Voters hearing Howard Dean

I am overwhelmed by the recent surge of misinformed columns and letters arguing Howard Dean's viability in the general election and his inability to connect with middle America, a liability his opponents claim will doom the Democrats' chance to regain control of the White House.

There is little doubt that the Democratic Leadership Council's attack on Dean has opened a Pandora's box for the opposition and given Joe Lieberman a life raft for his stagnant campaign.

Dean's firm stand against the Iraq war and Bush's misguided policy does not make him liberal or weak in defense. Actually, Dean calls for more military spending and supported other U.S. interventions.

With billions of dollars spent around the world in military ventures - $4 billion per month in Iraq alone - shouldn't we be applauding the Vermont candidate for wanting to give Americans a share of their country's wealth for their health care needs, particularly the 42 million uninsured Americans? If the medical profession can abide by its code "First, do no harm," surely the government should be the guarantor of such policy to every American.

Howard Dean is speaking for all Americans, and countless of inspired voters are listening.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0821thurlets214.html (btw, this is from my home state of Arizona :toast: )

Dean would be the guy we want. No ifs, ands, or buts.

take any stance he wants.

on a issue. Well we should of never elected Bill Clinton who never had a vote in Congress.

Why wasn't Kerry one of them?

him having an opinion even though he is not a congressman or senator?

23 Senators did not vote for the resolution. Why wasn't Kerry one of them?

Yeah...that's it, he was misled!

I wasn't Kerry's fault, poor widdle John was misled by that 'ol George Bush. Who would have thought such a thing would happen?

It was because he wanted Bush to have the "threat of force" to compell Saddam into cooperating with the UN.

Or was it because he wanted to compell Bush to work through the UN?

No, wait, it was because we had to disarm Saddam, no matter what, and Kerry clearly supported Bush disarming Saddam.

Once he dies, I fear there will never be another one like him. He was a true American in most ways despite those 3 months in 1946.

has a paltry 61 lifetime rating from the ADA and successfuly challenged Ted Kennedy for Senate Majority leader in 1970 when he was weakened by Chappaquidick.

Why do you reduce a politician to his worst vote.

I checked www.adaction.org and John Kerry has a higher ADA rating than Ted Kennedy

It killled thousands. For no reason. No reason at all other than we could.

Eloriel

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

... counting the house dems. it would not have taken extraordinary courage for Kerry to join them. instead, Kerry voted with the repubs on one of the most important moral issues of our time. Kerry gave Bush the green light to commit a crime against humanity. not only that, but he refuses to repent of it.

he just doesn't do it much.

Let's see...how many has he missed?

Kerry sounded like he was going to oppose it, and then didn't.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

That doubts Dean's ability to reach voters, any kind of voter just has not been watching.

not to mention over 88,000 on the Meetup site.

Yeah, he's not being heard...

We're having him here in Santa Fe on the 3rd of Sept. Come on out and meet him!

:kick:

NO.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

Cue crickets while we wait...

Nice post kilbot.

:toast:

http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/iraq/20030710-26176.shtml

But Kerry, who has been attacked himself by other Democrats for voting late last year to give Bush the power to invade Iraq, said he was making Bush's conduct of the war a focus of his run for the Democratic nomination. "One of the reasons I am running for president of the United States is to hold this president accountable for the lack of planning, the lack of diplomacy, the lack of strategy and the lack of commitment to the multilateral institutions that have helped America be strong,'' he said.

Kerry seemed keenly aware that he may have difficulty squaring his support for use of force with his criticism of Bush and faces accusations of fence-straddling.

Kerry repeatedly pointed out how he had been critical of Bush's approach to the war and its planning long before the invasion. But Kerry said his vote was ``100 percent correct'' and he believed the threat of force was justified and he did not regret casting it.

"What I regret is that this president did such a bad job,'' he said.

--snip--

He is taking the risk of alienating anti-war progressives because he is more afraid of scaring away moderates and independents. It's good that he's attacking b*sh now, but for many people, the "100% correct"
line is a deal-breaker. Kerry made a mistake with his war vote, and his criticisms won't have any validity until he admits it.

He announced his candidacy before the California lunacy began.

Because both you and I know that until that vote in October, 80%+ of political coverage on TV/radio/print will be sucked-up by the recall race. The Doc declared, got some great media coverage (they really are giving him the star treatment.. it's nice for a change), and now he's in a comfy position. Hell.. some are arguing that the Democratic race is, for all practical purposes, frozen until October.

If/when Kerry, Clark, et al declare once again.. they'll get maybe 60% of the time that Dean got because of the CA race. No cover of Time and Newsweek. No wide, beaming, glorifying, McCain-like media coverage. As a Dean supporter, that makes me smile. Another smart move from the Dean camp.. what a surprise! :party: