2 concerns I have about Dean

Before pulling the trigger and giving my primary endorsement to Howard Dean, which I would like to do, and cleanse our party of DLC wishy washiness, I have 2 major concerns about Dean's candidacy. I want to elect a president not just partake in an ideological crusade.

My first concern is Dean's grassroots appeal to black voters. It would be a bigger concern for me if black voters had universally rallied around a single candidate, but they have not as of yet. Even Al Sharpton is drawing a cool reception among blacks outside of New York City. I have been to 2 Dean meetups here in Austin and found only a handful of black voters. Some people are comparing Dean to George McGovern because of his anti-war stance, but there is another McGovern comaparison that warrants attention. McGovern drew yawns from most black voters in 1972, who viewed him as the candidate of the bourgeoise, limousine liberal establishment and smart aleck college kids. I don't want that to happen to Howard Dean with black voters viewing him as the candidate of Internet geeks, upper-middle class white liberals and Hollywood elites. No Democratic nominee will be elected without both a 90% black vote AND a good turnout. My feelings on Dean's appeal to black voters is as of now undetermined.

Second, concerns national security. Like it or not * and Karl Rove are determined to make national security a major campaign issue. It's not Dean's issue positions that concern me, indeed, I agree with them. The problem is that because Dean is seen as a "peace" candidate, he will have to work twice as hard to prove that he would not be a "weak" president. He will have to up the ante and be twice as assertive as * on the campaign trail just to prove that he is an equally strong leader as *. In other words, if you are not a chest thumping testosterone oozing superhawk the onus is on you to prove that you are a strong leader. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were unable to pull it off, and while I have far more confidence in Dean than in those losing candidates, Dean will also be facing a far more well funded and mean-spirited opponent than previous losing Democratic noiminees.

He will not excite black voters, and the national security issue will KILL him. But I don't think he'll get the nomination. Thankfully.

Edwards or Kerry.

So, are we to assume that the PNAC plan for world domination will enhance our security?

Curious notion, that.

Who decided that national security = preemptively attacking every nation that looks at us funny?

yay, chimpy got to talk badly on dean again! hooray for him...

he gets to push how kerry or edwards will garner the black vote... ya think so heh chimpy? got something to back that up? or is it just your hatred of dean?

just wonderin

AWOL (actually bush* deserted his unit, which is worse than AWOL)...Kerry can also pull in the really BIG campaign donations to beat shrub...the only other candidates that can WIN is Clinton-Clinton (President Hillary/ VP Bill)....

there needs to be a Southern pull also, which could translate into a Kerry/Edwards ticket...those Southern states just love shrub, but they might be pulled away with a strong Southern home-grown guy...

a big issue for both Kerry and Dean are they are BOTH from tiny little eastern states, that most of the US population does not live in....

it would be best to get BIG electorial votes involved...BIG states...reagun was from CA, bushI and II claimed to be from TX (doubtful though, since both were born in other states, and bushI's main house was in Maine, while bushII lived for many years in Cherry Creek at Denver, finding God in the Colorado Springs luxury hotel, the Broodmore Resort...all those so called Texas Oilmen live in Denver, maintain their offices in Denver, and Vail, and list their residence in Texas only as a tax break...these oil execs rarely go down to those dusty oil fields of TX, and WY....

that's why Hillary chose NY, a BIG state...

that did not help him with Shrub 43. Than again Shrub 43's AWOL status was not brought up by the media either.

and Gore did little to fight back, including bringing up shrub's record...the reTHUGlicans right away portrayed Gore as a spoiled Senator's son who only served as a photographer in Vietnam, and NOT a soldier, despite photos of Gore in full military combat gear holding a rifle and walking through swamps...and he traveled with the troops....


the reTHUGlicans have also attacked Kerry several times, but he fought back...they argued about his medals (which some said he threw back at the WH during a protest after his return from Vietnam)...and Kerry had a really strong response to that crap...said he paid his dues and fought as a soldier, and had every right to protest....I don't remember if Kerry was injured in Vietnam ??? was he ??? Kerry also wrote a book explaining his Vietnam experiences...

