Doesn't supporting Dean follow DUs core ideals?

I mean seriously is the Du not about the average citizen and their
power in the political world? It seems to me that whether we believe in Deans stances 100% or not by supporting him we are supporting ourselves. Dean has proven that the average citizen can make a difference with our measly dollars. A former obscure candidate is now the National frontrunner!
We could never forgive ourselves if we don't follow through with such an opportunity as to change politics as we know it.
These our our days and with Dean's help we can create real change.

Initially he was made out to be a divider and an elitist.
Now some DU-ers are saying Dean is centrist.
Odd, isn't it?

What is your stance otherwise?

The DLC leadership is either unwise or working against Dems, IMHO.

Also, I think that Dean was too anti-corporatist for them and Dean's method of fundraising removed alot of power that the DLC had over Democratic candidates through their big corporate funding.

He was one of the most big-business friendly governors throughout his career.

He was the CATO Institute's HIGHEST rated Democrat, fer chrissakes. You think CATO gives that kudo to ANTI-corporatists?

Why do YOU think that he is anti-corporatist? Can you cite his anti-corporate record while he was in government in Vermont.

he is anti-corporate abuse...

could nominate a ham sandwich and I would vote for him (her, it, whatever)

Being a registered R (hence mole), I get lots of BS in the mail. In the Business Reply fundraiser envelopes, I put in a penny and let them pay the postage. In the 2000 primary, I wrote in Al Gore, not that it mattered, but it makes me feel better. The NJ primary is so late that it doesn't really matter anyway.

Keep fighting!!

And I welcome you. Only by working together can we get out of this mess.

:hi:

Julie

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

BLT- Tastes Great, fairly healthy

George W Bush- INSERT RESUME HERE

The Ham Sandwich (D) campaign is growing as we speak.

might be said to follow the ideals of this forum.But there are higher principles involved than the rules, mores and such of one little forum.

I am not bothered by support for any candidate for the nomination, that is, after all, the expression of a citizen of a free society. I am, on the other hand, repelled by the postings that seek to make the choice subject to ridicule, and, in some cases, calling ones own choice disloyalty or traitorous.

Did some of us miss the memo? Is there some sort of statement of principals or other barometer as to how both candidates and DU members rates regarding to some kinda of agenda or social standing?

It's bad enough when I see wingnuts ape a specific agenda or ape a specific party line...to hell if I will do that for any Democrat.

These days I just hope for a candidate that isn't too far from the values I share...and it gets more difficult. It's too soon for me to decide about Dr. Dean or any other candidate...and it doesn't matter since my state has no say in the primary process. All I care is to eliminate this evil regime..especially on the local level...I'll take that infamous indicted ham sandwich over this junta.

My point was that empowerment from the people not the powerful seems to represent the general thinking here in DU.

Since I don't belong to a clique here or ape for a specific candidate or issue, my posts go mostly un-noticed.

I'm very, very, very strongly in favor of building a strong Democratic Party from the very roots of power...local elections, then to the House, Senate and then the luxuary of the Executive...without those levers of power no Democratic President will ever be able to function without endless investigations and stonewalling on imporant legislation.

Empowerment starts with letting voices speak...and then exchanging ideas...especially when its ones that are counter to one's own thinking...getting another perspective.

I don't see much of that on DU...just a lot of bashing, whining and in-fighting that is so counter-productive to the real goal of restoring a semblence of a representative democracy to the majority of the American people.

I do beleive you are correct, at least I hope so.

CANDIDATES.

If we want real change we have to unite behind an electable candidate who has been rejected by the DLC and whop appeals to the independents.

Dean may not be left enough to make me gleeful -- BUT he is the candidate who will reject the status quo, unlike the above mentioned 3.


The fact that his campaing is funded by the likes of me with my pitifully small donations - gives me hope that democracy can work (if the baddies don't wellstone him)

This is my worst fear: He gets wellstoned and the bfee selection gets elected as a dem. 2nd worst fear : he gets elected and wellstoned after the inauguration and his bfee selection VP becomes president a la JFK (LBJ was a tool of Halliburton just like Cheney)

Scary

Unite behind Dean: he may not be the leftest but he is the peopliest.

Dean/Edwards to WIN!!!

His record however, makes it clear.

so someone IS paying attention.......

Could have used their support.

Oh well :shrug:

and still be in politics enough to have a clue how to do the job.

Dean is an outsider and he isn't owned by any special interests.

How? He's already declared that he's not in favor of real change.

He has no plans to reduce the insane amount of money being poured into the elites' pockets via the war industry

He has no plans to take the hands of the elites out of our pockets for healthcare...and in fact plans to increase the amount they get while still leaving 10M people out in the cold

He has no plans to end the drugs war, only to shift some of the money to the healthcare funnel

He doesn't even have any plans to give lgb people full civil rights--he says that's a state's-rights issue, which is what it is now!

So when you think about it, exactly what real 'real change' is he in favor of? The only thing I can see is that he's in favor of getting his campaign money from working people.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if that were the only result of a Dean presidency: the elites get working people to not merely vote for a pro-elite candidate, but fund his campaign, too?

A real knee-slapper, that would be.

If the people feel that their involvement can get people that they actually support elected then the trend will continue.

I call that exploitation, not empowerment.

Or would you also call it a positive step if Smirk bamboozled working people into funding his campaign?

So far, Dean has demonstrated commitment to no changes but those that benefit himself and the other elites.

"changing your subconcious feelings about race" as a solution to the problem of racism.

Just stop the transfer of wealth to the the wealthy and make sure it accumulates among the middle class, and you'll see political power follow.

If Dean isn't totally on board with that project (and he isn't) than this whole "empowering people's attitudes" mumbo jumbo is just window dressing which won't achieve anything.

You people need to open your eyes. Dean is not about empowering you politically. He's about empowering your emotions with rage and anger, but he doesn't propose a single policy which will actually give the unempowered (the middle class) more real power.

That's why the Republicans like him.

who are not comfortable with Dean's record and style of governance that leaned heavily on compromising with the GOP when he had a solid, progressive Dem movement in his own legislature.

