[velodev]

That's too bad.

No matter what his stances were on key issues it would have been nice to see someone with that vigor as president.

[voodoo]

Yep darn shame he didn't make it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yep darn shame he didn't make it.

Its amazing what can be accomplished by unfounded character assasination, isn't it?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Its amazing what can be accomplished by unfounded character assasination, isn't it?

How was his character assasinated?

For someone who spends the better part of his days formulating and lodging brutal accusations at the Bush admin, you sure are quick to alledge that the failure of others is a result of "character assasination".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by velodev:
No matter what his stances were on key issues it would have been nice to see someone with that vigor as president.

Yeah, I didn't agree with many of his stances, but at least the man was principled, which is more than I can say about the current Democratic frontrunner.

The "scream" looks to be one of the final coffin nails, but I can't help but think that the Al Gore "kiss of death" may have had a bigger effect on Dean's candidacy.

I'm wondering if Dean has any regrets about the demotion (and resignation) of Trippi and the bringing in of Ron Neel.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Its amazing what can be accomplished by unfounded character assasination, isn't it?

More like character suicide, but yes, it's amazing what one little demonstration of instability can do to a political career.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
More like character suicide, but yes, it's amazing what one little demonstration of instability can do to a political career.

as is demonstrated. Your characterization of one incident as indicative of overall instability is precisely my point. That is the impression we were all left with.

[macvillage.net]

Just a correction. He didn't drop out.

He suspended his campaign.

That means, he won't be spending money, but people can still vote for him.

It's unlikely he will gain ground, but if something came out about Kerry, he could of course all of a sudden be in front.

A little different than dropping out.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
as is demonstrated. Your characterization of one incident as indicative of overall instability is precisely my point. That is the impression we were all left with.

But one incident can be important. That's all it takes. If he couldn't handle such a small defeat, then he cannot be trusted with the major defeats that a President risks facing. Perhaps it is unfair that the job of President demands perfect composure. But it does.

Ahem. Given this, it does lead to an interesting point: who, if anyone, will Dean endorse? Endorsing Kerry would be the smart thing to do, from a political standpoint. But if he were to endorse Nader, that could really shake things up. Nader won't win, and without a nod from Dean it's fairly doubtful that Kerry will either, but a Dean/Nader alliance stands a decent chance of breaking the two-party duopoly in US politics, because it's not much of a stretch to imagine that with a Dean endorsement, Nader could get the 5% of the popular vote needed to get federal campaign funds in 2008. It would be a major sacrifice in the short term, but long-term it could change the face of American politics.

We'll have to wait and see, I guess. It's a risky move, but Dean is actually in a major position of power at this moment, such that he could make it. Ironically, he stands to make even bigger changes as a campaign dropout than he could have made as President.

Political chess is fun.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
as is demonstrated. Your characterization of one incident as indicative of overall instability is precisely my point. That is the impression we were all left with.

And rightfully so. Crumbling even once in the face of defeat, as Dean did, is proof enough that he doesn't have the stability a President needs (which is, itself, truly staggering).

It's called dealing with the consequences of your actions. Not something that major politicians seem used to dealing with, but frankly it's good to finally see one get bitten by his own mistake. We live in a world where one mistake can and should have devastating consequences, and while it's not "nice", it is most definitely fair.

[velodev]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Just a correction. He didn't drop out.

He suspended his campaign.

That means, he won't be spending money, but people can still vote for him.

It's unlikely he will gain ground, but if something came out about Kerry, he could of course all of a sudden be in front.

A little different than dropping out.

Oh good, that's good news. Because if he did drop out... wouldn't that basically leave Kerry, Edwards, and Sharpton as some of the major campaigns left?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And rightfully so. Crumbling even once in the face of defeat, as Dean did, is proof enough that he doesn't have the stability a President needs (which is, itself, truly staggering).