IMHO, Kerry will go full boar after bush* on all counts, especially about shrub's desertion...and make shrub answer it, even during the debates...and speaking of debates, Kerry is the best...and shrub is so weak on debates...the only reason he carried any debates is because Lieberman is not a good debater...and Gore just wasn't up to his normal outstanding debate mode....shrub said so many lies during the debates and NOBODY called him on it....Lieberman is not a good uplifting polical speaker either....he's softspoken, never shows much enthusiasm....Gore could have and should have won those debates, but he seemed to get intimidated, especially after they viciously attacked him on a couple minor points, like his internet comment, and he simply did NO press release, and no response...Gore should have fought back and hit hard right then, and found TWENTY shrub lies to bring up then....it was poor political strategy...but Kerry is an attack guy...he's hit back on every single allegation raised by the reTHUGlicans so far....

Kerry was a gunboat Capt. if I'm correct in remembering.

Bush has been just as much a disaster for them, if not much more so. They will come out and vote for ANYBODY but Bush.

and am informing black voters in my area. I started at work with casual conversation then shared Dean video's with them.....I'm planning on setting up a Meet-Up which is more conviently located to the bus route..... I'm looking at the needs of the community.

but his response to the question of raising retirement age to 68-70 has caused me to re-think him. He did say he would consider doing that. I heard him say it. It worried me at the time but I kind of overlooked it cause I like everything else about him. But when it was brought up in Chicago, his denial that he had EVER said it, troubled me greatly.......and still does. Can you shed some light on that for me? Seriously, I just don't want another liar in WH (like we have now). I can't remember where he was when he said it, or the context in which he said it. I think it was on MTP.

I really hope whoever is nominated goes back to the traditional base and doesn't make the mistakes that were made in 02.

...although I'm a Dean supporter, I think you've brought up an area of concern, and a good suggestion. I'm hoping that the extensive grassroots Dean has in place can help in outreach to black and latino communities. Gore's endorsement would help ;) As would a few words from Clinton.

On the national security issue, it's unfortunate that Dean's presentation to the CFR can't be condensed into soundbites, because it's an exceptionally "STRONG" speech. Unfortunately, it's hard to condense real world national security issues into soundbites (or a color coded chart for that matter)...

I would say though, rather than being the reason you don't endorse Dean, that you go with all the other positives and put your personal energy into bringing Dean's message to the 'yawners' and perhaps add your suggestions and concerns about the Bush/Karl National Security Issue to your local Meetup - and see how to get Dr Dean's message on those same issues out to other voters who may be on the fence.

Educate
Educate
Educate

Not voting for someone simply because someone else may not vote for them either doesn't make alot of sense.

The power is ours. The Dems aren't going to win in 04 by being afraid to get in the streets, spread the message and put truth to the lies coming out of 1600.

If not us, who ?
If not now, when ?

:toast:


:hippie:

whoever the Dem candidate is will get a big black vote turnout. People are hurting out there, alot of energy at the base.

The national security issue is going to be thrown at whatever dem gets the nomination. If the Iraq war continues to be more and more unpopular it wont be so easy to smear Dean. It may become Deans biggest asset. Either way, that is going to be based on Dean and his campaigns ability to communicate and get out the truth.

I do not want a candidate who voted for the war, and will bend to neo-con pressure. Dean wont buckle.......some others im not so sure about......

i think a dem in 04 against Junior, would have to do something really bad to keep the black vote home. I think the dem base is extremely energized.....

Dean will get the base fired up better than any candidate in many years.

And I think Dean as president would do well on issues near and dear to black voters.

that authorized military force. Are Biden and Lugar neo-cons?

As far as the black PRIMARY vote goes, don't expect too much.
a) Gore is not going to endorse Dean.
b) Clinton will not send any signals that favor Dean.
c) Kweisi Mfume prefers Kerry.
d) Read up on Dean, the "law and order" governor. Considering that blacks are usually the victims of being railroaded in the criminal justice system, this issue matters. It's not a small thing to those who are disproportionately effected.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him (although the Montpelier newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the "technicalities" of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all the power, and that it’s only "legal technicalities" which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those "technicalities" into place. When politicians like Dean call for "swift and certain conviction of the guilty" (which actually means "swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted…at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state "regardless of technicalities," I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.

