Dean supporters: Are we at the mercy of the DNC and DLC?

Quick question for those endorsing Dean:

Envision that Dean's campaign continues to build momentum through primary season. He wins both Iowa and New Hampshire and makes strong showings in other primary contests. He has a tremendous base of supporters willing to fight to get him elected.

But...

The Democratic establishment, represented by the DLC and the DNC simply do not want him as their candidate. Regardless of the potential he shows on the campaign trail, they simply feel he is not "electable" however they may define that term. So, they do not nominate the front-runner and choose someone who they deem more "safe".

I'm just worried that all this hard work we and Howard have put in is ultimately futile because in the end, the establishment gets the last word as to who will be the Democratic nominee in '04.

Any thoughts?

The slick TMac refuses to bash Dean; the treacherous Brazile had a few positive things to say, so yeah, they'd be on board with Team Dean in 2004. Our leadership has made it clear they prefer a militarist, free trading, anti-gay candidate for the general election.

…
And yet ... I'm not writing to endorse Howard Dean. I'm not declaring him the future of the Democratic Party. I still like John Kerry, too. Honest. In fact, I've adopted what I'm calling the Donna Brazile stance. When I phoned the veteran liberal activist and 2000 Gore campaign manager to talk about Dean, she just raved about him. I pushed her: "Wow, Donna, you sound like you love the guy -- are you sure you're not backing him? Are you going to work for him?" I even asked if she wanted to talk off the record.

She stopped me cold. "You called me to talk about Howard Dean. If you'd called to talk about Joe Lieberman, I'd have raved about him, too. I'm finding something to love about all these candidates. One of them is going to defeat George Bush."

So that's how I feel, too, I think. I can support anyone who gets the nomination (which means I don't have to square Al Sharpton's new charisma and common sense with his race-baiting history, or ask myself if I could live with Dennis Kucinich's self-righteous lefty screeching for four years, because they're not going to be nominated).

But Donna Brazile had a twinkle in her voice when she talked about Howard Dean, I thought. Or maybe that was just projection. Maybe it was my twinkle.
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/

Woo hoo! Go Deen!!

He has a lot in common with the DLC platform. He's more of a moderate. I think the main thing that separates him from the other DLCers is his opposition to the Iraq war.

...if he is a DLCer or not.

But even if he is, I can forsee them shunning his campaign even if it is due to a single issue such as the Iraq war.

but have moved to far to the Right.


Kerry has become the new DLC darling.

Long answer, half the DLC is on board for Lieberman's campaign. But the DLC does not "Control" the party. And Al From does not control the membership. There are FIVE "DLC for Dean" organizations currently.

ANYONE who is the nominee will get our support.

eom.

what the DLC is doing is stupid. He may very well be the nominee, and if so, the Repugs can run big ads about what Lieberman and his fellow travellers said in criticizing Dean.

PsyOps 101 and done but done convincingly enough that millions of people aren't even questioning the DLC association.

Just think about it- if you knew from reading boards and getting angry letters that people hated your organization but you were determined to remain in power- what better way than to field one of your candidates and then start posturing as if you hated him so and decrying him as being too liberal when we all know that Dean is no liberal?

Someone mentioned that Dean and the DLC's problem was his anti-war stance. Dean was not ant-war, Dean simply wanted the war delayed 60 days and yes even that is to his credit but that is not being anti-war. Dean was also for attacking Iran to disarm them- is that being anti-war?

His past and, IMO present DLC association, is one of the main reasons I am not a Dean supporter. I could be wrong and yes there is another candidate I prefer because his liberal views are much more aligned with mine but I wish people would start asking themselves more questions and not believing everything the DLC and a candidate's campaign throw out. Most of us eliminated everyone who was pro-war and enabled Bush and just because Dean was in so position to leave the kind of trail the rest of them did is no reason to put all our money on him. I don't hate the guy because he has no track record but I won't trust him because of the comments he made which indicate to me that he would have been right there next to the rest of them enabling Bush.

Just ask yourself honestly- is Dean the DLC's ace in the hole? Last horse out of the barn? If you're satisfied with what you find- that's great! Vote for him and stand behind your vote because this is the time we all have to do what our conscience allows and what is best for America but, this is also the time we have to be on the look-out for every dirty trick they are capable of pulling. They need our votes- we said we wouldn't give them so how far will they go to wheedle them out of us?

Forgive me for bing such a cynic. I spent too much time working with PsOps to not ask myself all these questions.

Politics is a dirty game- there is no honesty in it and it's time we stopped thinking there was.

------------------

((The entire article is worth reading))

Published on Monday, April 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
As Baghdad Falls Howard Dean Folds Back into the National Security Establishment
by Charles Knight

On April 9, 2003, the day that most American newspapers headlined the "liberation of Baghdad", Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate notable for his opposition to Bush's war against Iraq, gave a speech in Washington which went a long way toward endorsing the Bush doctrine of preventive war.

