Ted Rall Tenatively Supports Dean

[LuminousX]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/uclicktext/20031123/cm_ucru/howarddeanforpresident

America is under attack, and Bush is enemy number one.

When you're at war for your future, you can no longer enjoy the luxury of picking the ideal candidate or the perfect party. Under normal circumstances, third parties like the Greens and Libertarians deserve the support of like-minded voters. But, the fact is, only the Democratic Party can defeat Bush next year. Democratic contenders like Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites), Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton have brought common sense, progressive perspectives on the war in Iraq and what we should expect from government into the conversation, but they suffer from, respectively, lack of money and lack of melanin. They won't win the Democratic nomination.

I'm a charter member of the 2004 ABB (Anybody But Bush) society. Whether the nominee turns out to be a right-winger (Clark, Lieberman) or a colorless bore (Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt), I'll vote for him over Bush, in the same spirit with which the late Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud reportedly toasted a meeting of anti-Soviet factions during the '80s occupation: "First we kill the Russians. Then we kill each other." But I have a preferance:

Howard Dean (news - web sites) has the best chance to beat Bush.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Lack of melanin?

Perhaps you mean surfeit of melanin.

[dajabr]

2. Quite suprisingly...

He's done a 180...

A conversion like this bodes well for (all stripes of) The Left unfying in '04

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Long Island Wit?

Is there such a thing?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Does he say how Dean has the best chance?....

cause the polls aren't seeing it...

[tsipple]

5. The Polls Are Agnostic on That Question

And, yes, Ted Rall does explain why Dean is the strongest candidate. He has several reasons, actually. (Read the full article for details.)

[sandnsea]

8. Money?

This is the stupidest article I've seen on why to support Howard Dean. Accept it does clear up one thing, he does see that Dean is going to abandon talking about racism and focus on class instead. The next step after he tells the minorities to quit whining, he'll tell the welfare moms if they had any dignity they'd have a job. Oh wait, he already did that.

[w4rma]

11. Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush.

Brilliant, aggressive and moneyed (that's Dean Witter to you, pal), Dr. Dean has a corner on the single most important issue to Americans: health care. His politics are surprisingly centrist, in both the refreshing sense (he's pro-Second Amendment and he came out for class-, rather than race-based affirmative action) and in the disappointing, Clintonian sense (he opposed invading Iraq, but not Afghanistan). He's got traditional Democratic constituents (he just stole the biggest AFL-CIO union's endorsement away from Gephardt) and fresh new ones (twentysomething bloggers have mailed him $25 million in crisp twenties).

Dean's got lots more going for him, not the least of which is running as an insurgent small-state governor disliked by his own party's top leaders (the ex-governor thing casts him as even more of an outsider). Polls show Dean leading his nearest rival, John Kerry, 33 percent to 19 percent in the crucial New Hampshire primary. Coming out early and hard against the war in Iraq wins him major props with the liberal base and makes him seem ahead-of-the-curve to everyone else. Most importantly, he's his own man. "He doesn't really owe his current standing to any of them, not to labor, not to minority groups, not environmental organizations, so he'll have more leeway as a nominee to follow his own course," says Darrel West, a political science professor at Cornell.

But the rubber would really tear up the road at the presidential debates, where Dean's dry, sardonic Long Island wit would devastate the hapless Bush--and charm television viewers. His natural pugnacity could help Dems deal more aggressively than usual with the nasty attack ads they can expect in the campaign ahead. Frankly, the other Democratic contenders don't have what it takes to stand up to Karl Rove's brutal war machine.

Maybe it's premature to endorse Gov. Dean. But right now, given the information we have available, he's the preferred candidate of us Anybody But Bushies.

(Ted Rall is the author of the graphic travelogue "To Afghanistan and Back," an award-winning recounting of his experiences covering the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It is now available in a revised and updated paperback edition containing new material. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/uclicktext/20031123/cm_ucru/howarddeanforpresident

[eileen_d]

6. Clark is a right-winger?

Someone hasn't been paying attention.

I'm not of the opinion that Clark is left-wing, but he's NOT right-wing. I invite Ted Rall to kiss my grits.

[diamondsoul]

7. Agreed on the invite-

but I DO see Clark as "left wing". Personal observation of the man over-all.

I won't post my thoughts on the original poster or post, except to say it's disappointing.

[lastliberalintexas]

9. Hmmm,

several people have posted Rall's articles for the last several months because they have been critical of Dean, and back then Rall was treated as though he were a god beyond criticism.

However, now that he supports someone other than those posters' favorite, he is merely to be dismissed, wholly unimportant. Ahh, yes- I get it. :eyes:


This is a good article on the reasons he supports Dean. He, like many of us supporters here, knows that Dean isn't perfect, but thinks he's the best of the pack nonetheless. Although I would disagree with his characterization of ANY of our Dem candidates as "right wing".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Funny how that works, ain't it?

Although, personally, I put little stock in who anyone supports, except me. With a few notable exceptions. Like Jackson Lee.

[dsc]

12. I am actually, gasp, going to be consisitent here

While I appreciate the endorsement, this is a poorly written article. Unlike the anti Dean machine though, I thought his other articles were poorly written as well. He makes assertions about Clark that he doesn't prove. He did mess up the pigment thing. And his reasons for supporting Dean need fleshing out. I love his cartoons but his journalism isn't my cup of tea. If his endorsment helps Dean in other's eyes then great.

[lastliberalintexas]

13. I agree for the most part

While I think his reasons for support are laid out fairly well, the rest of the article is just sloppy journalism. In addition to his unecessary attack on Clark, he also repeats the Dean Witter association as though it were true and dismisses 3 candidates entirely.

I also have a problem with the idea that he didn't see what was coming with a Shrub administration. What? The warnings from various Texas liberals- and even moderates- was insufficient for these people? Or is that just how he justifies his vote now? (I actually don't have a problem with the people who voted Green out of principle, it is only his crawfishing now that bothers me.)

And personally, I agree with RiF that this "endorsement" means very little. But I do have a problem the hypocrisy of some of the posters who are now piling on Rall.