"Dean blasts Kerry on Vietnam"

http://www.thehill.com/news/101503/kerry.aspx

I like both candidates, though neither is my 1st choice. I think this was unfortunate on Dean's part...

That's a dupe...

What actually was said:
“Before he became a political candidate for president, John Kerry clearly believed that military service should not be used for political gain,” said Jay Carson, a spokesman for Dean, the former governor of Vermont who is running well ahead of Kerry in recent New Hampshire polls.

“And he was right about that,” Carson added. “Unfortunately, now John Kerry and his campaign have a strategy to use that record to further his political career.”

because they are the only ones with executive experience. No hypocrisy there?

Kerry's positioning himself post 9-11, right along with most of the American people. Post 9-11 has a chickenhawk in office making this world a less safe place.

You want to wave a magic wand and make service not matter to the American people in this post 9-11 world, go right ahead.

btw....After serving as president, Clinton said the one thing he would change in his life was he'd have served in Vietnam. He realized the importance of it while in office. Does Dean want to attack Clinton for waffling on that?

Just from some Dean staffer I've never heard of.

Sounds like "The Hill" is trying to fabricate a story.

but the person quoted was Dean's spokesperson. If Dean is not happy with this person's statements, expect Dean to fire them. You shouldn't expect Dean to pass the buck for his spokesperson's statements (or falsely accuse the press of lying) the way you did, unless you think Dean won't take responsibility for how his own campaign is run.

The article's title is "Dean blasts Kerry." Dean didn't say anything -- yet.

And don't put words in my mouth. I'm not trying to "pass the buck" for Dean. In fact, I think the criticism of Kerry expressed in this article is quite valid and would be glad if Dean actually HAD said it. If Kerry is going to accuse other candidates of flip-flopping, he'd better be prepared to hear some of his own flip-flops recited.

My point is, once again, that apart from a couple of sentences uttered by a low-level Dean spokesperson, most of the criticism against Kerry in this article comes from the author and not Dean or anyone else in the Dean camp.

It came from his campaign, and he hasn't renounced the statement. Dean is responsible for his own campaign.

Also, Kerry hasn't flip-flopped on this issue. In the past, Kerry has never said that military service was prerequisite and he isn't saying it during this campaign either. He is merely pointing out that military service is a plus in his opinion. A "plus", not a "prerequisite"

for being possibly the only president in the history of the United States to reverse Reaganomics....raise the upper rate to 38%, balance the budget and pay down the debt by 500B....

Don't look to him for philosophy on personal matters.....

because they are the only ones with executive experience. No hypocrisy there?

Where did he say that? I'm eager to know.

I disagree with him if that's the case. But it seems like traditionally, people have preferred governors.

After serving as president, Clinton said the one thing he would change in his life was he'd have served in Vietnam. He realized the importance of it while in office. Does Dean want to attack Clinton for waffling on that?

I wouldn't hope so, but I think it's a silly thing to say. Many of the vietnam vets I've spoken to said that if they could change anything, it would be NOT serving in Vietnam. I don't fault them for that.

because he was a governor, and if that's a fair distinction to make, then the experiences of others should be weighed as well.

I don't think it's silly of Clinton to say. If you spent 8 years as president with the weight of the world and all its wars on your shoulders, you may have a greater understanding of what he feels.

...has Dean just given up on issuing apologies now? He's already p.o.'d and had to apologize several times already to Graham, Edwards, Gephardt.


Mistakes, regrets -- Dean's had a few
http://www.tothebarricades.com/MT/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=536
WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean's fire-breathing campaign rhetoric has inspired some party activists, but the inaccuracy of some remarks, as well as his characterizations of some rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, has prompted him to issue several apologies this year.

...Earlier this month, a campaign spokeswoman apologized on Dean's behalf after he said he voted against a congressional resolution authorizing war with Iraq, even though he has never been in Congress.

In April, Dean knocked on the door of Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri to make amends for a campaign press release that labeled the congressman's health care proposal ''pie-in-the-sky.''

In March, Dean sent a note of apology to John Edwards of North Carolina....

The latest apology was made Monday, after the former Vermont governor told a group of New Hampshire business leaders his views about appointing justices to the Supreme Court. ''I'm actually the only major candidate who's appointed a judge,'' Dean said. When a reporter later asked whether he misspoke because another candidate, Senator Bob Graham, is a former two-term governor of Florida, Dean replied: ''Bob Graham is a wonderful, decent human being, but at this time he's in single digits in all the states you can't be in single digits in. I have enormous respect for Bob Graham, but at this point he's not one of the top-tier candidates.''