Dean has been a favorite candidate among anti-war Democrats because he believes an imminent threat from Iraq was never proven and therefore the situation did not justify the invasion. In his remarks to the Alliance for American Leadership, an invitation-only organization of foreign policy specialists most of whom were associated with the Clinton administration, Dean addressed the problems of possible nuclear proliferation to North Korea and Iran. As reported in the Boston Globe he made a point of saying that he would not rule out using military force to disarm either North Korea or Iran.

In effect this supposedly 'anti-war' Democrat has announced his support for a policy in which Washington will decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and will reserve for itself the right to forcefully disarm those who do not voluntarily disarm by U.S. dictate. In this crucial regard Dean's position is in close accordance with the Bush doctrine of coercive disarmament and preventive war.

<snup>

The basic argument between Democrats such as Dean and Republicans becomes whether their respective approaches to forced disarmament are more or less costly or risky, in what time period. For instance, Dean argues for reopening negotiations with the North Koreans over their nuclear program, while privately making it clear that the U.S. will go to war to stop their nuclear program if they don't settle in the end. In a preferred outcome of this diplomacy the U.S. might end up paying the North Koreans ten or twenty billion to abandon their nuclear and long range missile program. Dean would argue that despite the distaste of having to pay for disarmament, the financial costs would be about one-fifth to one-tenth the cost of a war, and successful diplomacy would also avoid the human costs of the likely hundreds of thousands of Koreans, Americans, and possibly Japanese who would die in new Korean war. In the longer run it is likely that the communist regime in North Korea will collapse in its own decrepitude and a more cooperative government will take its place and seek to reunite peacefully with South Korea.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0414-09.htm

For more, just google ' "Howard Dean" Iran war '

Simplicity is key. Elites are afraid the unpolished Dean will be tarred as the candidate of terrorism, taxes, and queers. It's that simple.

Dean wants to put a substantive amount of teeth in trade agreements, so while he is not a liberal as Gephardt and Kucinich on economic issues, he is not a rabid free trader like Lieberman or Graham either.

I admit simplicity is the key. What I am afraid of is that this is manufactured simplicity on the part of the DLC with Dean being an innocent/semi-innocent front man.

Ronald Reagan was also an innocent front man for the corporations that financed his leap to the Presidency. His job was to give a few stirring speeches and say whatever it took to keep the people believing that they had a President who cared and was moderate. And did the American people fall for it?! Yes. The majority LOVED him- fell for the act hook, line, and sinker. But the ENTIRE time, who was really in charge of America? What was really going on in the background? I don't think our party is any different and it will take a strong, morale, fearless man to change things. I don't think Dean is the man. I think he's a terrific talker but is that enough?

Go ahead. Tell me I'm too cynical. Seemingly artless simplicity was one of my department's fortes. It's not very hard to do and it's very, very effective.

Contributions to Dean's campaign (and I have no idea how up-to-date this is)

AOL Time Warner
$46,225
University of California
$25,924
Dean for America
$16,528
Microsoft Corp
$15,675
University of Pennsylvania
$15,100
Stoneyfield Farms
$12,000
IBM Corp
$11,275
Goldman Sachs
$10,750
August Capital
$10,000
Efoora
$8,000
Harvard University
$7,900
Citigroup Inc
$7,774
Skadden, Arps et al
$7,699
University of Vermont
$7,320
University of Texas
$7,125
Vivendi Universal
$7,075
Dartmouth College
$6,550
Auto Parts International
$6,500
State of Vermont
$6,480
Kaiser Permanente
$6,450

Total Contributions
$242,350

Since corporations and PAC's really can't donate directly to political campaigns, I find this list fraudulent.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

And here are Dean's Sector totals:

Agribusiness $59,714
Communic/Electronics $672,581
Construction $73,859
Defense $10,050
Energy/Nat Resource $21,850
Finance/Insur/RealEst $511,844
Health $360,988
Lawyers & Lobbyists $491,062
Transportation $29,275
Misc Business $498,723
Labor $5,796
Ideology/Single-Issue $69,973
Other $1,230,164

.

The web site clearly mentions to please reference the source - The Center For Responsive Politics...and if you're interested, look at the contributions to other candidates as well.

I particularly like the number of educational donors to Dean...as well as organic farming (Stonyfield Farms) and Dean For America near the top (the web site)

Thanks for pointing out the reference request. I'll remember that in the future.

I looked at the other candidates. My favorite is of course DK who is not accepting corporate donations and relying solely on the people but I have noticed the difference in Dean and John Edwards for example.

All if these things are mere factoids until/unless it becomes obscene.

earned from regular folks, and compared to the corporate cash that has been given to all the other viable candidates.

Dean does not concern me as much as someone like Clark who I hear told the troops to "Crank It Up". Now WTH does "Crank It Up" mean? Someone tell General Clark that things are cranked up plenty enough as it is at DU!

http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=92

Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
by Howard Dean

Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

after he gets caught.