It's called dealing with the consequences of your actions. Not something that major politicians seem used to dealing with, but frankly it's good to finally see one get bitten by his own mistake. We live in a world where one mistake can and should have devastating consequences, and while it's not "nice", it is most definitely fair.

hmmm...I think you've felt I was blasting you, but I wasn't. I was pointing to the impression we were left with that is indelible (as you again bear out).
My only point is isn't it amazing how these things cling to certain politicians and slide off others?

[thunderous_funker]

Dean ran a flawed campaign in several respects, but he also suffered relentlessly hostile press coverage.

The "scream" itself wasn't the coffin nail, but networks airing it over 600 times in the 4 days following comes pretty darn close.

As for Gore's "kiss of death", I don't think it was a matter of alienating voters but a simple matter of suddenly being the target of the Clinton/DLC attack machine. They torpedoed Dean with extreme prejudice. Hard to believe they would have mustered such an effort without Gore's early endorsement to put the target on him.

Without Dean in the race, voters are reduced once again to a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Watch the Deaniacs fade to black as they once again feel robbed by "the system", Kerry will dive to the center in a shameless (and retarded) appeal to swing voters, voter turnout will dwindle, and 2000 will repeat itself.

Dean tried to save the party from suicide and they fought him off bravely.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ahem. Given this, it does lead to an interesting point: who, if anyone, will Dean endorse? Endorsing Kerry would be the smart thing to do, from a political standpoint. But if he were to endorse Nader, that could really shake things up. Nader won't win, and without a nod from Dean it's fairly doubtful that Kerry will either, but a Dean/Nader alliance stands a decent chance of breaking the two-party duopoly in US politics, because it's not much of a stretch to imagine that with a Dean endorsement, Nader could get the 5% of the popular vote needed to get federal campaign funds in 2008. It would be a major sacrifice in the short term, but long-term it could change the face of American politics.

Dean is indeed a principled man, but spoiling the Democratic ticket by underwriting another disastrous Nader candidacy is the last thing I imagine he will do. Dean is a Democrat; he wants to use the energy of his base to reinvigorate the Democratic party, not the Greens. And I doubt Dean thinks Nader would make a good president.

I don't think Dean will endorse any candidate before the convention. I suspect he's going to retool his campaign engine into a MoveOn-style advocacy group and use it to support the Democratic cause in general, including helping get funds and attention to Congressional races where Democrats might pick up seats. Endorsing a presidential candidate now would be counterproductive; it would be limiting the scope of what such an organization would do.

And I take issue with your characterization of Dean as "crumbling even once in the face of defeat," but we've had that debate ad nauseum already.

[Nonsuch]

FWIW, Gov. Dean's statement.

A Beginning not an End

Today my candidacy may come to an end--but our campaign for change is not over.

I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues--building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.

In the coming weeks, we will launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end--it is just the beginning.

This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we�ve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year�s record participation in the primaries and caucuses.

The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.

His candidacy "may" end?

[nonhuman]

Damn. Dean was the only Democratic candidate that I actually liked.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
FWIW, Gov. Dean's statement.

His candidacy "may" end?

That sure is an odd statement. What is this initiative he's talking about? Is he going to endorse Kerry? Edwards? Start a new "Moveon.org" -type organization? Get out the vote?

Even though he wasn't my candidate, I feel bad for him and his supporters. They deserved to win in a lot of ways, and I think he would have been a better candidate than he was made out to be, if he had been treated fairly in the press.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That sure is an odd statement. What is this initiative he's talking about? Is he going to endorse Kerry? Edwards? Start a new "Moveon.org" -type organization? Get out the vote?

Even though he wasn't my candidate, I feel bad for him and his supporters. They deserved to win in a lot of ways, and I think he would have been a better candidate than he was made out to be, if he had been treated fairly in the press.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It does make me feel a bit better that even non-Dean supporters recognize that.

I suspect Dean (and MoveON.org) will throw their energy, money and organization into holding Kerry's feet to the fire. After all, if Kerry's gonna win by stealing Dean's message, they are gonna see to it that he doesn't revert once the nomination is secured.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Damn. Dean was the only Democratic candidate that I actually liked.