Hell, Dean says now that he wants to put a flashlight on Congress, but, when he governed he decided against changing most of the Republican team who was with the departed GOP governor. What Democrat wouldn't bring in a majority of Dems with him?

and his record suggests there will be no attack, people are likely to feel even more disempowered than they do now.

"He has no plans to reduce the insane amount of money being poured into the elites' pockets via the war industry"


On the contrary... that money goes to tehm via contracts on weapons systems and rebuildign etc.

Dean wants to move that money from them and spend it on domestic defense needs like first responders.

So yes, he is taking the money from the pockets of those elites.

I don't agree with him on everything. He has brought the campaign to life.

In so far as a statement of DU values goes, I have detected no consensus.

in the Dem party. Now so many who complained the loudest are praising a man with an 11 year record of governing as a compromising centrist and who is now campaigning as a fighting populist. Some people will buy anything if its packaged in the coarse language of the internet that they relate to.

Couldn't have said it any better ... In the immortal word of Monty Python .....

"Look at the Bones !!!"

Corporations have been dictating Democratic policy for a long time, and it will be nice to have an independent voice that represents all Democrats in office for once.

My beef with Daschle and the Congressional Democrats is that they fail in the clutch over and over and over again. I don't care if they are conservative or liberal, they need to start doing their jobs instead of rubberstamping everything Bush sends down there. The war is an excellent example of this and is a critical reason why many are giving Dean a chance.

What's he in favor of, besides being elected? After getting working people to pay for his campaign.

He's not in favor of reducing the insanely vast flow of money to the elite owners of the war industry.

He's not in favor of reducing the enormous flow of money to the elite owners of the health-insurance industry. In fact, he wants to give them more, though still leaving 10M people without healthcare.

He's not in favor of reducing the flow of money to the elite owners of the drugs war/prison industry.

He's not in favor of getting rid of the fascist 'patriot act'.

He's not in favor of anything but the status quo in Palestine

He's not in favor of anything but the status quo for LGB people

What is he in favor of besides motherhood, apple pie, keeping Wall St. happy, and being made up to President?

Tell us at least one way in which he's planning to remove the hands of his wealthy-elite peers from our pockets. One way in which he's willing to reverse the flow of money from us to them. Just one.

He's not in favor of reducing the insanely vast flow of money to the elite owners of the war industry.

You're distorting Dean's stance on the drug war. He doesn't believe it is a criminal issue.

"Dean maintains he doesn't "believe the war on drugs is a criminal matter; it's a public health matter. To throw users in jail is silly." But he cannot stand state initiatives that seek to legalize medical marijuana. "I hate the idea of legislators and politicians practicing medicine," he says. Should the Feds be busting medical marijuana clubs? "Depends on the circumstances," he says. "In general, no." If he were President, Dean adds, he would force the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate medical marijuana, and he would be prepared to accept its findings.

Source: The Nation"

"I'm not in favor of decriminalizing drugs. The reason is it sends a very bad message I think to young people, we already have a serious problem with the drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco, and adding a third drug, a series of drugs, is not a good idea. But I do think we ought to use a medical model and not a criminal model for most cases."

Source: Stop the Drug War

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/25160/view

He's not in favor of reducing the enormous flow of money to the elite owners of the health-insurance industry. In fact, he wants to give them more, though still leaving 10M people without healthcare.

Give me links, please.

He's not in favor of reducing the flow of money to the elite owners of the drugs war/prison industry.

Oh?


Invest in social programs to avoid investing in prisons
In 1991, I had to cut spending. The Commissioner of Corrections came to me asking for a 14% budget increase. Everyone else was being asked to cut spending, but prisons-the most expensive and least effective social service investment we make- needed more money.
My view of social spending changed in that instant. Because studies show that any competent kindergarten teacher can make a pretty good guess about the five kids most likely to end up in prison, I decided to focus Vermont's efforts and money on new families with very young babies and children.

Today in Vermont, we invest in our children. We visit every child and new mother in the hospital at the time of birth. We offer home visits two weeks after discharge to talk about everything from nutrition to housekeeping to substance abuse to the value of reading. Last year 91% of moms accepted our visit. I believe that one day this program will result in much lower incarceration rates in Vermont.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Crime.htm



He's not in favor of getting rid of the fascist 'patriot act'.

But as we fight the war on terror, we must be vigilant in protecting civil rights and liberties. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

This Administration has unnecessarily compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that erode the rights of average Americans and cannot be justified on national security grounds. Reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General and numerous watchdog groups document a troubling pattern of hostility to civil rights and liberties since September 11.

I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress. But the Ashcroft Justice Department took advantage of the climate of fear following the attacks to make fundamental changes in law enforcement procedures. I am concerned that this Act:

§ allows law enforcement agents to obtain information about an individual from a library, bookstore, bank, telephone company, credit card company, hotel, hospital or university without individualized suspicion and without meaningful judicial review;

§ expands the use of “sneak and peak” searches, even in non-terror cases;

§ allows the police to collect information about an individual’s internet use without a showing of probable cause;

§ allows the government to conduct wiretaps in criminal cases using the looser rules intended for intelligence investigations;

§ authorizes the Attorney General to detain immigrants based on a mere certification that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the immigrant endangers national security.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_patriotact


He's not in favor of anything but the status quo in Palestine

Dean believes in even-handed talks between both sides. He believes the United States should take a neutral stance on the issue. The status quo of the Bush administration is that of support Israel over the Palestine's.

How did the Israel issue rise to the fore of the Democratic primaries debate? It all began with a statement by front-runner Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor, at an election event at Santa Fe last week. He said "it is not our place to take sides" in the Middle East conflict. A few days later he told the Washington Post "the United States needs an evenhanded approach to the conflict."

Senator Joseph Lieberman, also a Democratic candidate, responded sharply: "If this is a well-thought-out position, it's a mistake and a major break from a half a century of American foreign policy." Lieberman said Dean either understands nothing about foreign policy, or wants to damage the special relations between the U.S. and Israel since the state's establishment.

John Kerry, once the Democratic front-runner and today second after Dean in the polls, said "it is wrong that Governor Dean has proposed a radical shift in the U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

The argument climaxed at a debate among the nine Democratic candidates in Baltimore on Wednesday. In contrast to the previous restrained, polite discourse, the Israeli issue became the main sparring arena between Lieberman and Dean.