The average American, however, nods his head and says, "Yeah, get them criminals off the streets. Convict ’em quick and lock ’em up for good!" The average American rarely considers that he or she may be the next "criminal" facing the accusing finger of government.
>>>>>>>

Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791. (Source: University of Vermont.)

I think there's a contact email for him at the site.
;)))

independent Caucasian run nation AFTER Texas. Texas was not an independent Caucasian run republic until 1836, well after Vermont was a state in the union. Prior to 1836, Texas was of course property of the Mexican government.

So he can't get his historical facts correct, but he expects me to believe everything else he wrote? Course, his writing was lean on facts anyway. Too bad he screwed up on 2 of the few he included.

(which he never did). It did not authorize regime change, and would have forced Bush to work through the UN.

that's what the dog and pony show was for. Technically Bush would meet the requirements of ANY bill.

I was answering the poster's claim that Dean would not be swayed to war, but, he WAS swayed by the Biden-Lugar version of the Iraq resolution which really wasn't that far off from the resolution that passed.

btw...no comment about "law and order" Dean who wants to appoint judges that don't concern themselves with "technicalities", huh? That will go over well with black lawmakers.

you'd admit that. NO REGIME CHANGE would have denied Bush EVERYTHING about this war that he wanted. Everything.

Get real, will ya?

Eloriel

Bush would have had his war and once in Iraq he would have chased Saddam off with or without regime change approval from Congress. THAT is reality.

Dean complained about "technicalities"? Do you have a cite for that?

What a freakin' pandering position that is.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him (although the Montpelier newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the "technicalities" of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all the power, and that it’s only "legal technicalities" which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those "technicalities" into place. When politicians like Dean call for "swift and certain conviction of the guilty" (which actually means "swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted…at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state "regardless of technicalities," I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
The average American, however, nods his head and says, "Yeah, get them criminals off the streets. Convict ’em quick and lock ’em up for good!" The average American rarely considers that he or she may be the next "criminal" facing the accusing finger of government.
>>>>>

Thanks for the link, blm

if you ask me. It sounds exactly like something Bush would have said as gov. in Texas.

that Thom Hartmann likes Dean. I think he's even defended Dean's record agains callers who try to smear him.

as some have tried to claim, but, just an honest portrayal of Dean's own words.

Unfortunately, some of us who paid attention to his moves when he was setting himself up for years as the conservative Democrat, will hold him to those words and deeds. His shifts left are pure opportunism that coincided nicely with the growth of the antiwar movement.

Although I am a pink person and would be reluctant to characterize others because they have a different skin tone. I would say such statements such as those are a disservice to us all.

Way too much of everybody’s history is lost or marginalized for me to believe a whole lot of swill from anybody. Concentrating on who or what we oppose might be better than debating each others differences

When I can find sites like the one below where the likes of Malcolm X and David Duke theoretically agree with one another and have a bibliography to back it up, something must be missing

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/bibliographies/WhiteSlavery.html

That's what Republicans say.

Factor in that it is blacks who suffer disproportionately in the criminal court system when legal "technicalities" are disregarded by "common sense judges."

From the article and what looks to be the posters words

d) Read up on Dean, the "law and order" governor. Considering that blacks are usually the victims of being railroaded in the criminal justice system, this issue matters. It's not a small thing to those who are disproportionately affected.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."

I feel a great disservice that is being done by this Prison-industrial complex that is been entwined in this society as it regards this and slavery. Most of us are economic slaves in one form or another, and yet could never admit it. The CEO's of the multinational rip off billions from most of us people of lesser means and are treated to state dinners with a slap on the back and a handshake. The people that would be considered serfs in earlier date and time, are in present day given life imprisonment for taking a few scraps of food.

I hold a particular compunction for all the candidates, I trust none, but have to choose one. All of them have faults (just like the rest of us) but finding the one with the most manageable ones is a job to be sure. Choosing the best qualified for the job does not always mean choosing the most noble or charismatic. Hoping to find one most able to perform the task at hand is what I am looking for.

The either or of using common sense in a court of law is what leads to trouble, but that is why they are appointed as judges. Common sense is unfortunately that is what they used for many SSC decisions. To me, common sense says the scrap of food can have restitution and billions in fraud might require prison time. But maybe I am twisted on that too.