I do believe he said he wasn't going to be campaigning but would leave his name
on the ballots so you still can vote for him if you wish.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

-GF

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
His candidacy "may" end?

Read the whole sentence again:

Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall.

It's a strange grammatical construct, but it's a valid one. This means that his candidacy has ended.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I do believe he said he wasn't going to be campaigning but would leave his name
on the ballots so you still can vote for him if you wish.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

-GF

Yeah, but it seems highly unlikely that he's going to win the nomination, especially now. I'll support him in the primaries (if I can even vote in the Democratic primary since I'm not a Democrat, registered or otherwise...), but I wanted to be able to vote for him for president. Instead I'll probably be voting Libertarian.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I do believe he said he wasn't going to be campaigning but would leave his name
on the ballots so you still can vote for him if you wish.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

-GF

I highly doubt that. He has already announced he'll endorse the Democratic nominee. You don't keep your name on the ballot if you're endorsing the Party's nominee.

I think Dean realizes that the Deaniacs are crucial to winning in November (as recognized by lots of analysts and pundits) and he is demonstrating his committment to the party by promising to continue to bring his people in and keep them in.

The interesting thing will be to see what happens if Kerry dives to the center as I fear he is apt to try. That will test Dean's loyalty to his principles versus his loyalty to the party.

If Kerry caves and Dean pulls a McCain 2000, the democratic party is officially dead.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I highly doubt that. He has already announced he'll endorse the Democratic nominee. You don't keep your name on the ballot if you're endorsing the Party's nominee.

I think Dean realizes that the Deaniacs are crucial to winning in November (as recognized by lots of analysts and pundits) and he is demonstrating his committment to the party by promising to continue to bring his people in and keep them in.

The interesting thing will be to see what happens if Kerry dives to the center as I fear he is apt to try. That will test Dean's loyalty to his principles versus his loyalty to the party.

If Kerry caves and Dean pulls a McCain 2000, the democratic party is officially dead.

I do believe you to be correct in regard to "Dean pulls a McCain 200".
scenario.

-GF

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm glad to hear you say that. It does make me feel a bit better that even non-Dean supporters recognize that.

I suspect Dean (and MoveON.org) will throw their energy, money and organization into holding Kerry's feet to the fire. After all, if Kerry's gonna win by stealing Dean's message, they are gonna see to it that he doesn't revert once the nomination is secured.

For me, I think it's a kind of skepticism about whoever is the current front runner. When Dean was the man, I had all kinds of reasons not to like him. Now that Kerry is da man, I don't like him, and Edwards looks good. But I have no doubt that Edwards is flawed enough that if he became the front runner, I'd hate him too.

[Arkham_c]

So if Dean drops out, that leaves Kerry and Edwards, with Kerry winning pretty handily right now.


Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/

The site www.johnkerry.com is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 mod_python/2.7.8 Python/1.5.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.3 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2 on Linux


Edwards; http://www.johnedwards2004.com/

The site www.johnedwards2004.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 behind a computer running NetWare.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
So if Dean drops out, that leaves Kerry and Edwards, with Kerry winning pretty handily right now.


Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/

The site www.johnkerry.com is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 mod_python/2.7.8 Python/1.5.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.3 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2 on Linux


Edwards; http://www.johnedwards2004.com/

The site www.johnedwards2004.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 behind a computer running NetWare.

So, you are saying:

- Kerry is da-man as far as computing power and intelligent web pressence.
- Edwards is not-da-man as he is runny M$ which is full of holes and is

RIPE to be hacked in the next 15 to 20 minutes!



I had to use the RIPE thing.
Had to you hear!

Now I can see how addicting the RIPE thing can be and it feels good.
Oh, yes.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Dean is indeed a principled man...

Hitchens' vivisection of Dean in the WSJ last week:

CAMPAIGN 2004
Narcissist and Windbag
Howard Dean's self-destruction is reason to take heart.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:01 a.m.