He has lots of experience from Vermont, where he often called reporters to make changes in his previous remarks. He attacks Bush here to purposely divert attention from his own remarks that the earlier writer picked up on at his speech and noted.

I know it frustrates you deeply.

.

Doubt it, because the author knew he got it wrong.

before, during and after the fact.

Too bad.

People will vote in 2004 for the guy they would want watching their back in a foxhole. Just like the firefighters will endorse the guy who understands their sacrifice.

The Firefighters Union that endorsed Gore over Bush already don't like Dean.

will say this about kerry...kerry "needs clarifying after he gets caught".. Yeah! it makes is as much sense.

Dean had to phone in corrections, or restate his position, or apologize to others was actually just me making up something to bash Dean.

OK...suit yourself.

One day Dajabr, I would love to discuss Dean with you and the other civil, open-minded people in this thread (so far). I am often reluctant to express my reservations about him because the conversations become to heated but you seem to have a good grasp on who he is and I would welcome that talk. My goal isn't to dissuade anyone from voting for any candidate, just to make sure we are as aware as possible about all of them and what they will really bring.

Dean is very much an unknown at this point and I appreciate all the light you can shed.

I hate Bush with a passion but I am also very, very much anti-war. Everything Dean says in this statement is right on but it doesn't go far enough for me. Gore's statements are meaningless to me because it was under Clinton/Gore that Iraq was subjected to daily bombings and obscene sanctions directly responsable for the death of
567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five according to the 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report. After a few years the figure of dead children soared to over a million with the rest walking around with Kwarshiokor (pot-bellied symptom of severe malnutrition).

I just had a very bitter laugh because I liked Gore enough to vote for him and admired, still do, many things about him but ever since Selection 2000 when I really started digging I've become so disgusted with what was done in my name by Clinton, Gore and now Bush. The main difference I see is that Bush has been criminally greeding, looting and pillaging like a diabolically mad cow-boy as he goes whereas the others showed a little more restraint and knew how to work the international community better.

Our same ole, same ole Democratic Leadership would not have made us the laughing-stock of the world, an international pariah because we know no bounds but our same ole, same ole Democratic Leadership would have eventually gone to war with more finesse and better plans. But war nonetheless, death nonetheless, and oil companies profitting nonetheless. I want more than that.

What do you want? And is that what Dean will deliver or will be be more of the same ole, same ole? Bear in mind that Clinton/Gore are in that same ole, same ole bucket with Gore higher on the morality scale than Clinton who told us to just get over it.

I can't. I want a Brave New World. What do you want?

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html#sanct

That is a major reason I'm supporting Dean for now...looking for the brave and the new.

I saw some of that with the unprecedented worldwide peace protests. This wasn't Vietnam redux...the war had not even begun.

I'm seeing some of that with the online and in-person response to Dean's candidacy...earlier and more fervent than ever before.

I can't help but feel some optimism.

It was interesting to me to note Microsoft near the top of Dean contributors...perhaps it is just to further Microsoft's business practices, but as a public librarian every time I see the name now I'm also reminded of the hundreds of million dollars Bill and Melinda Gates are giving to public libraries (without heavy-handed corporate push - I know, we've received the grant and equipment) and the frontlines fighting AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org

We are in dire need of the BRAVE and NEW ideas...not the same ole same ole.

and I will not only respect your sincerity, but I will respect your conviction that you are pushing for a brave new world with Dean. As an ultra-liberal, I simply question just how brave and how new.

As I pointed out before, remember that you are dealing with someone (me) who wasn't happy with Clinton because he could have done so much more had he not been such a Centrist.

His welfare reform policy was devastating for millions of American families ((see articles below)). It was under Clinton, not Bush that my sisters and I began working in soup kitchens so horrified were we at the injustice in America.

The next President is going to inherit a MUCH worse mess than Clinton and I don't think a Centrist trying to cater to the people and the corporations is going to be able to do much to help the people.

It was bad enough for the poor under Clinton and it will be worse under Dean (because of Bush's mess combined with the centrism). So when I say new, I mean REALLY REALLY NEW. I mean breaking the old mold and being what we were meant to be- a blessed land where no one went hungry. That vision IS possible but it will take a quasi revolutionary to get us there. Do you really think Dean is that revolutionary? Your hate may just be directed at Bush (justifiably) with a yearning for the Clinton years. Mine is directed at the whole rotten system that allows children to go to bed hungry while corporations live it up and because of that, I don't want to settle for a facsimile of the Clinton Years. They were good for people like you, like me who can afford to spend hours on a discussion board (computer, electricity, shelter, dsl, phone line) but they were not good for all Americans? Where they good for those who can't even afford a voice at DU?

If the whole rotten system doesn't change, then I see it as the sad same ole, same ole.

--------------------------------------

While the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans are celebrating the third anniversary of the dismantling of the federal AFDC welfare program, claiming that "welfare reform" has been a great success, reports from more objective observers have found deepening hunger and social misery, especially for the poorest families.