"All of us here ... have quite correctly criticized George W. Bush for not standing by our values in our foreign policy and for breaking our most critical alliances. That, with all respect, is exactly what Howard Dean's comments over the last week about the Middle East have done," attacked Lieberman.

"I am disappointed in Joe. My position on Israel is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's," retorted Dean.

"Not right," interrupted Lieberman.

"Excuse me, Joe," said Dean. "I didn't interrupt you and I'd appreciate it..."

"Not right," Lieberman interjected, turning Israel into the hottest subject in the Democratic camp.


Jewish organizations protested Dean's comments, which indicate he wants to change the American pro-Israeli policy to reflect a balanced approach to both sides. A letter is being circulated in Dean's party denouncing his statements and position, and even Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi and her deputy Steny Hoyer have criticized his position.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article3323.html


He's not in favor of anything but the status quo for LGB people

By LGB I'm guessing you're not talking about Long Beach Airport, but the GLBT community, right? Well how can you state he's in favor of the status quo when he was the first governor in AMERICAN history to sign into law the civil unions bill? Tell me how that is staying with the 'status quo'? Also, if elected president Dean would urge EVERY state in the union to adopt either civil unions or GAY marriage. Is that too staying with the status quo?

What is he in favor of besides motherhood, apple pie, keeping Wall St. happy, and being made up to President?

I've refuted everything you've stated above. I could go on and list the issues Dean is in favor of, but I doubt you'll even take the time to read them. Being you never took the time to even research into where Dean stood on the issues in the first place.

Tell us at least one way in which he's planning to remove the hands of his wealthy-elite peers from our pockets. One way in which he's willing to reverse the flow of money from us to them. Just one.

I did, above.

bookmarking this thread thanks to that gem.

You're distorting Dean's stance on the drug war. He doesn't believe it is a criminal issue.

I was talking about the war industry. The 'military-industrial complex' whose budget he has already declared he has no plans to reduce, despite its insane size (what is it now, something like the equal of the next 25 countries' military budgets combined?).

Give me links {about Dean's healtcare stance}, please.

Sure: his website. He plans to keep the insurance companies involved. The insurance companies (along with everything else) are 85% owned by the wealthiest elites in the nation. They skim somewhere between 25c and 33c of every healthcare dollar in profit and overhead. And, although he plans to give them another $88G p.a., that will still leave 10M people without healthcare -- that's also on his website.

Dean believes in even-handed talks between {Israel and Palestine}.

That's all well and good, but he's on record as favoring giving Sharon TWICE the money Sharon even hoped for. And he also follows the Sharon line in demanding that the Palestinians stop the terror attacks without requiring anything comparable of Israel. That's not even-handed in practice, sorry.

Tell me how that is staying with the 'status quo'?

You answered it yourself in your next statement: to him it's a states'-rights issue. If you'll look closely, you'll notice that it's always been a states'-rights issue. That means he supports the status quo, as I said.

I've refuted everything you've stated above.

Sorry, no, you haven't. You misunderstood the first thing, asked for a cite for the second, missed the core of the third, and confirmed the fourth with your own statement.

This is a place where I come for the truth. For LIBERAL ideas and ideals. That is NOT Howard Dean. And his underhanded campaign tactics have pissed off EVERY one of the other campaigns (except Braun's - maybe).

Dean, liberal, and coalition in the same sentence? That's delusional.

of any Democrat. Real democrats and anticorporatists wouldn't even be CONSIDERED by the CATO Institute.

Thanks.

by the head of CATO. Evidently they still talk. Just for the record, I loathe Stephen Moore and all he stands for.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
>>>>>>>>

I guess it blows the Dean's not electable case out of the water huh?

You mentioned a 'rating' system so I thought perhaps Cato had one.

No bash in the article at all.

Now, there is plenty there for liberals to dislike. That's what I am and it's why I am consistently against Dean because he is ACTING like a populist when he never was before.

I guess we all have to make up our own minds on the issues we care about most.

unlike Kerry, who compromised and set progressive goals back by supporting Bush's tax cuts, no child left behind, the patriot act, and the war.

Dean's compromise got civil unions, more land protected from development, stricter air standards, reduced child abuse by almost 50% and child sexual abuse by 70%, provided more insurance coverage for more people, established development projects for renewable energy, net metering, all while balancing the budget... the list goes on and on of the progressive goals that were achieved by Dean's compromise.


You can continue to ignore the results, lie about Dean statements, lie about material being scrubbed from Dean's site, and attack every positive thing said about Dean with innuendo and crap... but you will not change Dean's record of positive progressive accomplishment.

tax policy, enthusiasm for privatized/deregulated utilities, his closet libertarianism, etc,, are all counter to prevailing moods at DU. However, people set all those things aside because they think they know Dean.

and vociferously supports the Iraq War?

Hint: John Edwards.

Howard Dean.

Dean said,

"I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it’s okay for a policeman to ask you for your ID just because you’re walking down the street."

You're translating this into support for the Patriot Act, when your horse, Kerry, actually voted for it?

Sheesh!

You want to pretend that a centrist who was known to be tough on "law and order" and wanted to appoint centrist, common sens judges would NOt have voted for the Patriot Act which 99 Senators, including Wellstone, Kennedy and Byrd all voted for?

Kerry praises Bill Clinton (a centrist democrat) and I'm wondering if you can shed some light on that if being a centrist is a 'bad' thing.

In addition, Kerry wanted to be Bill Clintons running mate, so Im confused.

Dean is a centrist with the core values of a Libertarian.

Dean is a pragmatic humanitarian as was Clinton.

I suppose that's why he supports the death penalty in the most emotional cases imaginable. That's why he supports interstate gun trafficking.

Better stick to the "pragmatic" side - that way you can explain why he was giving enviro awards to his state's biggest polluters, then shipping his waste to poor Latino communities faster than you can say NIMBY.

:eyes:

Dr. Funk, you keep dishing the same old Funk again and again.

Oh BTW, here is Kerry's 'clear' position on the Death Penalty.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

Emotional issue = terrorism. :think:

Also wouldn't this be a 'states rights' position. Quick someone notify the CATO institute.