... Well before this, of course, I had experienced moments of shock unaccompanied by awe. Mr. Dean was simply appalling when he spun a yarn about a preteen girl supposedly impregnated by her father, and used it against parental notification of abortion. A physician has no business with demagogy of this kind even if the story is half-true, which in this case it apparently was not. And imagine the contempt that Mr. Dean must have felt for the pro-choice audience on whom he road-tested this potential but ultimately self-defeating fund-raising tactic.

It's always interesting when people don't seem to feel shame or embarrassment - and it's often not a very good sign - so when Mr. Dean went on about his black roommates in college he was as toe-curlingly awful as when he condescended to those who display the Confederate flag. To be crass about both groups in a matter of weeks is quite something.

Worst of all was the heavy innuendo about the President's supposed foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 conspiracy. I think it is absolutely essential that no accusation of disloyalty be leveled against those who criticize the authorities in time of war: criticism at such a time being more of a civic duty than a right. If Mr. Dean had the smallest evidence of collusion or coverup at any level of the administration, one could have admired him for airing it, and never mind that Al-Jazeera might have used it for ammunition. What was really abysmal was that he knowingly took the latter risk without any foundation of seriousness. Before disowning it, he described this notorious piece of Internet paranoia as "rather interesting," which in a depraved way it is (not unlike the ingenuity of suggesting that Jews evacuated the twin towers just in time). So what are we to conclude - that he just thought it worth passing on?

I have now several times seen Mr. Dean saying that there is Islamic terrorism in Iraq now, but that there wasn't any before last March. If this means anything, it means that the activities of the bin Ladenist mercenaries in that country are the fault of George Bush. You can, I suppose, believe that if you care to. But watching, I realized something even more depressing: It's not just that Mr. Dean doesn't know anything at all about Iraq, it's that he doesn't care. His bored shrug at, first, the overthrow and, second, the capture of Saddam Hussein was a shrug of indifference as well as ignorance. And how can a man who flirts with moral equivalence between Washington and bin Laden expect to be listened to when he talks about a "distraction" from the hunt for the latter? He clearly thinks that the main enemy is at home.

I would not charge any of this against, say, Dennis Kucinich. He is in my opinion seriously wrong about the war, but not frivolously wrong. Not flippantly wrong, or irresponsibly wrong, or willing to please any old crowd with any old rant. This is not merely a difference of style. The misled and disappointed young people who are still wasting their time for Mr. Dean in Wisconsin had an idea that they wanted to emulate the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. There's no shame in that. The United States was very lucky - I would even say privileged - to have such candidates at such crucial times. These were and are men of principle and character, whose opponents were eventually compelled to acknowledge and respect them, and who were in some important matters proved right. After the 1974 midterms, the brilliant Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell even found many people who claimed to have voted for Mr. McGovern when they had not. Nobody is going to look back on the Dean campaign with this kind of pride and nostalgia...

(my emphasis)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Who was it (I really don't recall) on this board was was complaining around the time that Gore nominated Dean that Dean had been anointed front runner before a single vote was cast? I think that we have just seen evidence that in fact votes (or the lack of them) are what count.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Without Dean in the race, voters are reduced once again to a choice of the lesser of two evils.

That's exactly how I felt today with Dean's announcement.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who was it (I really don't recall) that was complaining that Dean had been anointed front runner before a single vote was cast? I think that we have just seen evidence that in fact votes (or the lack of them) are what count.

Um, I think that was me.

My real complaint though was that the primary process was so front-loaded that there isn't a broad representation of voter interests before most of the candidates drop out of the race. In my case, every primary election had been decided before it got to CA( the largest and most populous state). That hasn't changed this time either. My, and CA's voters, will have no real choice in who our candidate will be this election.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Um, I think that was me.

My real complaint though was that the primary process was so front-loaded that there isn't a broad representation of voter interests before most of the candidates drop out of the race. In my case, every primary election had been decided before it got to CA( the largest and most populous state). That hasn't changed this time either. My, and CA's voters, will have no real choice in who our candidate will be this election.

OK. I'm not sure how that could be fixed. I don't think it is practical to hold all 50 state' primaries on the same day. So some state has to be first, second, third, etc. Would it make sense perhaps to have California, Illinois, New York, Texas and Florida early, and thereby cut the little states out?