A report released August 20 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found worsening conditions for the poorest 20 percent of female-headed families. While their incomes had risen substantially from 1993 to 1995, before welfare reform, their incomes fell from 1995 to 1997, during the period when measures to tighten eligibility and extend work requirements were adopted. The 2 million families and 6 million people covered by this study had incomes—even after Food Stamps, housing subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit and other benefits were included—below three-quarters of the official poverty line.

For the poorest of the poor, the poorest 10 percent of female-headed families with children, incomes fell by a staggering 14 percent between 1995 and 1997. A major reason was that tens of thousands of low-income families who were cut off welfare but still eligible for Food Stamps did not receive them. In some cases state and local government officials told them, falsely, that the welfare cutoff applied to all other federal benefits as well.

<snip>

The author of the study, Wendell Primus, who resigned a high-level position in the Clinton administration in protest of the welfare cuts, commented, "It is disturbing that substantial numbers of children and families are sinking more deeply into poverty when we have the strongest economy in decades and when substantial amounts of funds provided to states to assist these families are going unused."

<snip>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/welf-a26.shtml


--------------------------------------

“While the child poverty rate of 18.9 percent last year appears to be the lowest since 1980, it is no cause for celebration—the child poverty rate was considerably lower in the late 1960's and during all of the 1970's. The number of children in working poor families leaped by one-third from 1989 to 1997, despite a booming economy and a 25-year low in the nation's unemployment rate." (From a report entitled Ten Critical Threats to America's Children: Warning Signs for the Next Millennium released November 29, 1999 by a consortium including the National League of Cities and the National School Boards Association).
---------------------------

According to the report, 14.5 million children — nearly 1 in 5 — experience poverty. During 1997, 3.2 million children were reported to authorities as abused and neglected. Last year, 11.1 million children younger than 18 had no health insurance. And each year, 3 million American teens are infected with AIDS, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/children991129.html

I want my country back! But you knew that already. :-)

Anyway, as sad as this makes me, there is no room on this board for rational discussion of Dean or any other candidate. Every time a decent debate or discussion starts, the trolls swarm in.

I've watched Dean for many months, scrutinizing his every move for a whiff of him being something other than what he purports. Watching as he navigates the minefields of national politics. Cringing at some of the gaffes, cheering the many successes. But, it is a long way to go...

Do I agree with Dean on every issue? No.

Would his Presidency be as much a radical change as DK or Sharpton? No.

Does he give me every indication at this point that he is the best candidate and that he would make a damn-fine President for our Country? Yes.

So, what I would say is, if you need help with Dean's position on an issue, or finding sources, or bouncing an opininion back and forth - PM me and I'd be glad to lend a hand.

:toast:

Which is why I will never knock the sincerity of the Dean supporters I know! Nor will I knock Dean as a person because no candidate putting himself on the line deserves that. I think we are going to have to FORCE rational discussion of all the candidates on this board because it is our board and not that of the trolls! How to do this? I had success leading a Kerry thread a few months back and wanted to do the same for all the candidates but then the trolling and the bashing started and I just haven't had the stomach for it since.


Let's start that again! Let's just police the trolls and alert on them until either Admin shuts them up or they learn to behave. It's a damn shame that months before the elections, we would allow trolls to stop us from the constructive discourse that brought us here.
I really appreciate your offer and thank you for it.
I've already had to do a few PMs on questions I have about Kerry and a few calls for questions about Dean. While they help me, they don't help us all. If you are willing to, why don't we find a way to set up some sort of dialogue? Even some sort of an informal debate team at DU where people can discuss?

Any ideas?

And also, if you admit the change would be more radical with Kucinich or Sharpton, what is it that makes you lean towards Dean more?

Peace and thanks!

Susan Bayh acts as Dean's official escort/First Lady when his wife declines to appear.

But, you are welcome to go on believing this whole Bayh/DLC attacks Dean dog and pony show.

...would you not agree that Dean is not the "favorite" among party insiders? He may be friends/have connections with top party figures, but I really don't think that will have an effect. I can see the DNC rallying behind Kerry or even (ugh) Lieberman for the nomination.

I hope I'm wrong and the party gives its unyielding support to Dean. If we had such a backing it would make Dean so much stronger.

because they want to win elections for their congress and senate, too. Alot of the southern Dem are in seats that aren't as safe Dem seats as there are in the north and west. They want a military man on stage campaigning with them. It makes it easier.

There are those in the DLC who don't like that Dean turned his campaign from a centrist message to abruptly shifting course, coopting Nader's rhetoric from 2000 and using it against the other Dems. However, Dean may sound like a populist fighter now, but he GOVERNED for 11 years as a compromising centrist who usually aligned with the GOP. I doubt the DLC would be unhappy with their DLC poster boy for long.

The DLC and the party establishment want John Forbes-Kerry or Howard Dean, and are scaring us with Lieberman, who they know cannot win a primary. They generally don't want the union candidates, Gephardt and Kucinich, and they hate Sharpton. They want Clark as a VP, but he probably has too much ego for anything less than the number one spot, just like Kerry and Dean.

