as Bush!!!!

Except maybe a Lieberman/Bayh ticket!!! Perish the thought of that!!!

[Doomsayer13]

34. better than Bush/Cheney

[dpbrown]

42. I read it, here's my response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=27787

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Desertrose]

43. great job, dpb

:loveya:

well said and I agree!!

Peace
DR

[ErasureAcer]

53. Inaccurate remarks in the article...

"France now faced a tough decision. Apathetic voter turnout allowed the country's favorite candidate, Jospin, to lose in the Primary. France now faced a general election between the hated Jean-Marie LePen and the also hated (though now that word was put into new context) Jacque Chirac.

What did the French do? Did they publish article after article exposing all the positions where their Socialist party leader just wasn't socialist enough? No. They rolled up their sleeves and fought the good fight. They knew that if they tried to run an independent candidate they would lose the country to a Fascist who's fondness towards blaming foreigners for poisoning the country's economy sounded a little too familiar to that of another Fascist that visited their country only 50 years ago. No, with this election it was time to swallow pride and put aside political differences to save the country."

Of course, they didn't run an "independent" candidate...their candidate already lost in the primary! Their system isn't like ours. It was a 2 man race at that moment(top 2 vote getters in the primary face off in the general election...no other parties) as Lepin and Chirac got the most votes in the primary....an independent couldn't be run to take out those 2 morons at that time.

I imagine some just didn't vote for Lepin or Chirac...when it came down to the finals of those 2. And I bet some people did vote Chirac over Lepin who had previously voted for Jospin. Really now...in that sense it is the same(some greens will vote for whatever dem gets the nod)...but truly...if people don't want to vote for a pro death penalty, pro 400 billion budget--signalling the continued rise of american empire, and as well as only trying to put bandages on huge scars--social security, wto, nafta, patriot act, etc...

well then by damn...those people(myself included) don't have to vote for jackasses like that. THAT IS AMERICA!

Truly, if Bush has another 4 years...the world will go up in flames. But ya know what...that is what we deserve...we're morons as a country. We're lucky if 50% of the people even go vote...and if 10% of that 50% even know the issues for what their candidate stands for. Americans are stupid...and we deserve stupid leaders...

the problem with America doesn't lie in the hands of GW Bush...it lies in the hands of us supporting jackass candidates.

I ask everyone to support Kucinich, for he is not a jackass.
www.kucinich.us

[CWebster]

54. There simply is no arguing with people's religions

"Truly, if Bush has another 4 years...the world will go up in flames. But ya know what...that is what we deserve...we're morons as a country. We're lucky if 50% of the people even go vote...and if 10% of that 50% even know the issues for what their candidate stands for. Americans are stupid...and we deserve stupid leaders...

the problem with America doesn't lie in the hands of GW Bush...it lies in the hands of us supporting jackass candidates.

I ask everyone to support Kucinich, for he is not a jackass."

It sounds as if you are saying that if everyone doesn't vote for your guy and what he represents, then they should be punished. How is that promoting a better, more progressive agenda? Bush is condemned for his apocolyptic views, what makes this any different? It isn't helping those who are the most vulnerable.

[renie408]

55. It would probably be

more to the point to ask people to become more educated about the candidates and make their own choice. No, I don't think Kucinich is a jackass, but which ones are? Of course, this would be your opinion, but maybe not mine or another person's and maybe not the informed opinion of the majority of people in this country, should they attempt to become informed.