Unlike Dean who supports the death penalty for the murders of children and police officers, emotional issues you might say.

However, Kerry isn't planning on eliminating the Death Penalty, so his personal position is moot.

However both men have said that the issue needs to be examined regarding the 'fairness' with which the DP is applied.

The DP is a constitutional issue and not subject to the opinions of a President. If a state has DP, the President can't do squat about it. Dean, unlike Kerry, is all for expanding the reasons for killing people.

However, Kerry isn't planning on eliminating the Death Penalty, so his personal position is moot.

Idiotic! Presidents and Senators can't eliminate DP. It would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate DP. However, a President, through the Dept of Justice, can have a significant effect on how often and under what conditions the Fed govt pursues capital punishment. Deans position shows he would increase the # of capital cases, while Kerry would decrease them.

So how does it feel to act as if DP was an important issue to you while, at the same time, demonstrating that you don't know the 1st thing about DP and the DP laws?

at least one, and I think there are more in the pipe.

Furthermore, opposition to the DP rose during the Clinton years, and I think that popular sentiment is driven from the top down.

and then turn around and sell himself, as a populist agent of change?

Isn't it Dean doing the false advertising with the very tone of his rhetoric?

If he's a pragmatic humanitarian, then why doesn't he run as one, and cut the fighting populist snowjob act?

Also, can't one be a populist and a pragmatic humanitarian?

while governor. If he had to FIGHT for something, he'd drop it, like universal healthcare.

His record showed him aligning with the GOP there AGAINST the progressive Dems more often than working with them.

:eyes:

"If he had to FIGHT for something, he'd drop it, like universal healthcare."


Oh that must be why 99% of kids and 97% of adults in VT are covered.

What are the percentages in Kerry's state?



"His record showed him aligning with the GOP there AGAINST the progressive Dems more often than working with them."

That's just a flat out lie. Dean did work effectively with some republicans in VT, like Jim Jeffords. However as usual you take one situation where a group of far left anti-development folks were trying to block ALL development in VT, and Dean fought them on it.

He was right to do it, and the economy in VT reflects that Dean was right to do it.

Tell me are you of the mind that liberals are infallible, BLM?

are not qualified to be the ideology police, thank you very much. Whether Dean would have failed in the clutch is irrelevant. Candidates like Edwards still being gungho about the Iraq debacle IS relevant.

Dean has the postion of hindsight. He didn't have to make those decisions so he's clear to take advantage of the results?

So the advantage you speak of is a moot point.

You've said EXACTLY what I feel. Here we are at DU, with so many of the more liberal Dems complaining about the Clinton Democrats and the DLCers and corporate snugglepuppies. And they think Dean is the answer? C'mon. The only reason why the DLC hates him is because the DLC thinks mighty high of themselves (maybe they should, after the success they had with Clinton), and Dean didn't suck up to them, and played against them with his whole populist schtick. Dean's ideologies are very much like the DLCs, center-left centrism, but his abrasiveness has gotten to them. If the DLC hated all hints of liberalism, they'd have kicked out John Kerry a long time ago even before they knew who this Howard Dean was. JK is to the left of Dean, I think we all realize that now.

I don't see why so many people think Dean is so friendly to change, when his governing record shows nothing to verify that, while Kerry's does. Dean DID pass the civil unions act, but even then, he needed to be cornered by the Supreme Court in order to sign it. As blm already said, he was very corporate friendly in Vermont, which is a liberal state as many Dean supporters like to point out. So I guess he does favour change, but in the opposite direction. His free healthcare was nothing more than Medicaid funds and federal funds that spilled over in the bountiful Clinton years.

Does Dean do good things? Absolutely. A lot of people in Vermont are probably happy with him? Is he a good liberal? Yeah, the way Clinton was a good liberal, and I mean that in a good way. Will I support him? Absolutely. But is he an advocate of change? No, and there is no evidence for it other than a few well-written speeches. If you want change for the better (after all, GW has changed a lot of things!), John Kerry will bring more to the table. He is an ardent environmentalist, something this country could use, he has been strongly anti-corporation with tax loopholes and waste, he has outlined his Middle Eastern plans clearly, and like Dean, he is a good representative of the GLBT community.

"Dean DID pass the civil unions act, but even then, he needed to be cornered by the Supreme Court in order to sign it."

Wrong... the court did not order Dean to sign it. You make it sound like Dean was fighting civil unions and that's total BS. Dean fought for civil unions and used the court case as leverage... just like was done in the civil rights movement, where court victories were used to bolster the political movement.



Why are you people working so hard to attack the exact kinds of act that you would profess to support. Dean didn;t just talk about gay rights... he got the law passed, he did it... he risked his life and his election on it.

And you want to attack him for not doing enough?

Who did more?

Who?

If you want someone who is going to go to D.C. and turn it upside down, then you want to vote for Kucinich. He's the one with the history of fighting this Administration at almost every turn, he's the one with the purist liberal ideas, he's the one that ought to have the typical DUer's support. The fact that he doesn't, tells me more about DUer's than any of the candidates.

If you want someone who is going to implement liberal ideas and put the people who have been hurting the last 3 years first, without turning D.C. into a battleground for the next 4 years, then you want Kerry. Things like women's health care and research, GLBT equality, small business assistance, environmental protection, energy independence, college assistance, early childhood education, GLobal AIDS assistance, and first responder funding.

But if you want someone who is going to compromise in order to implement his idea of progress, which is balanced budgets, program cuts, welfare reform, and business/environmental compromise, then you want to vote for Dean.

You said~"But if you want someone who is going to compromise in order to implement his idea of progress, which is balanced budgets, program cuts, welfare reform, and business/environmental compromise, then you want to vote for Dean."

http://howard-dean-for-president.mydd.com/2004.html

"His experience in Vermont, Dean said, presents a road map for cutting taxes while not only preserving but increasing social programs. Dean entered office in 1991, at a time when Vermont had its largest deficit ever as well as the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation."

Dean want's to help poor children all over the US via education and health care.

Here is some of what Dean did in Vermont.