Simply put, Dean is attracting a bunch of new people to this process. If he wins the primaries, it's going to be primarily due to this.
If Dean's in has a strong lead going into the convention but not enough delegates, and if the second place candidate needs basically all of the institutional delegates, the institution won't risk splintering the party. They know that Dean followers would be supremely pissed, and the other candidate's chances would be gunned down right then and there. He would have won the primary season fair and square, and they would have basically taken that victory away from him. I can't speak for others, but if they were to pull that kind of a stunt, I'd make them pay dearly. This is the party of the PEOPLE.

If they think that Anti-Freedom-For-Iraq/Soft On Terror plus Gay Marriange spells doom for the party, they would certainly dump Dean and expect the Dean supports to play nice and support the candidate of their choosing.

(The characterizations of the Two Big Wedge Issues are about how Rove will handle them, and is in fact already. I also believe that he is asking for the candidate he most fears, but I can't prove that).

The only question is: is it someone like Kerry, or someone like Gephardt or Lieberman. Kerry I can stomach, but Gephardt is so Old Democrat he's doomed, and Lieberman will split the party.

I repeat, at the risk of being expelled from the board (where I've posted thousands of message and would miss very much) Lieberman would split the party.

He has already indicated that he will keep running against the party if he is not the nominee

Look-up the Larry King interview. It's one of the several times where he's said that he'd support the eventual nominee.

I am interested however in where you got information supporting this claim.

As the previous poster said, look up the Larry King interview. Dean states quite explicitly he will support whomever is nominated.

Yourself, perhaps?

.

nt

He very emphatically said that he had no intention of running as an Independant, and that he would support whoever the candidate was. He just wasn't going to be pressured to drop out.

a lot will depend on whether he wins the election. McGovern's effect on the party dissapated because he couldn't win in November.

But as president and party leader, Dean could reshape the party regardless of what McAuliffe and From think. The DNC and DLC will be at the mercy of Dean rather than the other way around.

It's still a democratic process. We elect delegates and those delegates choose a nominee. The process is designed to avoid stalemates and brokered conventions. Personally, I think Dean will be be the nominee by a decisive margin.

By bringing in millions to his campaign, which is his goal, Dean will have bargaining power with the DLC and DNC and they won't be able to ignore it.

Let's say that's true. Let's say Dean is exactly what he says he is and that the DLC really hates him, what bargaining power will he bring?

Maybe you're right. Maybe he will. But where's the guarantee that this would work? Will Dean tell the DLC and DNC that if they don't play ball with him, he's going to walk? Walk where? To the Greens? Run as an independent?

But maybe he won't. Maybe he doesn't need to. Can anyone here educate me as to exactly when, within the last 7 months, Dean broke away from the DLC?

I am hesitant to put the future of my country in that gamble.

I don't mean to discount what your saying...
but the opinion pieces printed and the words spoken by Joe L are quite clear. Are they playing both sides of the fence behind our backs? maybe so.

I wish I knew but I don't. I'm just very uneasy and cynical about this whole thing. I should have taken a vacation from all of this when there was still enough time to remain fresh-minded.

I just have the nagging impression that Dean is the DLC's ace in the hole.

But don't believe me because I don't want to dissuade you- this time is too important for me or anyone else to pull people's votes either this way or that way.

If you're really concerned- talk to Hedda_Foil because she's a smart cookie who hates the DLC and has done a lot of research into them. She also happens to be backing Dean (which surprised me but hell, I am neither perfect nor omniscient!) and could address Dean/DLC concerns much better than I could. Of course, I'd pop up with a few sincere questions :evilgrin: because my mind is not at rest and I would like it to be.

Honestly, I don't think I can even back Dean as a second candidate right now and would very much appreciate more civil discourse because I want to be as warm and as enthusiastic as possible to all our candidates.

Many of them were totally off my list because of the war but I have since thawed out a little and realize I may need to be a little more pragmatic. I may also need to stop being so suspicious but my hard head does need more than words.

Lieberman is 100% out. General Clark is pretty much pissing me off so much with his "Crank It Up" Tactics that he's going to really have to work over-time to prove himself.

---

Draft Clark 2004: Is General Clark Preparing to Launch Presidential Campaign?
Draft Clark 2004 Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 8, 2003

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Dailey (jeff@draftclark2004.com), Michael Frisby (mikefrisby@draftclark2004.com)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 /U.S. Newswire /-- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark is reportedly making preparations to launch his presidential campaign shortly after Labor Day, a move that will shake up the Democratic Presidential campaign.

The National Journal is reporting that Gen. Clark recently spoke with a close advisor and said, "Crank it up," in reference to his presidential bid. This follows a series of media interviews in which Clark has been increasingly critical of President Bush's handling of domestic and foreign policy issues.