The US justice system is owned by big business just like every other institution in America. The spin on how Reich Wing is looking on depicting the European’s also as a people that were part of them slave groups is jus another way of deflecting for he shenanigans they are trying to pull now. They would very much like to frame the debate and tell all of the rest of us how to look at it.

Slavery is evil no matter how you look at it, and Anglos did much in that regard. I was just trying to point out it was not necessarily a racial thing as much as it was a thing of greed.

Greed, wealth and privilege go hand in hand, who could deny that?

1) They invent new definitions. In this case, Consitutional protections become "technicalities"

2) When someone points it out, they demonize them. In this case, if you disagree that "technicalities" are a problem, then you "indorse lawlessness", a lovely piece of Repuke propoganda, complete with RNC spelling.

just assuming that they'll vote (D) without the party having to address their concerns is lazy and a mistake..

just my take on things. I think many different segments of the voting public are going to be energized. Junior has managed to anger and polarize this country unlike many before him. A Dem candidate would have to do something terribly insane to keep the democratic base at home.......including African-Americans.

Dean will have them FIRED UP.

I would forward your inquiry to the Dean Campaign site. Ask them for answers as to how they intend to overcome these two problems.

I believe Dean's ideologies and his practical solutions are coming from the right place but the truth of the matter is that Vermont has very few blacks and he has not had experience building relations with their specific concerns.

I am not as worried about the war issue. I believe that Dean has what it takes to do what is necessary to protect our country but, like you, I think he needs to drive home the fact that he is not against a just defense he is against war that sacrifices young men and women AND our traditional values for trumped up reasons.

Rove is fairly toothless without the media. Bush is where he is today because for whatever reason the media give him a very easy time of it. Dean will be attacked, and likely on the Iraq war. I would personally wager that most Americans know Iraq had little or nothing to do with national security, and for most voters at worst ambivalence would be the primary response to the inevitable mischaracterization of Dean on that score. This wasn't Vietnam, and American support was grudging at best, especially for a unilateral conflict, as polls indicate. If they were unsure at first, they can be unsure again, and likely remained unsure this entire time.

As for the first concern, this is very important for all the candidates. I'm not informed enough on this to really give a yea or nay.

to all and a reluctance to go off to war on a whim might be appealing to African Americans.

Are people seriously concerned that African Americans will vote for Smirk over Dean????

What's up with that?

The Dean supporters seem to be overwhelmingly
white, educated, professionals. Okay but now
that he's a major candidate he's got to take his
camapign to the inner city. Walk the streets there the
way RFK did and make some commercials while your there.

You second point is also good. Dean (or any other Dem)
is going to have to tell voters that he is going to protect
them from terrorists. This issue can't belong exclusively
to Bush or we're screwed.

You raise valid points. I think that democrats want Dim son gone so bad they will turn out and vote for any of our candidates. This election is different, in that it is easy for all to see, our country is at stake. It is my openion that Dean will blow Bush out. Hope I am right. It is Deans job to sell the country and he will. Have faith! ;-)

Dean's biggest problem remains the national security issue. I think that he does have a lot of good points, but he's going to have to start putting out ideas about national security now, in the primary. That way, he won't look like he's being challenged by Bush to put ideas in defense. Instead, it will look like offense, which is what you want to play the most in politics.

The black vote issue is of real concern. We would still have the Senate and would nearly have the House if we hadn't abandoned the base. In order to win at all in 2004, we're going to have to put out really good candidates who know that if they can really bring out their base, that's worth another five or six points, easily enough to cover the spread in a close election.

I support Kerry (or Graham) in the upcoming election, but after all of the talk and arguments and publicity that Howard Dean has received in the past couple of months, I've decided that Dean can truly win this election (though it will be a tough battle) and I will be excited if he wins the primary (as I will for Kerry or Graham, I'll be extremely disappointed if we end up with Lieberman)

... well I really like Kerry but that snap-on hair will kill him.

or, I think Kucinich is great, but that progressive stance will kill him.

or, Leiberman is grand, but that Kermit the Frog voice will kill him.

or, Graham has the chops, but his age will kill him.

or, Gephardt is an able politician, but that union wreath will kill him.


I'm truly in awe of the soothsaying gifts so many here posess. I suspect it will kill them.