"The governor cited his state’s “Success By Six” initiative, in which parents of every child born in Vermont receive a home visit by a state worker within two weeks of an infant’s birth. During the visit, the worker offers the parent a variety of services, based on the parent’s need. Dean said the intent is to expose parents to a friendly face who can address family concerns."

"Those who do (need help) get it starting when they're two weeks old, not when they get to kindergarten," Dean said. "By the time you get to kindergarten, you've got a tough time trying to reverse the trouble you're in."

"Dean said that even though he didn't expect results immediately, Vermont has seen its child abuse rate drop 70 percent among children from birth to age 3, and 50 percent from birth to age 5. "That is an extraordinary statistic that I bet is not duplicated anywhere else in the United States," he said."

www.deandefense.org

"++ The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

sec...

Getting it..

In the Time Magazine interview with Dean and feature write-up, it had a lot of background on the Governing of Dean. A lot of the article was favorable to Dean, and he was getting the attention for doing so well in his campaign. But they challenged the claim that he was a complete outsider. One of the things they did was walk through Deans plans as Gov. of Vermont to balance the budget. They show some stats, which I intended to post but don't have the mag anymore, and said that basically Dean's approach to balancing the budget was not increasing taxes on the Rich or at all. They said that he drastically, intensively cut social programs that really alienated his liberal base and led to one of the closest re-election races in the history of governorship.

So here we have Dean propaganda that says he expanded programs, and then we have other reports that while he may have expanding business programs, he severely cut social welfare programs as his method of balancing the budget.

Since that Time magazine article, I've spent time trying to research and read up on Dean's history as governor. The bottom line is, the guy has spent is whole life as a centrist. If he truly is now the most "liberal" candidate in the field, it means somewhere along the line he's had some kind of conversion, because his record just simply doesn't show that to be true at all.

And, I'm not clear on what you thought was a lie?

"In his decade in office, Dean has shone most brightly when he fought for children's programs. His efforts guaranteed health care for virtually every child in need, doubled spending on child care and helped create Success by Six, a program that helps preschoolers and their families. That's vintage Howard Dean: pragmatic and humanitarian." The Burlington Free Press (VT) - September 9, 2001

http://fundforahealthyamerica.com/VermontRecord.asp

http://fundforahealthyamerica.com/Quotes.asp

http://fundforahealthyamerica.com/HowardDean.asp

I also know Kucinich supporters consider him the most liberal candidate, in spite of his anti-choice record and American flag fettish, so I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder huh?

BTW, I recall reading the article you refer to, and I know Dean was a triangulator like Clinton. At times, Dean presented offers that could not be refused, and asked for compromise from those on both sides of the political spectrum. Another reason I support him frankly.

In addition, Vermont is one of few states not suffering under the current administration due to Dean's fiscal skills.

BTW, here's a bit more info on the Welfare Reform issue you raised.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean.html

"Dean was critical of the Bush administration for imposing upon the states in a number of areas. In April 2002 he suggested that Vermont might reject millions in federal education funds because of the cost of the testing requirements imposed by President Bush's No Child Left Behind education plan. In May he condemned the administration's welfare reform proposal, or more formally the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization bill, as "a step backwards for everyone who believes in welfare reform." "We are particularly concerned about the extraordinary rigidity of the 40-hour work week ," he stated. Dean also raised concerns on the prospect of war with Iraq, stating that President Bush must show the American people proof that Saddam Hussein has nuclear or biological weapons and the means to deliver them, and he must make it clear that American troops could be on the ground there for 10 years."

So you see, Dean does not agree with pushing Mothers to work 40 hours a week for welfare benefits.

In addition, Dean has said he would put jobs before balancing the budget. Dean has reasonable positions on the issues IMHO, which is why I support him.

Success by Six is a United Way program that started in 1988 and is implemented in 350 communities across the country. Vermont's successes are due more to its small size and lack of entrenched poverty than anything else. The same with its federally mandated and funded health programs. The land set asides allow continued logging and recreational use because Dean caved to those interest groups. His first inclination for new Vermont power was a coal plant. The newest Vermont problem is sprawl and loss of family farms. He's a centrist compromiser, which isn't the worst thing. But it is when people keep slamming Congressional Democrats because they want 'change', then turn around and support the guy LEAST likely to provide it.

http://national.unitedway.org/sb6/

of 'United Way' the program which was implemented in Vermont.

Also, here is some of what Dean's "centrist compromising" brought to Vermont as well.

http://fundforahealthyamerica.com/VermontRecord.asp


Fiscal discipline. In the first half of the 1990s, Governor Dean imposed strict fiscal discipline that led the state out of an inherited $60 million deficit. He cut the income tax three times, removed the sales tax on most clothing and shoes to help working families, and reduced the state's long-term debt. In 1991 Vermont had the lowest bond rating in New England. Today Vermont has the highest rating in New England, AA+. Since 1996 under Governor Dean's leadership Vermont's per capita debt has dropped by 23 percent.

Health care coverage. Governor Dean strengthened Vermont's Dr. Dynasaur program to guarantee health coverage for virtually every child age 18 and under. Over 92 percent of all Vermonters have coverage - one of the highest rates in the country - and 96 percent of all children under 18 are covered. Dean believes the United States needs a health care system which results in coverage for every American.

Mental health. In 1997, Governor Dean signed into law the nation's most comprehensive mental health and substance abuse parity bill in the nation, ending discriminatory insurance practices against these major diseases. The Governor has been a strong proponent of community-based treatment, as well as comprehensive services for children with serious mental health problems.

Education. Like other leading states, Vermont adopted high standards testing which has resulted in significant improvement in school accountability. Unlike other leading states, however, Vermont has adopted a system of sharing educational dollars across the state, so schools in poor communities have the same financial backing as those in wealthy communities.

Environment. Under Governor Dean, Vermont has closed more than 70 landfills, increased the percentage of recycled waste to nearly 40 percent of all Vermont waste, and set aside hundreds of thousands of farm and forestland which will never be developed.

Equality. Building on a commitment to equal rights for all Americans, Governor Dean has signed into law tougher penalties for hate crimes, as well as tighter restrictions against discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations, and more. Vermont is the first state to legally recognize long-term committed unions between gay and lesbian couples.

Governor Dean is considered a common sense moderate who believes that social justice and environmental protection can only be accomplished through strong financial management.