The National Journal wrote: "Wesley Clark appears to be getting close to throwing his stars into the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating contest. Clark recently phoned one close adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity, and said, 'Crank it up.' The Clark adviser said that the former NATO chief is smart to stay out of the race until after Labor Day, but not much longer after that. He pointed to the number of debates and forums that the Democratic hopefuls have on tap and the chance that these encounters will do little to clarify the race -- as was the case in the recent AFL-CIO forum in Chicago. The Clark adviser speculated that the general will be better positioned for a run if he has a message that seems fresher for not having been part of the clutter."

<snip>

http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=92

Because that's the only other option. I'll take a gamble over a guaranteed loss any day of the week.

and to be perfectly frank with you I really resent it when people say that because Dean is not the only other option. The Clark people tell us the same thing. That tactic is too heavy-handed and reeks too much of the DLC's "bogeyman around the corner".

We are only a few weeks into the race and no camp has the right to tell other people that the option is either their candidate or Bush. I think that's unworthy of us and of the candidates.

We still have several months to watch them all make their case. There will be squirming and lying, pleading and mis-representations. Let's wait until we say that.

and Dean supporters refuse to give it credibility, but thousands of party workers walked out on the campaign once a candidate who got to his position by attacking the party was nominated, and theses people then decided to just sit out the election. For every young supporter McGovern motivated, he laost two seasoned and savvy party grunt workers. These workers very very clearly let the party know that they should not ignore their opinion.

I supported and worked for McGovern's campaign in New York, and was baffled, but exhausted, and totally clueless on what do do when these people just didnt show for the real fight, Against Nixon.

All that will be necessary will be for ONE PERCENT of the Democratic Party Voters with the inclusion of the new peopple Dean brings in to give Bush a win, in EVERY STATE. And two percent will give Bush the biggest landslide in history.

If DU is any example, there are enough people here who will act as I am indicating to cost Dean the election. It will likely be WORSE in the real world. It has happened twice in the last half of the last century, it is not unreasinable to anticipate the same in 2004.

At least in my neck of the woods - we had union representation and lifelong Democratic party worker representation at our Meetup and are sending a delegation to our county's annual party dinner and planning session.

Dean's supporters aren't the same demographic as McGovern.

Party workers as a group are pissed at Party leaders for selling us out.

shows a lack of understanding about the nominating convention. The DNC and DLC are not the Supreme Court.

After he signed the Civil Union act, and loaded his campaign War Chest with a LOT of money to counteract the millions of soft money coming into the Republican Coffers from "Take Back Vermont: and the Pat Robertson Crew.

They have been VERY loyal to Dean, and his disloyalty to them is really an affrontery to many loyal party grunts.

Dean supporters attack the DLC, but even with Deans differences with hs own party members and continual refusal to support the democratic party platform in Vermont while assisting Republicans get what they wanted, the DLC ordered that the party release the funds.

THIS party protects its own, regardless of how wayward they may seem, to the left or to the right.

Denas behavior is sheer ingratitude.

A number of us (loyal Democratic voters and election activists, but not necessarily with the means to be BIG donors) do feel ingratitude for war, tax cuts and layoffs.

he forgot to mention that here.

He just needs to go over and give Al From a little asskissing and tell him that he's the cutest, little, kingmaker ever and that will be the end of it :eyes:

Dean supported every American military action in the past fifteen years except for Gulf War 2.

He supported Gulf War 1 which John Kerry opposed. Doesn't John Kerry get some props for opposing Gulf War 1.

So, Dean is not this great antiwar crusader that his supporters would have you believe but a prudent policy maker who chooses which wars are in Americas's interest to prosecute.

The point I am leading up to is I think Dean is getting way to much credit as the a-n-t-i w-a-r candidate.

So, the only thing which separates Dean from pro war hawks like Joe Lieberman is that Joe has supported every military adventure to come down the pike the past fifteen years and Howard Dean has supported every military adventure to come down the pike the past fifteen years except Gulf War 2

Talk about the narcicissm of small differences.

Dean is not your guy. But there are no illusions about that here.

He was anti-Iraq war because he knew shrub was full of it. This is a clear difference between Dean and some other candidates.

And, you may want to ask yourself, why was Kerry against the first Gulf War and not this one? I think running for President played more than a little part in his strategy.

but I am perplexed by the fact that Dean gets to wear the mantle of anti-war candidate because he opposed Gulf War2 when he supported the Afghan War, Gulf War 1, etcetera.


The question is why does Dean get to pick and choose which war is wise and which war isn't while maintaining the good will of his followers while you don't extend that good will to , say, Kerry, Gephardt, or Joe Lieberman.

He maintains the good will of his supporters (not followers, thank you.) because he came down on the right side of the issue. Which was to oppose shrub and his PNAC buddies.

If you read any of Dean's statements, you find that he's always upfront about not being anti-war.

Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kerry supported the war, Dean did not.

here's a summary:

Dean opposed entering Iraq because he thought the President never made a stong enough case that Saddam posed a threat.

Dean supported turning peace keeping over to NATO and letting the UN handle civilian authority.