Also the usual complaint is that candidates drop out for want of money. Dean had money -- at least initially. His problem was that he didn't win primaries. Surely it is the case that had people voted for him, he'd still be in the race.

[roger_ramjet]

Six Theories for Why Dean Lost

I like the Al Gore Kiss of Death Theory the best.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK. I'm not sure how that could be fixed. I don't think it is practical to hold all 50 state' primaries on the same day. So some state has to be first, second, third, etc. Would it make sense perhaps to have California, Illinois, New York, Texas and Florida early, and thereby cut the little states out?

Also the usual complaint is that candidates drop out for want of money. Dean had money -- at least initially. His problem was that he didn't win primaries. Surely it is the case that had people voted for him, he'd still be in the race.

Yeah, it's a tricky one. The best suggestion I've heard is regional primaries - Northwest, Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, etc.,. Of course that eliminates the traditional NH and Iowa elections but I don't care. I don't think Iowa and NH are representative of the whole US anyway. That's true whether you're a Democrat or Republican.

Te bottom line is I, and most voters in the country, have very little choice in who are the candidates for the Presidency. I find it extremely frustrating but maybe I'm alone. Once again I have a candidate who i had no choice in selecting and no little about because he wasn't forced to campaign in my state. Wasn't the former Soviet Union's 'elections' run this way? Here's the Party's candidate, vote yes or don't vote. It doesn't matter.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
quote:
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Without Dean in the race, voters are reduced once again to a choice of the lesser of two evils.

That's exactly how I felt today with Dean's announcement.

I just don't see how people can say that. Surely Dean isn't the perfect candidate, is he? There must be some issues on which you disagree with Dean, and some issues on which you agree with Kerry. I accept that you like/agree with Dean more than the others, but it must be a matter of degree, rather than a good vs. evil. Right?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just don't see how people can say that. Surely Dean isn't the perfect candidate, is he? There must be some issues on which you disagree with Dean, and some issues on which you agree with Kerry. I accept that you like/agree with Dean more than the others, but it must be a matter of degree, rather than a good vs. evil. Right?

Dean's not even close to being the perfect candidate--I'm a Greenie, remember?

But he was arguably the most legitimate shot at real, fundamental reform to key areas of our republic that I consider far more important than the minutia of future policy.

Dean was fundamentally committed to electoral reform and party reform. He was clearly determined to empower regulatory agencies like the EPA and SEC to a degree unheard of in recent years. He was unabashed about challenging the legitimacy of the Washington Lobby culture.

And last but not least, he was uniquely qualified to lead this nation towards recognizing the inescapable necessity of fundamental healthcare reform.

Those issues for me far outweighed any disagreement I might have over guns, god, race or gays. But then again, I appear to be a member of a ludicrously tiny minority in this country.

And while Kerry and Edwards turned their campaigns around by assuming a populist message (largely borrowed from Dean's themes), I find myself unconvinced that they are sincere in any way. An assertion that I fear will prove all too true in the not so distant future.

Now I realize that Dean could have won and then turned out to be a phoney, but I believed him. And so did 650,000 other Americans--most of which had never believed in a politician before.

<multiple edits because I can't type>

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just don't see how people can say that. Surely Dean isn't the perfect candidate, is he? There must be some issues on which you disagree with Dean, and some issues on which you agree with Kerry. I accept that you like/agree with Dean more than the others, but it must be a matter of degree, rather than a good vs. evil. Right?

There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect candidate. But many people saw Dean as the first half-decent candidate that we've had in a long time.

In other words, they now feel they have to once again vote for whoever sucks less, rather than whoever is better.

Frankly, I disagree, but only in that I don't think Dean was better than any of the others. I figure that we've been reduced to voting for the lesser evil for the last several election cycles.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just don't see how people can say that. Surely Dean isn't the perfect candidate, is he? There must be some issues on which you disagree with Dean, and some issues on which you agree with Kerry. I accept that you like/agree with Dean more than the others, but it must be a matter of degree, rather than a good vs. evil. Right?