Just in case you didn't it out before.

That's the problem with Dean, you never get the whole story.

Setting aside land from development. That's not the same thing as protecting the land permanently. It's still open to logging and damage from snowmobiling. Maybe people back east don't get that I guess, people out west do. Maybe it's because you've already lost all of your old growth so you don't understand real protection of the land. But it ought to make you more aware, not less. If Dean didn't get it in Vermont, he isn't going to get it with the rest of our forests.

Mental health. Funny, somebody just posted this on Vermont mental health. Dean did the same thing with nursing home funding. He cuts funding to traditional programs to support cheaper home based care. But what happens is people end up with either no alternatives but to care for people they really don't have the ability to care for, and/or unfunded hospitals with abysmal care.
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2003/10/20/mental_breakdown/

And Dr. Dynasaur. That was another federally mandated change to Medicaid. Dean wasn't Governor in 1987, so I don't know how he takes credit for it anyway. But the federal mandate gets implemented in Vermont, like it did in every other state, and Dean calls it his own success.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=77623

Recycling was also started back in 1987 under Act 78. That's a great thing for Vermont and is the biggest reason they are making progress in landfills. The other reason is that they ship their garbage out of state. Kind of like when they were going to ship their radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca or their nuclear waste to Yucca Mtn. That isn't the kind of environmentalism I'm interested in.

As far as being a common sense moderate, the same could be said about my own Republican Senator, Gordon Smith. He isn't a bad guy and supports alot of the same kinds of social issues Dean does. But you wouldn't find me campaigning to make him President.

And read all the rebuttals. You?

Additionally, regarding the other links you noted. You aren't telling the whole story. And, I'm certain you know that.

Let's review one quote for example: "Governor Dean strengthened Vermont's Dr. Dynasaur program..." the link I sited does not indicate Dean took credit for it.

Just like I always read the Dean apologists' bullshit.

And the Doctors for Dean site says: "Governor Dean’s Dr. Dynasaur program"

and the 'strenthening' came from more federal programs, like SCHIP and waivers.

But hey, as long as Dean rants and raves about the do-nothing cockroach Congress and expresses 'people's rage', who gives a shit about reality.

Howard Dean.

"Success by Six is a United Way program that started in 1988 and is implemented in 350 communities across the country."

Which Dean was modeling, and said he modeled, for the program in Vermont. That doesn't change the fact Dean did it, not the results it had.


"Vermont's successes are due more to its small size and lack of entrenched poverty than anything else."

Simply not true... child abuse is not limited to homes below the poverty line.

The fact you'd resort to such an implication for no other reason that to try to attack dean is really disappointing.


"The same with its federally mandated and funded health programs."

Untrue... Dean took existing programs and expanded them considerable to provide coverage for 99% of kids and all adults up to 165% of poverty. Ask the folks in Vermont, the programs worked... and that is what matters, not just talking about it and making promises, but having done it.



"The land set asides allow continued logging and recreational use because Dean caved to those interest groups."

Very misleading... Dean set aside more land, fully 8% of the state of VT, than anybody had previously. A small part of that land is open to selective logging and some to recreational use. However you try to make it sound as if ALL the land set aside is open to that, which is simply false.



" His first inclination for new Vermont power was a coal plant."

A new clean coal plant... and that was to replace the nuclear plant. Again you're one-sided misleading statements are very dishonest.


"The newest Vermont problem is sprawl and loss of family farms."

Dean did quite a lot for family farms... and to limit sprawl, like preventing Wal-Marts from building anywhere outside existing business districts in developed areas.



Increasing the Income of Farmers — Governor Dean helped bring a innovative counter-cyclical support program to Vermont’s dairy farmers. The program added about $60 million to Vermont farmers and about $180 million to Vermont’s agriculture economy overall. The program added more than $10,000 in additional annual income to the average Vermont farm.

Leadership in the Northeast — The program aided farmers all over New England and New York, not only in Vermont. Dairy Farmers in New York and New England received almost $150 million over the course of the program.

Expanding Markets for Farmers — Governor Dean created the position of Vermont Dairy Market Specialist in 1994 and initiated exports to Mexico that year.

Labeling: Protecting Consumers, Rewarding Farmers — Dean implemented the first voluntary rBST labeling law in the nation, which encourages processors to pay premiums for non-rBST milk.


Lower Taxes for Farmers — Governor Dean’s revamp of the state’s Current-Use program has meant lower property taxes for farmers.
Disaster Relief for Farmers in Need — Governor Dean authorized payments to farmers who suffered feed loses in the floods of 1998 and 1999 when federal programs proved inadequate.

Expanding Credit for Farm Improvement — Governor Dean created the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation in 1999, providing farmers access to $10 million a year in capital. Nearly 800 Vermont farms have utilized this credit to capitalize farm improvements.

Land Conservation — Under Governor Dean, Vermont was the first state in the nation to participate in the federal Farms for the Future Program. Dean’s efforts helped saved 333 farms and over 100,000 acres of farmland.


Expanding Farmers Markets — The number of farmers markets in Vermont increased from 20 in 1992 to 43 in 2000, allowing family farmers to sell their products directly to the public.

Aiding Organic Farms — Under Governor Dean, Vermont partnered with private organizations for Northeast Organic Faming Association certification allowing the number of organic farms in Vermont to grow from 80 in 1992 to over 200 in 2000.



Requiring Responsibility from Large Farms — Under Governor Dean, Vermont passed the Large Farm Operations law in 1996 giving the Department of Agriculture the authority to regulate very large farms.

Protecting Groundwater — Vermont was one of the first states to prohibit the spread of manure on frozen ground in the winter.
Giving Farmers the Means to Keep Vermont Clean — Governor Dean formed a pollution control team in 1992 to reduce agriculture non-point pollution. The state spent $4.8 million to help farmers construct 1,232 waste management projects on 517 Vermont farms, helping eliminate over 18,000 lbs of phosphorous from Vermont waterways

Encouraging Conservation — Governor Dean’s Department of Agriculture enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to reduce pollution in the Lake Champlain Basin.




"He's a centrist compromiser, which isn't the worst thing. But it is when people keep slamming Congressional Democrats because they want 'change', then turn around and support the guy LEAST likely to provide it."

