Bob Graham campaign stumbling

He sounds resigned to defeat.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/17/Columns/Looking_for_Graham_s_.shtml

Sitting in an RV lumbering through Iowa farmland last week Graham questioned whether "the Howard Dean phenomenon" would have happened had Graham entered the race earlier.

"I would not only have been saying similar things that have gotten Howard such a surge in support, but would have been saying them on the basis of, "Look I wasn't just talking about voting against the war, I actually did it,' " Graham said, as a granddaughter napped with her head on his leg.

...

Rather, he was acknowledging that his late entry in the race - he started seriously looking at running in December and, after a delay for heart surgery, announced his candidacy in May - has hurt him more than he expected.

The biggest hurdles? No national fundraising network geared up. And Dean.

The former Vermont governor has run away with the issue that could have distinguished Graham from the pack. In Iowa, where Graham is counting on a strong showing, more than 60 percent of likely caucusgoers opposed the war. The latest Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters found Dean leading the field with 23 percent support and Graham trailing at 1 percent.

Yea, you have strong parallels to Dean and your message has been a breath of fresh air to the stale democratic lip service we've been suffering with since *bush was anointed.

You probably are correct, the heart surgery was a campaign set back....You did make a difference and that will be your legacy. You will not be forgotten....Things sometimes happen for a reason. You did good.

Thank you Bob. :)

I support Howard Dean, but I truly LOVE Bob Graham. I'm originally from Florida, and after my father (evil Rescumlican bastard) had prostate cancer Bob Graham personally made calls and worked to help him wade through the sea of shite that is our Social Security Administration. It helped my parents tremendously, and they didn't have to spend their entire life savings to survive. (And it probably helped my dad survive the cancer, too. I think it gave him hope.)

My folks are both staunch Repugs, but they've always voted for Bob Graham. They always will vote for Bob Graham, too. (They're probably not the only Repugs who have crossed party lines to send money to his campaign.) He does have what it takes to be POTUS. The timing may have been off for him, that's all.

I pray that he and Dean join forces to save our country. That would be an amazing ticket.

and speaks volumes about Graham. I too, hold him in high esteem, think he's qualified to be President, and would make a great VP, but I hope, if he drops out, he holds onto his Senate seat. We need him there.

Also read an Edwards piece in the NYT, looks like Edwards is also thinking of dropping out if his Iowa blitz doesn't result in movement in his campaign over the next two months. Hanging on to Senate seats is so critical I'm drawing a deep breath of relief this morning.

I'd vote for him as President also, but, I think coming in the race late did hurt him.

Graham is very free trade, more conservative than other candidates on social issues, and didn't vote for the war resolution because he was against invading Iraq, but because he wanted to give Bush permission to invade Syria and Iran too.

The only reason why Graham would be even ten miles within a Democratic ticket is Florida. Period.

Let's address your claims one-by-one:

Graham is very free trade

• There is no substantial difference betweeen Bob Graham's record and beliefs on trade and, for instance, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. Graham simply has the courage to be honest with labor.
  
• Graham helped create nearly 2 million jobs during his time as governor of florida. And in the course of doing so, he left the Florida AFL-CIO in a much stronger position than it had been before. In particular, AFSCME & SEIU have benefitted greatly from Graham's leadership of the state.
  

more conservative than other candidates on social issues

• This is a bullsh!t claim devoid of any shred of proof. There is no substantial difference between Graham on social issues and Bill Clinton.
  
• Graham is substantially more liberal than the rest of the Democratic Party on the issue of immigration.
  
• The only social issue for which Graham is 'more conservative' is the death penalty.
  

didn't vote for the war resolution because he was against invading Iraq, but because he wanted to give Bush permission to invade Syria and Iran too.

• This is just another willful distortion (otherwise known as a lie) of Graham's courageous and historic statement from the Senate Floor on 10/10/2002
  
• First of all, Bob Graham is a serious hawk on the War on Terrorism. If you don't like the idea of going after terrorists so that they can't continue to hijack/kidnap/torture/murder American citizens as they have been doing for the last 30 years, then you shouldn't vote for Bob Graham period.
  
• As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Graham the most knowledgeable official in the entire government on the state of the nation's WoT. He was alarmed then and is alarmed now at the woeful effort the Bush people have been making in going after terrorist organizations which are actively targeting the US.
  
• Bob Graham voted against the War on Iraq for the basic reason that it DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER in the context of the America's longterm diplomatic interests nor more importantly the War on Terror.
  
• On the day prior to the final senate vote on the Iraq War resolution, Graham put forward a <i>sham amendment</i> that would have expanded the resolution to authorize Bush to take military action in several other countries in the middle east which harbor terrorist groups with which the US has had difficulties before.
  
• The purpose of that sham amendment was to EXPOSE THE LOGICAL FALLACIES OF THE ENTIRE BUSH/GOP/DLC ARGUMENT FOR SUPPORTING THE WAR; Graham's point: how in the hell can you call for extensive military action in the middle east for the purpose of protecting America, when (1)you're not going after those groups which present the greatest threat to America, and (2)the very military action which you propose is likely to be a powerful catalyst for new catastrophic terrorist attacks on Americans?
  
• Graham's point was proved when all the Iraq War supporters voted against his amendment. They proved that they voted for the Iraq war out of some ulterior malice or overt cowardice, but clearly not because they were concerned about making Americans safer.
  
• It was a clever, brilliant one-man parliamentary protest that should be celebrated from the mountaintops by everyone who was against the war. Instead, we get Deanies willfully distorting Graham's actions for political gain.
  

I hope getting Dean elected is worth trashing an honorable man like Bob Graham's reputation and record. Bleeeech!

I would like to see some documentation for that -- some admission by Graham that that's what he was doing. 'Cause that doesn't match his own words on the subject that the Resolution "wasn't tough enough."

And you have the nerve to attack a Dean supporter for "trashing an honorable man." Dear God, all we've got are his own freakin' WORDS to go on (now that anti-war is "cool"). And you DARE say he was "willfully distorting" Graham's record? This is an outrage.

So let's see some documentation to support your wild claim.

Eloriel

Has spoke out strongly against Bush and his 911 coverup. His word cannot be questioned. I support Dean but think the world of Sen. Graham. I hope he hangs on to his senate seat, but he would make a great VP, and would be a fine President. He is one fine, courageous democrat.:toast:

Graham and Edwards have been AWOL from many candidate forums. Hard to build a base and support if you don't show up.