Let's see. It's down to Lurch, the political Frankenstein who wouldn't wipe his @ss with checking a poll first, and slick Eddy, the poster boy for tort reform who never did any pro bono work in his long and wildly successful law career.

Dean isn't perfect, but he is an intelligent man with a centrist record who knows how to get results and keep both left and right wing wackos in check. His biggest mistakes were: one, to lean too heavily on his "new campaign" style (including a lack of TV media savvy that lead to, among other mistakes, the "scream"); and two, losing Iowa in a dog fight with Gephardt.

I think if either of these hadn't happened, Dean would still be in the running at least.

As for me, I'm not inclined to hold my nose and vote for anyone. That is, unless Bush really gets to reeking so bad that even Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum would smell like roses. In fact, I'm sorely tempted to keep to the commitment I made last summer to vote for Dean in Nov, even if I have to write his name in.

BlackGriffen

[daimoni]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I highly doubt that. He has already announced he'll endorse the Democratic nominee. You don't keep your name on the ballot if you're endorsing the Party's nominee.

I think Dean realizes that the Deaniacs are crucial to winning in November (as recognized by lots of analysts and pundits) and he is demonstrating his committment to the party by promising to continue to bring his people in and keep them in.

The interesting thing will be to see what happens if Kerry dives to the center as I fear he is apt to try. That will test Dean's loyalty to his principles versus his loyalty to the party.

If Kerry caves and Dean pulls a McCain 2000, the democratic party is officially dead.

Yes. It would seem by the announcement that Dean is and will remain (at least through this election) a Party man. But I'm not exactly sure what principals Kerry has to cave in to the first place... since he's the ultimate Party man himself?

Some of my friends, I'm embarrassed to say, are foaming at the mouth Deaniacs. It's the foaming that put me off. I never really bought their arguments for returning to the Democratic Party's coat tails after they previously showed a bit of spine and voted for Nader last time.

What do principles mean to these people... besides what they're told to believe via the shrill, humorless, moveon.org mail list they (and my wife) subscribe to?

Sorry. I'm not trying to knock Dean supporters... I just can't understand them. Is it simply that somebody, anybody, is better than Bush? If so, fine... but that alone isn't much of a foundation for a Party.

I guess that's why I rarely vote along Party lines. And why my candidates always seem to lose. Heh.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Dean's not even close to being the perfect candidate--I'm a Greenie, remember?

But he was arguably the most legitimate shot at real, fundamental reform to key areas of our republic that I consider far more important than the minutia of future policy.

Dean was fundamentally committed to electoral reform and party reform. He was clearly determined to empower regulatory agencies like the EPA and SEC to a degree unheard of in recent years. He was unabashed about challenging the legitimacy of the Washington Lobby culture.

And last but not least, he was uniquely qualified to lead this nation towards recognizing the inescapable necessity of fundamental healthcare reform.

Those issues for me far outweighed any disagreement I might have over guns, god, race or gays. But then again, I appear to be a member of a ludicrously tiny minority in this country.

Okay. That works for me.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by daimoni:
YSome of my friends, I'm embarrassed to say, are foaming at the mouth Deaniacs. It's the foaming that put me off. I never really bought their arguments for returning to the Democratic Party's coat tails after they previously showed a bit of spine and voted for Nader last time.

What you might call spineless I would call a welcome return to pragmatism.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Let's see. It's down to Lurch, the political Frankenstein who wouldn't wipe his @ss with checking a poll first, and slick Eddy, the poster boy for tort reform who never did any pro bono work in his long and wildly successful law career.

You don't think Dean is beyond similar caricature, do you?

Dean, the screaming egotist. Dean, the critic of closed-record presidencies who had a closed-record governorship. Dean, bane of Enron who wanted his state to be a business tax haven. Free trade critic who strongly supported NAFTA but denied it.