Dean has already provided more change than anybody running, save for maybe sharpton. Dean's campaign itself is a change in the way things are done. The people are doing this, and we are doing it without massive corporate or DLC support that guys like Lieberman and Kerry and Clark all depend on.

:yourock:

after another.

You point to campaign rhetoric all the way through your post and ignore the reality of how these programs came to be. Health care is prime. When Dr. Dynasaur had to be implemented due to changes in federal law, the insured child rate in Vermont was 90%. Dean moved it up to 96%. 15 years and a 6% increase, with several new federal programs. I'm just not impressed. The on-paper successes of Vermont are primarily because the state does not have the kinds of problems other states have. It's amazing that Democrats consistently talk about poverty as a contributing factor to the difficulty in people's lives, from child abuse to crime to education. But when it's brought up to show that Vermont is not a fair example of whether programs will work nationwide, suddenly people are being 'politically incorrect'.

A small part of the land is open to logging? Let's just look at the Champion Land. Looks like 9.5% is designated as ecosystem management and is the only land truly protected. Dean allowed logging on the rest of it.
http://www.vtce.org/championlands.html

And this article sounds more like Bush's Healthy Forests than a true land set aside.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41993.html

And as to agriculture, I'll take a couple of first hand accounts over glowing Dean propaganda.

http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/lightint.html

And please don't tell me you're actually going to reach for 'clean coal'. Especially now that Dean has switched to the renewable energy campaign.

Dean just isn't that great, that's all. He hasn't been particularly innovative or a true leader in anything. I'm sure we can trust him not to destroy the country, compared to Bush, that's a HUGE improvement. But I don't think he's shown the foresight to lead the country to where we need to be.

Whether or not one is a Dean partisan, it thoughtfully explains the undercurrents behind the enthusiasm he has engendered, IMO.

The thread is dying so if anbyone reads the article and thinks it is worthwhile, please give it a kick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=592878

As with most things laudatory about Dean, it talked about style rather than substance.

;)

www.deanforamerica.com

Check out Deans press releases and issues pages.

Dont forget to use the search engine if you so choose.

And his substance evaluates in all major ways to the status quo. Not one of his policies would even reduce the amount the wealthy elites hoover out of our pockets every year, let alone make any more substantive changes.

If you think I'm bum-rapping him, I invite you to present some supporting evidence. Please include an explanation of how whatever you're talking about transfers wealth from the elites to us rather than the reverse.

for starters.

And ...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_labor

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9899&news_iv_ctrl=1443

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_press_archive_labor

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_labor_external1

There's more, but it depends on your view point I assume?

On edit, I'd like to see Dennis's comprehensive plans to do what you ask of Dean. Thanks in advance. Also, I don't want to take this too far off topic mind you. But, as I do try to stay out of The Dennis support threads, I will the question here.

Also here's an example of what he did in Vermont for Children to this effect.

"Like other leading states, Vermont adopted high standards testing which has resulted in significant improvement in school accountability. Unlike other leading states, however, Vermont has adopted a system of sharing educational dollars across the state, so schools in poor communities have the same financial backing as those in wealthy communities."

Part of the problem is that Dean uses words in a 'special' way. For example, in his speeches he says 'universal healthcare', but his policies actually leave 10M people out in the cold. Leaving 10M people without healthcare would not qualify as 'universal' according to any dictionary I've ever used. Since he's not stupid, I have to suppose he knows very well that he's misleading people, and that he doesn't care.

I also find no policy of Dean's that would shift the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets.

Whereas Dennis (since you asked) has a genuinely universal--and also non-profit--healthcare policy. And, since Dennis is apparently planning (I say 'apparently' because so far he's only nibbled at the edges, overtly, plus made read-between-the-lines allusions) to stop some or all of the drugs war. Now, both Dean and Dennis have declared for a public-health model to replace the criminal model of drug-abuse treatment. But, while both plans would move money from the prisons industry to the healthcare industry, only Dennis's non-profit model would lower the net cost to us.

In addition, Dennis plans to reduce the lunatic war-industry budget, something Dean has declared he will not. Dennis is planning to move that money into education, a non-profit 'industry'. So once again Dennis's policy reduces the amount of our money that is poured as profit into the pockets of the wealthy elites, while Dean's policy keeps pouring.

Thanks for posting. ;)

His sentences may be short and punchy, but I tend to think that Dean is a smug man born of privilege. Just because I'm angry at Bush doesn't mean I want to support Bizarro World Bush.

And honestly, his platform doesn't impress me. All his supporters ever seem to talk about is his personality and his grassroots organization. But I don't think 4 years of grassroots and anti-Bush sounds a whole lot like leadership.

Plus Dean has run a nasty campaign from the start. The fact that he has thin-skin as the others finally get around to hitting back doesn't impress me much, either. If he can't handle Gephardt, how is he going to deal with Rove?

I think he's handled the 'trashing' by the other Candidates very well.

Oh, don't worry ... Dean will handle Rove. Much like he's handling him now.

Did you see how he flew off the handle with George "The Greek Softball" Stephanopoulus over NAFTA?

As for Dean handling Rove, all I've seen is Rove licking his chops.

Expect about $200 billion dollars of commercials with Dean looking like a psycho killer. Kind of like this:

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

"We have all seen the Democrat Presidential Candidates angrily protest President Bush and Republicans. Their negative attacks have heightened becoming almost a daily routine."

From your source.

But I don't think 4 years of grassroots and anti-Bush sounds a whole lot like leadership.

Ding! Kerry in 2004.

Like me, I have no problem seeing what Dean really is, a phony opportunist.

Candy Everybody Wants

If lust and hate is the candy,
if blood and love tastes so sweet,
then we give 'em what they want.
Hey, hey, give 'em what they want.
So their eyes are growing hazy
'cos they wanna turn it on,
so their minds are soft and lazy.
Well, hey, give 'em what they want.

Well who do you wanna blame?

Dean was opposed to the war when 80% of America was for it. You know when Bush gave Saddam the big ultimatum "leave Iraq by sundown."