Dean later placed a call to the Associated Press to offer an apology.


Dean apologizes to Edwards over war comment
http://us.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/dean.apology.ap/
Howard Dean sent a handwritten letter to Democratic presidential primary rival John Edwards, apologizing for saying that Edwards avoided talking about his support of the Iraqi conflict before a largely anti-war audience.

....But Dean continued his criticism on Edwards on Monday. "It seems to me he has changed his position," he said, according to a report in the Des Moines Register.

...During an interview Wednesday, Dean, who opposes the war, said he still doesn't understand Kerry's position on Iraq.

I do think that service to one's country that includes mortal danger SHOULD be at least a consideration regarding a candidate. Not the be-all end-all, of course, but still.

That kind of service is a big deal, in my opinion.

Kerry did, back when the wingers were trying to use it against Clinton. Now, of course, he's touting his military service every chance he gets. Considering Kerry's supporters pass out waffles at Dean's rallys, there is no reason this kind of blatant U-turn should not be fair game.

well the gig is up.

Kerry has never said a candidate MUST have some military service. He didn't say that when Clinton was running, and he hasn't said that awhen he brings up his own service record.

Now he says it is. That's waffling.

Kerry has never said it's not a factor. At least, not to my knowledge. If you know better, I'd appreciate some documentation.

You disagree with Kerry:

Kelley Benander, a spokeswoman for Kerry’s campaign, responded to the charges by saying: “John Kerry has always said military experience is not a pre-requisite for the presidency..."

Sagan said that military service is NOT a pre-requisite (like Kerry also said) but that it should be a consideration (as Kerry has implied, if not stated explicitely)

the words "Dean 'blasts' Kerry are a bit strong after reading the article.

My Dad served in Vietnam, doesn't mean he'd make a good President.

And not doing any personal attacks.

This is really reaching. Dean continues to dissapoint me. He has my support if he is the nominee but his tactics and "do as I say not as I do" politics is disheartening.

I could see if Kerry said something about Dean not serving but he didn't. So why would Dean bring this up. Unless I missed something that Kerry said specifically about Dean not serving. Then it is fair game. But if not it is very dissapointing.

read the damn article. Dean didn't say one word about it.

If that statement was unauthorized, I'm sure you would support Dean correcting his spokesperson on the record, then?

DTH

I'm sure that if the spokesman had said something erroneous, there would be a correction.

If so, can we please dispense with this "Dean didn't say anything" nonsense?

DTH

It seems to me that people were adamant about just such a distinction between candidate and spokespeople when the Kerry "campaign" sent the CNN debate moderators a fax in the middle of last week's debate.

No one excused Kerry about those faxes. The blame was being put on the moderator, not Kerry

Well then, in this case will just put the blame on the reporter, shall we?

YOU will probably try to pass the buck away from Dean. I will hold Dean responsible for his own campaign.

if he wins the nomination, out of curiosity.

It might suck, having to vote for someone you feel so much contempt for.

and yes, I'll vote for him, but he's not getting the nom

he's not getting the nom

Really!

I am amazed at your ability to see into the future.

to your inability to see the present

I mean, seeing the present would be seeing Dean kick Kerry's ass all over the polls. Kerry, the preliminary front runner and Dean the up out of nowhere unknown.

Your devotion to Dean is admirable. But please don't vote for him if he doesn't get the nomination.

I'm just trying to find a little consistencey here. When I pointed out, correctly, that Dean did not attack Kerry, it was suggested that he is just as responsible even though it was a spokesperson who made an observation. Then, when I pointed out, correctly, that people were suggesting last week that Kerry shouln't be held reposinsible for the fax his campaign sent to CNN during the debate, you suggested that. indeed, neither he nor his campaign should be responsible. Rather the blame was to be fixed on the conduit. Fine, applying your logic, I simply extended it to this case to conclude that neither Dean nor his spokesperson should be held accountable, that we fix the blame on the rerporter. Seems pretty consistent to me.

The difference between the two events was that the fax was read due to a mistake by the debate's moderator. ALL of the Dems were sending negative faxes about their competitors, but Woodruff chose one of Kerry's to read, which wasn't supposed to happen. If you want to blame Kerry for sending negative faxes, then in the interests of fairness, you should also blame Dean for doing the same because Dean does that too.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's what campaigns do. It's not their place to defend their competitors. They are expected to criticize them, and so I don't blame Kerry, Dean, or anyone else for criticizing their competitors.