Dean wants to increase the number of international troops in Iraq so American troops can return home.

Dean is concerned about the long-term stability of Iraq and thinks that the campaign cannot be judged successful until Iraq is stable and Democratic.

Even if the campaign ultimately is successful, Dean still thinks the President was wrong to mislead the country to start the campaign.

Here's my take....


All politicians are trimmers.

So I'll go with the politician who is closest to my views and has the best chance of winning.

Because he did not engage in war to fulfill the grand dream of "Pax Americana," or to fatten his oil buddies wallets.

He was set upon by these PNAC criminals, and rebuffed them. That's called leadership.

With Clinton or Gore in office, the policy of conytainment would have remained intact, and the UN would be on the ground in Iraq as we speak.

that we like Dean. Dean attracts people because he is willing to stand up to Bush, while many of the other candidates have not. His position on the war is just an outgrowth of that. Dean was the only one willing to take on Bush when he was suposedly unbeatable. That is inspiring to those of us who have been frustrated by the lack of fire from the Democrats.

And was part of the equation back in 98 when he was working with Clinton on Iraq policy.

btw...Dean said clearly that he "never doubted the need to disarm Saddam" last March. Was he lying when he said that?

is that he's the anti-war candidate and he has done nothing to clear up the misperception.

Yur point about Kerry is well taken and that's precisely something I had to ask a respected Kerry supporter in a PM to avoid a troll-laden thread.

Just how against Iraq was Dean? In your own words. And also, what exactly was he against?

Neither Clinton nor Gore was against it regardless of what they say because it was under their watch that Iraq was bombed and sanctioned every day for 8 years straight to destabilize it for the coming war. Clinton was ready to attack them and sent Albright and Sandy Berger out on a war drum tour to guage public support and found out, to his horror, that there was absolutely none. This is why Clinton is now telling us to just get over it. Bush soon stepped in and manufactured the evidence but America had decided on this war way before Bush ever showed up.

------------------
Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter
COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

Albright said the goal of the meeting was to "explain the policy ramifications" of the Iraqi situation.

<snip>

Berger said the aim of a possible airstrike would be twofold: to diminish Saddam Hussein's weapons and reduce the threat to Iraq's neighbors.

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said. ((C'mon, honestly, does that not sound like Bush?))

<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html
-----------------------------


Albright Faces Public Opposition To Iraq
Administration's Foreign Policy Team Faced Tough Questions

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Posted 3:53 p.m. February 18, 1998 -- Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case today for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

The speech follows an appearance by President Clinton on national TV yesterday to explain the rationale for possible military action. With opposition mounting in Congress and doubts in the minds of many Americans, he decided to dispatch his top foreign policy aides to address those concerns.

<snip>

Joining Albright on a red carpeted-stage in the center of a basketball arena were Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. They were interrupted several times by chants from a noisy audience that included students as well as uniformed members of the military and veterans.

"Saddam has delayed, he has duped, he had deceived the inspectors from the very first day on the job," Cohen said in a prepared statement before the three took questions. (( Just like Bush again))

<snip>

http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-980218-154354.html

--------------------------------------------

So enter the cow-boy to do the dirty job in a dirty, dirty way and raping, theiving, plundering and pillaging as he goes.

But we, as a nation, were going to war on evidence everyone knew was manufactured. Veterans for Peace and many, many groups had been speaking out about this for months. Our sanctions were so obscene that we were about to face a full revolt at the UN- and all of this before Bush ever stepped onto the scene. Bush just made it so ugly that normal Americans were faced with the ugly truth of what we were doing, an ugly truth that a Democratic administration would have shielded us from but people would have died nonetheless.

Where do you see Dean on this issue? Do you really see him as anti-Iraq war, or just anti-the-way-Bush-did-it? I want someone who was really anti-Iraq war.

Hope that makes sense.

outcast. He has never pretended to be a pacifist in any way. He never said the Iraq war war wrong because war is always wrong or something like that. He said, and still says, that Bush messed the whole thing up. He did say that if we had stuck with the UN, they found WMDs, and then the UN decided to invade that we should support them.

BEFORE his popularity surge, and in fact, he surged BECAUSE of that packaging.

Why create a package for Dean when Kucinich was actually out there fighting Bush in ACTION,S, WORDS and DEEDS?

Dean advocated containment against invasion unless an airtight case could be made that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Dean saw the PNAC radicals for what they were. Some candidates did not.

I go with the guy who was willing to call these step children of Nixon and Kissenger our early and often, and believe an outsider has the best chance to rid us of them, instead of "playing ball" with them.

He is being marketed to his ardent supporters as an anti-war candidate while being marketed to the masses as something opposite.


It's fun to watch the intellectual gymnastics.

Frustrating that there is no end to our gullibility.

I have no problem with those who support Howard Dean for his centrism and understand full well that he is not an anit-war candidate but I am heart-broken that so many are jumping on the band-wagon without asking any questions.