Dean, an affluent white guy, is sometimes awkward around minorities and has made some weird comments in the past. I wonder if his comments about appealing to white southerners with the pickup trucks with confederate decals in the window might be condescending as well. The whole south obviously isn't like that given the large cities, suburbs, et cetera, which makes it look like the Governor might be stereotyping.

However, Dean is getting better everytime I see him and more importantly, is willing to listen to people's concerns, including traditional minorities.

Defense is less of a problem; Dean argues his case extremely well and actually uses the issue to score points on Bush. Put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket and I believe we will be somewhat unstoppable in the general election. :evilgrin:

who are eager to help out with the minority outreach...and both are ready to hit the pavement...and i'll be with them....

NO MATTER WHO THE CANDIDATE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DAMNIT

we really need to be out there helping register disenfranchised voters... and then making sure they vote!

Look at Clinton and Gore. They are icons in the African American community. Hell, Toni Morrison said Clinton was the first black president.

Some progressive southerners are just better able to connect to blacks.

Also, we need to reach out beyond our base. For instance, in FL African Americans represented 16% of the electorate even though they are 14% of the population. In other words they voted greater then their numbers and it was still close enough to steal.

snip>
His campaign has hired Maria Echaveste, who as Bill Clinton's deputy chief of staff was the highest-ranking Hispanic to serve in the White House, and Christopher Edley, the Harvard Law School professor who headed Clinton's affirmative-action task force.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030811/story.html

From what I've seen of him so far, I don't think any part of the Dem base will be neglected by Dean. This article also tells of a well received letter he sent recently to the Democratic Black Caucus, in which he pledges, as a white politician to speak of African American issues to white crowds. I didn't know what an impact that statement would make, but I understand that he gets standing o's for it before Black audiences.

And there were very few African-American faces. That concerns me.

but no more so for Dean than any other white candidate. In fact, it will be less of a concern for Dean than any other of the seven non-black candidates IF he is able to use the volunteers he is amassing to engage in outreach. I don't know if that can happen, but knocking on doors ought to be more effective at reaching any particular constituency than TV or direct mail.

It would be better if Dean's 70,000+ volunteer base had a larger percentage of Blacks -- one that reflected the percentage of Black Democratic voters -- but I don't see why having 65,000 white volunteers and 5,000 black volunteers (to throw out an arbitrary number) is WORSE than having, say, 5,000 white volunteers and 400 black volunteers.

National security is more of a concern for me. Personally, I'm hoping that Clark will be his running mate. Problem solved.

I lived in Austin for the past seven years, went to UT for 4, before moving up to New York, and frankly there aren't that many black people there, especially compared to the major urban cities so I don't think Austin would be a good place to judge the meet-up demographic. I haven't been to any meetup event as of yet, tomorrow will be my first, so i honestly have no idea, although i would venture to guess that it'll probably not be too diverse.

I think that when you're trying to cross demographic barriers, that how you say something is as important if not more so than the details of what you say. I think emotion plays a big part in this because it is so easy to say "i fight for the under-represented!!" - they've been hearing that their entire lives, that's the nature of politics, but the nature of politics is also what's kept voters from the booth. what they're looking for is someone they can believe, someone who they can feel.

i can't say for sure whether his rhetoric will play well in minority communities, but from my experience, the first thing that caught me about Dean wasn't exactly what he said but it was how he said it. that's a big reason why I like Dean (I also like Kerry) because i think he has more of a mass appeal than the others. of course, the biggest reason i like him is because of his policies, but the best policy-makers do not make the best presidential candidates, we learned that with gore. i also think kerry and edwards are definitely viable candidates. edwards has the whole working-class southerner thing going for him and kerry is an honorable polished statesman. but i think dean has that intangible factor that inspires people when he speaks.

when he's giving his A-game, he's very persuasive - i think especially to people who haven't been into politics for a while, well, at least that's what i've been hearing. of course the art of persuasion isn't exactly a science so it would be foolish of me to say it will play out in such and such a manner. anyway, it's an important question and one that i think will be played out in your gut as much as in your mind. does he inspire you to get involved? does he make you feel more excited about the presidential race? for me, he was the only one who really got to me. the others just made me think 'okay, i wouldn't mind if he was president.'

the second point is perhaps more difficult to judge because we don't know how the war will play out and how public opinion will change about the war/bush. we could come up with a million different scenarios but i don't really feel like we can know enough to predict that far into the future, so right now it's nothing more than speculation. we should know more closer to the primaries, but still i think Dean's foreign policy is one of his strongest points and I know that is a huge reason for alot of support.