However, in the case of this statement, it came out of Dean's campaign, it's on an issue that Kerry has NOT criticized Dean on because Kerry has NEVER said that military service should be a prerequisite. Dean's campaign is fallaciously criticizing Kerry for doing something Kerry has never done.

The difference between the two events was that the story was written due to a mistake by the reporter. ALL of the Dem spokespeople make negative comments about their competitors, but Dealey chose one of Dean's to report, which wasn't supposed to happen. If you want to blame Dean's spokesman for making observation unfavorable to Kerry, then in the interests of fairness, you should also blame Kerry for doing the same because Kerry does that too.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's what campaigns do. It's not their place to defend their competitors. They are expected to criticize them, and so I don't blame Kerry, Dean, or anyone else for criticizing their competitors.

However, in the case of the debate fax, it came out of Kerry's campaign, it's on an issue that Dean has NOT criticized Kerry on because Dean has NEVER tried to kick Vermont seniors off their prescription drug plan. Kerry's campaign was fallaciously criticizing Dean for doing something Dean has never done.

ALL of the Dem spokespeople make negative comments about their competitors, but Dealey chose one of Dean's to report, which wasn't supposed to happen

Why wasn't it supposed to happen? It happens all the time. If Dean's spokesperson doesn't know that the press reports what the various campaigns say, then they don't belong in that job.

However, in the case of the debate fax, it came out of Kerry's campaign, it's on an issue that Dean has NOT criticized Kerry on because Dean has NEVER tried to kick Vermont seniors off their prescription drug plan. Kerry's campaign was fallaciously criticizing Dean for doing something Dean has never done.

Not true. Dean did say what the Kerry campaign quoted him as saying, while on the other hand, what Dean's spokeperson said was untrue. Kerry has not reversed himself on the issue of whether military experience is needed to be President.

IOW, there's nothing wrong with the candidates criticizing each other, but it is a problem when Dean's campaign lies.

several to Edwards, Graham and Gephardt. It's become somewhat of a joke now.

now that is NOT a dupe. I am sure we'll see it soon enough though thanks to hothead Howard.

I know he left as a critic, but is there anything the American people would less like to see than a symbol of our last failed occupation?

Reagan invaded Lebanon = FAILURE

Bush 1 invaded Somalia = FAILURE

Our object in Lebanon and theoretically in Somalia was peacekeeping not occupation anyway :shrug:

But you forget about how Iraq was supposed to be about "liberation", not occupation.

BTW, since when was our objective in VietNam "occupation"? I thought we were protecting them from Communism.

:shrug:

was to attack the South Vietnamese civilian population until they decided not to be Communist. Maybe the justifications coming out of the day mentioned things like "defending democracy" but you really couldn't prove it by anything that happened there.

I guess you don't realize that similarly dishonest arguments could be made about Somalia and Lebanon. I guess you don't realize that we never claim "occupation" as an objective, but that doesn't stop you from selectively (when it suits your position) claiming that it was the objective.

I have no idea what the fuck your problem is but I added "theoretically" to Somalia because our conduct there also sort of rules out humanitarian ends.

Lebanon is a more complicated matter and the goal wasn't US occupation, and it worked at cross-purposes enough times with what would be the cynical motivation (establishing Israeli occupation) to make that a problematic sell.

Lay off the drugs.

Quit while you are behind.

Don

This is the wierdest bunch of paranoid bullshit I've ever seen in my life.

I have no idea what the fuck your problem is but I added "theoretically" to Somalia because our conduct there also sort of rules out humanitarian ends.

Yes, you added "theoretically" to Somalia, but for some odd reason you won't get "theoretical" when it comes to the other "occupations". It's obvious that you call something an "occupation" when it suits your purposes, and call it something else when it doesn't.

You see, I NOT going to "chill out", but I can respond to your arguments without using the word "fuck" and without implying that you're on drugs.

You see, I NOT going to "chill out", but I can respond to your arguments without using the word "fuck" and without implying that you're on drugs.


Well see how long it takes for you to call him "simple".

I like how you come into the thread spewing your vitriol all over everyone and then seem to claim that you're taking the high road.