I suppose I shouldn't be heart-broken because this happens every election. Look at all the people who jumped on any candidate's band-wagon without knowing a damn thing about them. Look at all the people who don't even get involved in the Primaries and just show up in the voting booth to blindly vote R or D.

Look at the lemmings. Be they for whatever candidate. Lemmings. It is no wonder we are in such a mess and that few politicians are willing to tell us what they really are and really think. Very little straight talk among the bunch and it's our damn fault.

Now you've got me all worked up! All worked up that we don't care enough to find out more about the issues and the candidates and practically force them all to package themselves to be as superficially palatable as possible to the majority.

We "can't handle the truth!" Gotta go. Ciao and nice talking to you.

but I think most of the Dean supporters here already know he's not antiwar.

The problem you have with Dean being heralded as the antiwar candidate is the same problem a lot of the Kucinich supporters have. I think if Dean would clarify that he is not antiwar, it would go a long ways towards calming down a lot of upset people who see that as an usurped title that he has no right to reap anything from.

If he would clarify that he was only anti the way Bush went about this war and nothing else, that would help even more.

Unless he does that, it is too easy to suspect that he playing politics as usual.

supported the sanctions that many on the left thought was decimating innocent Iraqis and said America could invade Iraq under a U N flag.

Because the sanctions are something I hold against our Democratic Leadership. They are something I hold very much against the Clinton because there was no moral justification for them.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm
http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm

And Kosovo also.

I am totally against the American Empire.

but I don't expect to be crucified for the wars I support and deified for the ones I oppose.

I supported the Bosnian and Kosovo campaigns. Milosevic was persecuting the indigenous majority in Kosovo and needed to be stopped.

People of good faith can disagree.

I supported Gulf War 1 because I don't think stronger nations should be able to prey on weaker nations just as a strong person shouldn't be able to prey on the weak . If I saw a "stronger" person attacking youI would hope I had the strength and courage to stop it.

Of course Dean supported the sanctions. You can do a Google Search . He supported the Clinton-Blair policy re: Iraq which sanctions were a key part.

and people of good faith often disagree which is why my mother always taught me to never discuss either politics or religion. I would be reluctant to crucify any well-meaning person over this because I believe we were sold a packet of lies which is what all governments do whenever they need the people's support for war.

I don't blame the people. I blame the governments.

If you think that stronger nations shouldn't be able to prey on the weak, how can you support a candidate that doesn't want to dismantle NAFTA, GATT and WTO? Those are also tools of war. Economic wars are not much kinder and no more moral than unjustified military wars.

If I saw a "stronger" person attacking you I would hope I had the strength and courage to stop it.

I think our definition might differ as to who that stronger person is and whether or not the "weaker" person hadn't seriously over-stepped boundaries.

I was not pleased with my country when we gave Sadaam the Green Light to attack a province that had once belonged to Iraq and only set up as an independent country by Western Powers- nor was I pleased when we had to get all emotional about it and fabricate stories about babies being ripped from their incubators so that the American people wouldn pay no attention to the fact that it was the US Ambassador herself, Ms. Guillespie, who assured Sadaam the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait after the Kuwaiti Al-Shaba thugs had refused to stop using slant well technology to siphon oil out Iraqi oil fields and all the while exceeding its oil quotas and bringing the price of oil down to practically pennies.

We look at things so differently because I do not and can not buy my country's lies.

It's been about oil and the American Empire from day 1. No child, no human deserves to die for that. I don't think my country is good. I would like to see it become good, hah, make that better, but for that to happen we need RADICAL, RADICAL change.

And then the horrible sanctions afterwards... Sigh... We really have to get to the reparations stage if we are to rejoin the ranks of semi-civilized countries again. I see nothing less than a radically new way of doing things to get us to that stage.

How I see things... :shrug:

"Imagine" you know.

maybe in another thread.

I am familiar with April Glasbie's meeting with Sadaam where she said America had no position on inter Arab disputes.

I know that America played both sides in the Iraq-Iran dispute.


You don't have to convince me of America's capacity for perfidy but I guess where we depart is I also see an America that is capable of doing good and does good at some times.

It's not even a contest.

Colin Powell was able to cajole nine members of the Security Council
and all the permanent members.

That is all that standed in the way of Howard Dean's support.

It seems that Dean's objections were process oriented not results oriented.

I just don't see how this makes him the anti-war demigod.

troops for the effort, then this invasion and occupation would have been far better for the Iraqis, the US and the entire world.

And how would it have been imperial?

of forty, fifty nations are bumping into each other in Iraq doesn't make this adventure any more or less imperial if you believed it was imperial in the first place.

It would have been even MORE imperial! It was through cajoling and threatening that we were able to get everyone to support the sancions for over a decade! The UN was practically in open revolt over being strong-armed like this. This has been the US/UK show from the beginning.

Very well put- your post.

It proves Dean is not a pacifist.

And this is the attack I didn't want to happen so since Dean was against it that's what I need to know! :kick:

It makes me wonder if they really want the democratic party to win.