Also, Edwards would make a good VP. Kerry needs some PCP, although I thought he did a great job tonight on C-SPAN. and Kucinich needs the Soviet Union, I think he would do a great job, but America's not ready for him. I love Sharpton, he should be the poet laureate. Graham would make a very nice gimp. and Bush would make a lovely ex-president.

He's critiqued Bush for dropping the ball on the REAL terrorists.

He also needs to tailor his message to emphasize how his plan would protect us here - at home. He's told of how we have targets here at home left unguarded. Bridges, power plants, water purification facilities, landmarks, first responders - we've been so busy on Offense that we've blown-it on Defense. He can point-out the Bush administration's refusal to fund these. Connect security to voters' everyday lives; show how a Dean presidency would make them safer when they go grocery shopping, when they're out at a ball game, when they're tucking their children into bed at night - this seems to be the angle that Dean will be picking-up in the general election, and in theory, it should work. With some slick campaigning that speaks to and a good VP pick, he can call Americans' attention to this glaring problem.

It is only a matter of getting that message to the voting public.

Broadcast media is completely in Bush's camp. Completely. Radio and TV. With the >500M they will raise they will control all the airwaves. We have to win it here on the net on the ground - and we can do it.

as in "phony as a three-dollar bill"

And if, God forbid, we have another incident like 9/11 here in the US, well, it's a slam-dunk. * will be toast!!


:kick:

move up in the polls. Media would paint him as "commander in chief", all concerned and fighting back, smokin' 'em out and dead or alive all that crap. People would eat it up and start the flag waving again.

I would hammer the loss of jobs under Bush. I think that the promise of more jobs would energize black voters because the change in their unemployment numbers is really high.

I would also keep repeating what he has been saying about Afghanistan. The public needs to be told that the Taliban, which sponsored the terrorists, is growing in power in Afghanistan.

will probably gain momentum with greater exposure.

The issue of security can be easily debunked with a shopping list of examples of where Bush policies have created greater threats to our security and status in the world.

It is really very easy. Bush came across as an idiot with his pretend pilot act---they will have to tred that line very carefully. Dean will convey his strength through intelligence and wise judgement rather than hotdog fly boy acts while real soldiers are dying.

soldiers were dying? If Dean tried going that route, the GOP will blister him over Nam. They own the media. They made Gore's service as a journalist in Nam look cowardly.

That concerns me: that they'll crucify the Dem nominee (whoever it is) like they did Gore. And Rove had no qualms going after McCain and portraying him as crazy and even traitorous. A POW, mind you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid Kerry wouldn't be out of bounds for these liars, regardless of his outstanding military service.

However, regarding Dean, I think it's pretty well established that he reported for his Army physical and was deemed physically unfit for service except in times of a national emergency or something.

I think if Rove/Bush tries to make this an issue there may be a way to pound the AWOL drum loudly in response. This story has spread outside the realm of corporate media.

Neither DeLay or Lott brought it up again, did they? How often does Rush bring it up?

Sorry, but, Kerry has already shown himself as master of that domain. The thousands of veterans who are organizing for 2004 will make sure the issue belongs to Kerry. Bush is not getting away with it again.

were the ones who refused to fight and kill in an unjust war. Kerry enlisted, it was his choice, as opposed to some steelworker's son without much recourse when his number was drawn from the lottery. I have 3 younger brothers and my father, still carrying around shrapnel from Korea, was a loud voice against the war -no way would his sons serve in another bloody, senseless conflict. Long before John Kerry had his revelation, my father had nothing but contempt for the military or those who equate it as some heroic mission. He would've scorned John Kerry and his pompous displays of war hero turned anti-war protestor, turned war supporter.

So don't strut around me with that macho miliataristic jingo that's crapped out by the Republican war machine which sells the idea of soldiering as a noble quest. The kids in Iraq shatter that illusion while Kerry only serves to feed it.