. . understand that our candidate needs to appeal to the insecurity of those disengaged voters in the middle. That's what Bush/Rove are pounding them with every day. That's the only strategy that the pukes can depend on - with everything else going to hell in a handbasket.

Dean doesn't have the military credentials that Kerry does. But it's self-defeating to say that a firsthand awareness of the seriousness and management of military conflict would not be an advantage, or even a necessity, for our candidate.

I haven't picked a candidate yet but Dean's supporters should point out qualities that Dean has, that Kerry doesn't, instead of trying to diminish the importance of Kerry's miltary background to those who will probably determine the next election .

is what I hear from his supporters. But I think his weak foreign policy credentials are leading us straight to defeat.

So you don't think that candidates who used to be governors should ever be eligible for the white house?

Clinton had no foreign policy credentials, and he was on top of shit with Bin Laden.

No one said that "governors should never be eligible for the white house"

Try to pay attention to what's actually being said.

tell me how a governor is supposed to have foreign policy credentials.

I'm not here to explain simple ideas to simple people merely because you are unable to keep yourself from putting words in other people's mouths

I'm not here to explain simple ideas to simple people merely because you are unable to keep yourself from putting words in other people's mouths

Yeah, well, thanks for the help. Good to know you're here with the best intentions.

Ho-Ho got a note from his friendly family orthopedist stating he had a bad back, so the draft board classified him 1-Y and he got out of serving during Vietnam. The fact that he spent that winter skiing, where he earned a reputation as a hard-nosed master of the moguls, doesn't have ANY bearing on his ability to serve as commander-in-chief, he said.

Dean's wrong: The US armed forces work because the troops trust the leadership. The people at the bottom of the chain of command trust those above them. When the top is corrupted, it eventually becomes apparent to ALL below, as in the present case with Bushler. With Dean, the men and women would know their boss was a draft dodger.

EDIT: Typo -- they're into their in last sentence. D'oh!

Ho-Ho got a note from his friendly family orthopedist stating he had a bad back, so the draft board classified him 1-Y and he got out of serving during Vietnam. The fact that he spent that winter skiing, where he earned a reputation as a hard-nosed master of the moguls, doesn't have ANY bearing on his ability to serve as commander-in-chief, he said.

YEAH! He should have either stowed away on a boat and fought in vietnem as an angry citizen or refused to have any fun for the rest of his life out of respect for the guys who went to Vietnem. You're so on point about this!

on the matter.
Give Kerry credit for volunteering to serve society eons ahead of the slow to come to grips with reality Dean.

Feel free to tell me what Dean should have done.

Did you say Kerry volunteered? He was for the war in Vietnam?

Kerry volunteered for service in the spirit of his idol JFK.

This is how you chose Kerry over Dean? What's your cutoff? I haven't dedicated my life to public service yet. Should I do it now? Will you look at me differently if I do?

And again, Kerry was in favor of the US going to war in Vietnam?

Edit: Kennedy sent support troops to vietnam, but do you think he would have favored doing what Johnson ended up doing?

He should have either stowed away on a boat and fought in vietnem as an angry citizen or refused to have any fun for the rest of his life out of respect for the guys who went to Vietnem.

No one said Dean should've been a stowaway or refused to have fun. Please try to pay attention to what's actually being said.

You're so on point about this!

And you're not.

No one said Dean should've been a stowaway or refused to have fun. Please try to pay attention to what's actually being said.

Nothing is being said and you know it. Some back handed remark about Dean skiing. Is this what you consider to be important political discourse? Your high horse is standing in quicksand.

You left out half the post, and unsurprisingly, it was the more important point which argued that the troops need to trust the person who leads them and military experience can and does help foster that trust. You ignored the important part just so that you could falsely claim that "Nothing is being said... (just) Some back handed remark about Dean skiing"

There was more than a back-handed remark about Dean's skiing. You just ignored it to construct a straw man.

You left out half the post, and unsurprisingly, it was the more important point which argued that the troops need to trust the person who leads them and military experience can and does help foster that trust. You ignored the important part just so that you could falsely claim that "Nothing is being said... (just) Some back handed remark about Dean skiing"

When you say the troops, you mean as in serving under the commander in chief? That's kind of funny, since it's coming from a supporter of the person who said, "What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary."

And your paraphrase begs the question. Are you suggesting that a person who didn't fight in Vietnam can't get the trust of the troops? That's why this is saying nothing. There's no real discourse going on here. I am not about to entertain the notion that one must have a military background to be president. And I'm still waiting for one of you psychics to back up your claims to know Dean's intent regarding the draft.