March 21, 2003

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraq_poll030321.html

March 19, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A50011-2003Mar18¬Found=true

If he were an opportunist he would gage what the public is feeling and change his position accordingly. You know, like John Kerry has.

I understand, ya'll are projecting in order to ease your anxiety about your own candidate(s).

S'alright, I imagine you'll come around when Dean gets the nomination. ;)

He knew that he was in nowheresville until he started bitching about the vote. Considering that his position is ultimately indistinguishable, I don't find it all that politically brave to ride the antiwar sentiments out.

To this day, he's held on to the IWR as a crutch, probably knowing that he really has little idea what he's doing in foreign policy.

And while we're talking about March, why don't you check out what Kerry was saying:

http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/031803kerry_2003.shtml

By April 2nd Kerry was calling for "regime change." And then kicked the asses of the chickenhawk Repubes that bitched about it.

of the remaining 20%???

Look, I don't have a huge problem with Kerry. In fact, he's my second choice for President. However, I'm glad that Dean is in the race because Kerry has disapointed me on too many occasions.

"Listing Saddam's crimes against his people, the Middle East and the world community, Kerry declared Saddam "a tyrant, truly the personification of evil" and blamed the dictator for bringing war upon himself."

WTF!

That was from your article.

And this...

"Not only is John Kerry trying to have it both ways, ... he voted for the resolution and since that time he has been trying to mask that, ..."

I agree, Kerry tries to have things both ways, and that is why he's not currently a leader in the polls.

I watched him on MSNBC with Tweety and he danced around the issues again. It's a shame.

be talking about Howard backpeddling on his Israeli/Palestinian position:)?

politically. He had nothing to lose, and everything to gain by it. Opposing the war put Dean on the map; the other candidates already were on the map. Of course, they also had to defend the Democratic Party against the inevitable charge of being un-patriotic and 'soft on terra,' something Dean wouldn't have to worry about as an out of power politician who is, after all, only concerned about himself anyway.

S'alright, I imagine you'll come around when Dean gets the nomination. ;)

You are sadly mistaken. Integrity is huge to me; Clinton's lack of it paved the way for Bush, and the Democrats don't need another candidate who sees truth as a relative thing. Bush's lack of integrity and respect for the public got him into office and us into Iraq; and we've had two consecutive presidents who had serious character flaws, and whose dominant personality trait was naked personal ambition. We don't need a third. If Dean manages to continue lying and distorting his way to the nomination, I'll be finding some other way to cast my vote, even if I have to write someone in. It will be a weird day for me -- 25-odd years of voting for the Democrat -- but integrity is too important for an ABB position if Dean were that anybody.

Howard Dean is here to stay.

No one else has come up with a campaign to match, and they don't seem likely to.

Kerry, Gep, and Edwards are all compromised by IWR. That vote is smelling more like last week's catch left to fester in the sun each and every day. Duplicity or not, Dean simply does not have this soiling his record. Beyond that their campaigns are the typical top-down establishment variety. Dean has shown adequate resourcefulness and grassroots organisation to hand these gentlemen their respective hats and coats. I suspect he will do so soon.

Clark has not caught fire. He had him moment in the sun and did not sieze the day, or the initiative (in military terms). Perhaps he will come on late, but there is no indication of it so far.

Kucinich, for all of his good ideas, polls at one or two percent pretty much everywhere. Is it the man or is it the message? Who knows? But in the final analysis it hardly matters.

Sharpton and Mosley-Braun, love them both, see Kucinich above.

Lieberman is a non-factor muttering in the wilderness. He is not only compromised by IWR, but also by nearly everything else in his platform. (He coulda bin a contendah) - not

I like all of the candidates, but if they can't handle a guy that was a more or less nationally unknown governor from a State with the population of many small cities elsewhere, they are not up to taking on Shrubya*.

he didn't beat Mondale did he?

Dean made a name for himself attacking the other candidates. He had lots of experience attacking the Democrats in his own state, so he felt no compunction attacking other Democrats for his own gain.

Kerry is not a primary type fighter against other Democrats. What he is is one helluva damn fine fighter against the best the GOP has to offer. Read up on his 96 campaign which is widely considered to be one of the best campaigns between two fine and strong candidates.in modern political history.

I am an all around liberal and Dean is a social liberal and fiscal conservative which makes him what he is, a centrist. Kucinich represents my ideals.

James Dean's red windbreaker (He's a rebel!), sure. But not for me...

It was about core ideals of populism and campaign finance reform.

I'm not interested in a rebel personally. I'm interested in an effective leader. Dean is a proven one.

he was "different", "new", "revolutionary", and "an outsider"?

BTW: Dean is no populist

great way to put it.

someone who has set up a system and shown by example that we can do this, we can take our country back... after all out bitching and hoping and wishing we have a guy who is doing it...

yet some people want nothing more than to destory it all because their candiadte is an old school DC power elite insider. We've got a wave going that can knock this status quo on its ass, and some are working very hard to prop up the very system that has let them down time and time again because they've been convinved there is no other way.

because Dean has incredible grassroots support. One man is no man after all, and there is no comparable community of supporters for any of the other candidates.

so no.

Dean supporters is that they seem to be more in love with the process than the policies.

they seem attracted to his coarse use of populist rhetoric that sounds like he's always ready for a fight. Too bad his LONG record shows he doesn't fight for populist issues. He wouldn't even fight for universal healthcare in Vermont which he claimed was a priority for him, and when he had a democratic legislature.

Weeeeeezly clark is fading fast. Dean has the network of contributors to raise money to respond to Bush attack ads after the primaries.

And that's why I like the guy.

The DLC is horrified that a huge chunk of their constituency supports this guy, outside their carefully crafted attempt to "create" their perfect candidate. If you doubt me that the DLC has been hard at work to create ABD (Anybody But Dean), check out the first Democratic Debate held in New Mexico. See the stage set up? Dean waaaaay off to the side, with the "approved" DLC candidates in the middle *cough KERRY couch cough*.

The reaction against Dean is a sign that the DLC is no longer motivated by the type of progressive, people based politics of the era that made the liberal dems great. It is a petty, elitist PR firm for a dying political philosophy (or lack of one).

Fuck 'em if they don't like Dean. He's about to give them an education on which way the political winds do blow.