My guy, Lieberman, also wanted to change the party, albeit not in a way that you might have liked. I'm disappointed that he's out. And I respect that you liked Dean. He's a good guy who ran a good campaign and got trashed when it looked like he was close to winning. It's a sad story, really. But this idea that without him the Democratic party is doomed, or that he would have transformed the party and the country, is just not credible to me.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
... My, and CA's voters, will have no real choice in who our candidate will be this election.

Yes you do. You just don't have Dean (or Lieberman or Clark) as one of those choices. If NY and/or California were to go for Edwards this race would blow wide open.

[Nonsuch]

More from the Guv (pertinent to the discussion at hand):

Dean for America will be converted into a new grassroots organization. We need everybody to stay involved. We are -- as we always have -- going to look at what you had to say about which directions we ought to be going in, and what we ought to continue to do together.

We are determined to keep this entire organization as vibrant as it has been through this campaign. There are a lot of ways to make change. We are leaving one track, but we are going on another track that will take back America for ordinary people again.

[...]

Let me be clear, I will not run as an independent or third party candidate and I urge my supporters not to be tempted to support any effort by another candidate.

The bottom line is that we must beat George W. Bush in November whatever it takes.

I will support the nominee of our party. I will do everything I can to beat George W. Bush. I urge you to do the same.

But we will not be above in this organization of letting our nominee know that we expect them to adhere to the standards that this organization has set for decency, honesty, integrity and standing up for ordinary American working people.

One question answered, at least.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You don't think Dean is beyond similar caricature, do you?

Dean, the screaming egotist. Dean, the critic of closed-record presidencies who had a closed-record governorship. Dean, bane of Enron who wanted his state to be a business tax haven. Free trade critic who strongly supported NAFTA but denied it.

Heh, that's pretty funny. If he were an egoist, though, he'd pull a Nader instead of closing ranks. The latter two show him to be a centrist instead of an ideologically pure wacko.

Do you suppose they'll let Kerry into the debates, or will the secret service lock him out because of the WMD related program activities that went into his face-lift?

Do you suppose that Edwards has trouble suppressing his reflexes when he hears an ambulance siren?

But this idea that without him the Democratic party is doomed, or that he would have transformed the party and the country, is just not credible to me.

I never claimed that. I'm not a party man, and couldn't give two $hits about what happens to the Democratic party. If it falls, either the Republicans can be made to split or a new party will rise. Life goes on.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just don't see how people can say that. Surely Dean isn't the perfect candidate, is he? There must be some issues on which you disagree with Dean, and some issues on which you agree with Kerry. I accept that you like/agree with Dean more than the others, but it must be a matter of degree, rather than a good vs. evil. Right?

t_f put it more elegantly than I but my problem with Kerry stems form my original introduction of the man. I first heard him speak about a year ago, before he declared his candidacy, making the rounds on the cable talk shows deriding the Bush Administration and Cheney for the Energy proposal. I was actually impressed by the positions he took against the president's plan and calling for more emphasis on renewables and such, etc,. He took all the Green positions that I think we should be moving towards. Yet, when important environmental legislation came up, like softening CAFE standards, Kerry was no where to be found. He didn't even vote on the measure. There was a another one, I forgot exactly what it was, but I made a mental note that this guy talks a good game but is unwilling to back it up with the tough vote. Chalk it up to being just another political opportunist. Not an endangered species in Washington by any means but somebody I'm not likely to be enthusiastic about.

Now, that might be narrow and unfair but that's my impression of the man. It may change as the campaign moves forward but Dean, to me, seems more principled than any of the other candidates. He seemed like someone I could VOTE FOR, as opposed to just picking someone I like less than Bush. I vowed there would be no more defensive voting for me. I'm tired of it.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yes you do. You just don't have Dean (or Lieberman or Clark) as one of those choices. If NY and/or California were to go for Edwards this race would blow wide open.

I think you're making my point. I don't have the choices that the small minority of states that hold early primaries had.

Yes, I can make a protest vote but that's all it is. That's not even guaranteed either. Who knows what will happen in the next two weeks? Edwards could drop out as well. Even if he doesn't, is that what we've come to again? Voting for the lessor of two evils? Or voting against the obvious nominee just to shake things up? I hate that. I'd like to vote FOR somebody I believe in.