Let's break this down. Octafish basically said that Dean's a draft dodger and couldn't get the trust of the troops. Is that what you say, too?

This is so ridiculous. I simply can't believe that this is the angle you are taking.

There was more than a back-handed remark about Dean's skiing. You just ignored it to construct a straw man.

I didn't ignore it, I dismissed it. It's so shallow it doesn't merit a non-sarcastic response.

1) The Kerry quote you provide was in response to Repuke statements that Clinton wasn't qualified to serve as POTUS because he had no military service and because he was a draft dodger. Kerry never said that POTUS must have military experience so that statement doesn't contradict anything Kerry has ever said.

2) I didn't suggest that someone with no experience fighting in VN can't get the trust of the troops for one reason - I don't believe it.

3)I am not about to entertain the notion that one must have a military background to be president.

Then stop bringing it up. I know I didn't say "one must have a military background to be president" and neither did Kerry

4) I didn't ignore it, I dismissed it. It's so shallow it doesn't merit a non-sarcastic response.

That's just not true. You're not ignoring the other part of the post. The other part was about the need for the troops to trust CINC and you responded to that, if a bit late and as a result of my prompting.

1) The Kerry quote you provide was in response to Repuke statements that Clinton wasn't qualified to serve as POTUS because he had no military service and because he was a draft dodger. Kerry never said that POTUS must have military experience so that statement doesn't contradict anything Kerry has ever said.

Well now your context is all screwed up. I was simply pointing out that Kerry's adamant supporter is making Kerry sad.

I know Kerry has never said it. That's why it is so odd that YOU are.

And you're wrong anyway. Kerry wouldn't have brought up the democratic primary if he had been responding to repukes. You see, he's not stupid. He was responding to claims made by BRADLEY, who was actually PARTICIPATING in the democratic primary. Now the quote makes more sense, doesn't it?

2) I didn't suggest that someone with no experience fighting in VN can't get the trust of the troops for one reason - I don't believe it.

Neither do I. But you're in the process of lashing out at me, defending someone who DOES apparently believe it. So WTF is up with that?

Then stop bringing it up. I know I didn't say "one must have a military background to be president" and neither did Kerry

Maybe you jumped in here without understanding what the threadlet is about. I didn't say Kerry said it. I'm replying to a person HERE who said it, who you appear to be defending, although I suspect that you aren't defending anything, but rather just attacking random people here.


That's just not true. You're not ignoring the other part of the post. The other part was about the need for the troops to trust CINC and you responded to that, if a bit late and as a result of my prompting.

Cripes! This is where I take a page from you book and claim that I shouldn't have to explain simple things to simple people who put words in others' mouths. right?

Dean's wrong: The US armed forces work because the troops trust the leadership. The people at the bottom of the chain of command trust those above them. When the top is corrupted, it eventually becomes apparent to ALL below, as in the present case with Bushler. With Dean, the men and women would know their boss was a draft dodger.

That's why Clinton was such a bad President right?

Talk about your right-wing talking points!

he drew a high number. And this is 2003 not 1992. A lot has happened.

The army physical. I don't know if you were around back then, but I was, and it took a lot more than a note from your doctor to get out of the draft. Sorry, that one won't stick.

From "Marin for Howard Dean"...

Dean received student deferments while he was in college. In 1971, after he graduated from Yale, he received a medical deferment for unfused vertebrae in his lower back. He said the condition, which caused him pain when he ran long distances, surfaced when he was on the track team at St. George's. It showed up on an X-ray taken at his draft physical and earned him a 1Y deferment, which kept him from being drafted except in times of national emergency.

http://marinfordean.org/article_text.asp?articleid=211

BTW: What's an "unfused vertebrae?" Aren't they supposed to be unfused?

>>>>>
As a movie star enters the political arena on the West Coast, a presidential candidate from the East Coast finds himself on the big screen. Three documentaries focusing on the life of Senator John F. Kerry and his years as a Vietnam soldier are being produced this year.

"Brothers in Arms," a 68-minute documentary film featuring Kerry and five of his crewmates during the Vietnam War was finished in New York on Tuesday night and was being screened yesterday in New York for reporters. A film about the death of one of Kerry's good friends on a swift boat during the Vietnam War is being played in film festivals across the country and will air on public television stations on Nov. 11. And the documentary filmmaker George Butler, a close friend of Kerry, is making a film about the Democratic presidential campaign.

Two books are also in the works. Douglas Brinkley, a historian, is finishing a biography on Kerry that is scheduled to be released in January. The Massachusetts Democrat is writing a book on policy that is due out Oct. 27.
Will the extra exposure coming from a flurry of multimedia ventures centering around Kerry's life aid him in his presidential bid?

"That remains to be seen," said Kelley Benander, a spokesperson for the Kerry campaign.

Paul Alexander, the director of "Brothers in Arms," said Kerry's life in Vietnam is so visual and dramatic that it's perfect for film.

Brinkley, the author of "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and The Vietnam War," said Kerry's story of a war hero turned antiwar spokesman has the threads of a fascinating narrative.

"For me, I was trying to tell a story of Vietnam, and Kerry's story is a great vehicle," said Brinkley.
What makes Kerry's story especially interesting, Brinkley said, is that the young, Vietnam hero from Massachusetts became a dynamic spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which Brinkley claims had a profound impact on US disengagement of Southeast Asia.
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/kerry_emerges_on_big_screen?mode=PF

I'd forgotten about "Brothers in Arms." Thanks also for the heads-up on the other two films, blm!

Remember John Glenn (D-Earth) putting down Pruneface Reagan in 1984?

"While he was playing 'Hellcats of the Navy' I WAS flying Hellcats for the Navy!"

Ha ha! Here are a couple of pictures that come to mind, separating the pretend-heroes from the real thing:



Sic semper chickenhawkus!

Oh well. I suppose it's better than what Ho-Ho was doing:



"Hey! Lookitme! I'm Mogul Master 1-Y!"

I mean, I watched all of the debates, and I didn't hear him talking about being on a boat in vietnam until the most recent one. please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see how this is any different from the constant Dean bashing going on with Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, and whoever else.

That said. *I* have no opinion in either direction on this. This looks to me like Dean is tossing some of the flip-flop charges back at Kerry because that's what Kerry's main allegation on Dean has been. It appears to me that both sides quoted in the article are being truthfull, however I didn't read it that closely.

The Hill: Dean Assails Kerry on Vietnam War U-turn
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&ncid=669&e=1&u=/031015/180/5kgjc.html

Dean did not "blast" Kerry. A Dean "spokesman" observed an inconsistencey in Kerry's positions on service in Vietnam as a qualification for office.

While it was unecessary for the spokesman to even have made that observation, the article you link to is far more about Kerry's waffling than about the opinions of the spokesman and, most importantly, the whole issue is void of any comment by or opinion of Dean.

Kerry, because it exposes a supposed flip-flop. Dean, because it attracts attention to his own avoidance of service in Vietnam.

I really wish all of our candidates would just keep it clean and positive.

DTH

what with his carrier photo op etc.... so Kerry is just responding to the REAL enemy, and he can't help it if Howard is a lightweight in this regard.

Re-reading the article, I don't see Kerry using his status to bash Dean at all, I see him boosting himself and bashing Bush.

If that's true, then I find the Dean campaign's decision to go after Kerry on this to be rather puzzling. Best to ignore it until (if ever) the time Kerry actually slams Dean with it.

It comes off as very defensive, IMO.

DTH

what with his carrier photo op etc.... so Kerry is just responding to the REAL enemy, and he can't help it if Howard is a lightweight in this regard.

I look at your naivete like I look at my high school dreams. How nice if it were so. Kerry isn't just anything. This is the time in the primaries where candidates separate themselves from the others. Kerry has yardage in the vietnam schtick. He should use it.

But he should be careful about how loudly he shouts it. If he was all for the war, then, well, it helps us understand why he voted for Bush's resolution.

Bush did his photo op in May, Kerry didn't start talking about vietnam, at least in the debates, until the most recent one. The two have nothing to do with ewach other.

in it as if everything revolves around him.

Kerry, because it exposes a supposed flip-flop. Dean, because it attracts attention to his own avoidance of service in Vietnam.

He didn't avoid it. He won't have a problem defending himself there.

And I don't care that Kerry has recently included his Vietnam experience in his stump. He should be admired for it. But if he said that Vietnam shouldn't be an issue, then he's changing his view. But he's being very subtle about it. He's alluding to it rather than harping on it.

I really wish all of our candidates would just keep it clean and positive.

Amen, but they gave that up a long time ago.