I hate to get into political strategy guessing games but I don't think Edwards would have a chance against Bush. If security is going to be a key issue, and I think it will, Bush will will emphasize his experience in the last four years, and Edwards....well, Edwards isn't even a one-term Senator yet! Voted in '98, served for 4 years and then running for president for year-and-half. Sorry, but I don't think his baby blues are THAT convincing. He's going to have trouble in the general election proving he's worthy of the title so soon. My humble opinion.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I made a mental note that this guy talks a good game but is unwilling to back it up with the tough vote. Chalk it up to being just another political opportunist. Not an endangered species in Washington by any means but somebody I'm not likely to be enthusiastic about.

I'm not sure it's an unfair characterization. I read an editorial in the paper a couple weeks ago accusing Kerry of basically popping out of the woodwork every 5 years or so; making a fiery, populist speech; pledging to support some cause or another; and then never following through. You're right, that's not rare in Washington. But it's precisely why so many Democrats annoy me so much these days. Republicans seem to at least have the balls to follow through and try to implement their platform.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Yes, I can make a protest vote but that's all it is. That's not even guaranteed either. Who knows what will happen in the next two weeks? Edwards could drop out as well. Even if he doesn't, is that what we've come to again? Voting for the lessor of two evils? Or voting against the obvious nominee just to shake things up? I hate that. I'd like to vote FOR somebody I believe in.

So would I. I thought Dean would provide me that chance, but it's not to be. Tough titty. Got to move on and do what we can, which usually (and unfortunately) means voting for the guy you dislike the least.

I have to wonder aloud again: do conservatives have this same dilemma? Maybe it's because I don't pay close enough attention, but it still seems to me that the right is far more laid back about voting for the guy who comes closest to holding their views, without all this handwringing about the lesser of two evils. The belief in the "ideologically pure" vote seems stronger on the left than the right. But who knows�the way Bush is dividing fiscal and social conservatives in the GOP, maybe some Republicans will be holding their noses come November.

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I hate to get into political strategy guessing games but I don't think Edwards would have a chance against Bush. If security is going to be a key issue, and I think it will, Bush will will emphasize his experience in the last four years, and Edwards....well, Edwards isn't even a one-term Senator yet!

It will all come down to what scares people more: the threat of terrorism, or the threat of losing their jobs or their savings? We won't begin to know that for many months yet.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I think you're making my point. I don't have the choices that the small minority of states that hold early primaries had...

Because of the failures of the candidates who are gone. It wasn't the front-loaded schedule that caused Dean to not win a single contest. Look at it this way: at least you won't be voting for someone who can't go the distance.

I hate to get into political strategy guessing games but I don't think Edwards would have a chance against Bush. If security is going to be a key issue, and I think it will, Bush will will emphasize his experience in the last four years, and Edwards....well, Edwards isn't even a one-term Senator yet! Voted in '98, served for 4 years and then running for president for year-and-half. Sorry, but I don't think his baby blues are THAT convincing. He's going to have trouble in the general election proving he's worthy of the title so soon. My humble opinion.

Kerry won't fare much better. The security issue today is framed by the war in Iraq. Kerry's voting record on Iraq is the same as Edwards. Add to that all the votes Kerry's made over the years against key weapons systems that our military relies on - votes that Edwards doesn't have on his record - and Kerry may very well be the weaker candidate against Bush. And who of the two do you think has any chance in the South?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Heh, that's pretty funny. If he were an egoist, though, he'd pull a Nader instead of closing ranks. The latter two show him to be a centrist instead of an ideologically pure wacko.

Do you suppose they'll let Kerry into the debates, or will the secret service lock him out because of the WMD related program activities that went into his face-lift?

Do you suppose that Edwards has trouble suppressing his reflexes when he hears an ambulance siren?

Look, again, I'm sorry your guy lost. Mine did too. I'm just not as big of a whiny baby about it.