He brought in his personal doctor's papers to the draft board with the clear intent of avoiding the draft.

Now, I have no real problem with what he did. I can't say I would've done anything different.

But there's no dispute about the facts, and that he avoided service.

Amen, but they gave that up a long time ago.

Clark hasn't.

DTH

But what do I know being labeled a naive fool by Hep?

You're being sa bit sensitive for an internet forum, no?

You're not a fool, and you're not naive because you think Dean is a draft dodger.

Do you think the doctor didn't have evidence of the condition?

More importantly, do you think that when going to a physical that the doctor should have incomplete information about your health?

You're going a long way to find fault here. I don't know why. I don't know how anyone can claim to know intent without some kind of evidence, which I'm more than happy to consider.

The doctor who supplied the X-rays is dead, and Dean claims to have destroyed them and the accompanying paperwork.

Again, however, the intent seems pretty clear to me. And again, I don't fault him for it; but that is what the record appears to show.

DTH

He brought in his personal doctor's papers to the draft board with the clear intent of avoiding the draft.

Sorry. You might be right, but I can't give any credibility to a strangers claim to know the intent of another's actions without something to back it up. Seems like your medical record is important to know for any physical. I expect my doctor to have all of my medical information when I go.

Clark hasn't.

With good reason. He doesn't have half the work in separating himself from the others. And he's got great numbers.

Those are the two main reasons why candidates attack each other, right? If I'm wrong, please tell me. But it has been said, the only thing more dangerous than engaging in attacks is ignoring them. As he gets bombarded from the others, don't be surprised if he gets into it. I won't feel less for him if he does.

IMO, anyway.

But it has been said, the only thing more dangerous than engaging in attacks is ignoring them. As he gets bombarded from the others, don't be surprised if he gets into it. I won't feel less for him if he does.

I won't either, but I will be disappointed if he goes negative against any given candidate FIRST.

That's actually impossible to do with Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich and Lieberman, actually, since they've all taken pot shots at Clark already. In my book, Clark has license to go negative against all of them without losing any moral ground. Well, mildly negative, anyway. I wouldn't want anyone to go nuclear against anyone else.

DTH

It would be clear to anyone who wants it to be that way and unclear to anyone who doesn't. So we'll call that a draw!

I won't either, but I will be disappointed if he goes negative against any given candidate FIRST.

He won't have to. I wouldn't expect it. I'll be more disappointed in his advisors than in him.

That's actually impossible to do with Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich and Lieberman, actually, since they've all taken pot shots at Clark already. In my book, Clark has license to go negative against all of them without losing any moral ground. Well, mildly negative, anyway. I wouldn't want anyone to go nuclear against anyone else.

Exactly. It's an ugly side of politics that I wish didn't exist. When Dean engaged in it against Clark, I shuddered. I don't give a rats ass about what he says to Gephardt or Kerry, but it made me sad when he went after Clark. But I blame advisors first, and then wag my finger at the candidate for not vetoing it.

Thanks for a good and reasonable discussion. :-) I am still holding out hope for a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket.

DTH

I recently went to a political activism training sponsored by the NC Dems. Huge turnout. Tons of Dean guys, and about a half dozen clark guys, and this was before he declared. That was it in terms of buttons I saw. No Edwards people, IN NC! It shows that were eager to make good on the goal of changing our party for the better and that we know how to do it. We learned a lot.

I'm in NC too, where was the training meeting and will there be another? PM me if you read this and want to repond, I'm quiting this thread.

It was in September, IIRC, at the Sheraton in Durham. I don't think there will be another, but I can share with you most of what I picked up there. Some of it was pointless, more geared to being a candidate, but I learned a lot about precinct organization.

It's rather laughable that you consider him to have a credible opinion of your candidate.

Some of the things Dean has done has bothered me. But I'd still vote for him in a heartbeat if the gets the nom, and if doesn't go negative against Clark, I'll even donate to and volunteer for him.

As for Dean having a credible opinion on Clark, I actually just want to make sure Dean's past statements about him are held up for review, in the event Dean makes any further negative attacks on Clark.

DTH

I have my favorite, but I also have a few "top tier" candidates, any of whom I'd vote for in a heartbeat. Any of them would also make fine VeePees. But Clark is not immune from critisizm. I'd be the first to admonish Dean for making an unwarrented critisizm of Clark, but there are many miles to go and it's not a given that Clark won't say anything that needs to be refuted or contradicted.

That's the problem with and danger of negativity, IMO.

And you're right, it's certainly NOT a given that Clark will continue to stay positive. But as of RIGHT NOW, he has. IMO, that is credit-worthy.

DTH

Eventually, we'll work it all out and damn if the right-wing won't be in for some shit when we unite and turn our attention to the ultimate target.

:toast:

Peace,
DTH

Well, all I've got to say is that's DU at its best. Cracking one open now and toasting DTH!

and has led to a situation where Clark is going to become a serious contender.

Problem is....the repubs will come out about 6 months before the end and put the cabosh to him.

Then he might run independent and screw up the entire democratic chance.

I say get the hell out of the military mindset and stick with the most important issues....and when you think about them.....they have really less to do with the military then they ever have.......

problem is Bush has put us there.

Votes for war then critizes war.

Says Vietnam should not be used for political capitol...then what does he do.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Kerry waffles more than the Waffle house down the street.

He served in the war, then became an adament spokesman against it, and then said it shouldn't be a consideration when held for elected office, and now is playing up his "war hero" status at every turn. And unlike most of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he even has his original medals to prove it. But of course if you listen to the Kerry camp, Dean is the only waffler in this race... :eyes:

But of course if you listen to the Kerry camp, Dean is the only waffler in this race...

Dean took all of his steam.

isn't more competitive. Dean only took Kerry's steam because Kerry misjudged the anger of much of the Democratic base. He had ample opportunity to respond to Dean's surge by showing some humilty and sincerity concerning his Iraq Invasion and Patriot Act stances, but for whatever reason, he never adequately did. IMHO Kerry is a good candidate who took a lot of horrible advice. It's a shame too, Kerry has a lot of positives which have been seriously underplayed.

which must really gall Kerry considering the facts. So let's be fair.

I've already said, and I'll say again that I have no problem with Kerry talking up whatever is strong about him. I'm all for it. He served in Vietnam, and whether or not it is important WRT electability, he is free to use it.

But war status has been played up for decades. He isn't doing it in response to Bush, and if he is, I would like to remind you of how disingenuous it looked when Bush did it, and it seems that to copy that tactic would be a bad political move.

That wasn't an angle I was considering.

Sorry, but I see no problem with Kerry's touting his war record - especially if his war experience led to his later opposition. The Iraq vote is another story all together, but dean should not touch Vietnam!

Dean isn't touching Vietnam. Why would he do that? Ask yourself, why would he make that move? Is there any advantage? Any good that can come from it? Of course not. There must be something else.

from the usual suspects and more pavlovian responses. Works evertime.

:eyes:

after having supported the invasion resolution, he deserves to be screamed at and have shit thrown at him by a gang of rabid monkeys.

Go Dean. Fuck the PNACers and their enablers.

Actually, I can't imagine how anyone in good conscience could possibly vote for the war but not in favor of rebuilding. Now that would be totally impossible to justify. Its okay to bomb but we don't want to rebuild?

I'm not.

I think we are there to steal their oil.

I think they want us to leave NOW.

I think the money will be used to bribe foreign governments to send troops to be substitute targets for American targets and to enrich cronies of SmirkCo.

Silly me. What do I know.

I don't believe a fucking thing SmirkCo says or does is for any good purpose whatsoever. If you do, I can't help you.

The only infrastructure we care about rebuilding is the Iraqi oil industry.

Don

And the in the current situation, Kerry's credentials trump Dean's and would no matter how genuine Dean's condition is or was. I'm not making any judgements about it for more than one reason. Lots of guys got I knew got out that way, for one thing, and for another it might be 100% for real. Things that are a problem under military conditions don't necessarily stop you from doing things in civilian life. I knew one guy who was drafted, done deal, good-bye party, headed off to basic training and got sent home for boils. He was happy about it but it wasn't something he even tried make happen. Just for some reason, boils are a huge problem in the military and he was probably all stressed out and had an outbreak just in time, I guess. In civilian life, some salve eases the problem.

So, getting out of the draft for medical reasons doesn't make you a bad person or even necessarily a draft dodger. But, and this is a huge, big but, in the current climate it's not going to play well in the general. Kerry, OTOH, not only served, but came back to vocally protest the war. Clark's my guy and I think he's an even better candidate than Kerry, but on credentials alone, Kerry's got it going on. Dean does not, for this particular general election.

The problem is that I will not be the only one voting next year. And four more years of Bush will destroy this country.

Don