KERRY WILL LOSE!

2004 will honestly be a deciding moment in the history of humanity. I know this seems cliche and melodramatic, but honestly it is NOT! In just two and 1/2 years, our country has seen unprecendented destruction. Unilateral wars, environmental degrodation, almost 3 million jobs down the tube, workers rights slashed and mutilated, and the security of our country remaining subpar.

I know we talk about how much we HATE George W. Bush all the time, but it is time to stop the talking and start acting. We can NOT just sit around and let Bush and Cheney ruin our country any more. We MUST win in 2004 and I am pleading to every loyal Democrat on this board to please consider what I have to say......

There is no doubt in my mind that John F. Kerry, is a truly wonderful person. I would love to enjoy a dinner with him, or just sit and chat about politics. However, I truly feel that I must warn you that John Kerry is NOT a strong competitor against the evil George W. Bush. His inability to take a stand on issues, his inability to rouse loyal Democrat's support, his insiders connections with Washington, and most especially his unfortunate loyalty to his advisors and pollsters. John Kerry is a threat to this party's chances in 2004. I respect him, and would vote for him in the general elections. However, I don't want to go to the voting booth to vote for someone I know is going to take us into another four years of HELL with Dubya.

I hate when people try to convince me not to vote for someone, however, it is getting to the point that I morally feel I must warn you all. The Democrats must take back this White House. The only reason I am writing this is because I know Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman, and the rest ultimately don't have a chance. Kerry and Dean are truly the only ones battling it out for 2004. I do not pretend to have a crystal ball, but I do honestly believe Kerry can not do it in 2004.

Please check out http://www.deanforamerica.com . I am not here to tell you that Dean is perfect. I PROMISE you, he will make you mad on some issues because he tells it like it is. I disagree with a few of his stances, but atleast he tells me where he stands on those issues. What makes me know that Dean is the man to beat is when he told a crowd, "Don't fall in love with me!" Meaning that he isn't going to tell you everything you want to hear. However he tells the truth, and that is something that has been missing from the White House for a LONG TIME!

BE PROUD TO BE A REAL DEMOCRAT AGAIN, VOTE DEAN in 2004!

...I'd like to say, can we PLEASE stop bashing Dems like this????

nt

I'm a little tired of this crap too....from ALL sides.

Not from ALL supporters, but every camp has at least one disrupting jagoff.

This serves no purpose whatsoever.

but it's this kind of a post that has me visiting this forum less and less.

There are hardly any Dean supporters around here.







:silly:

Dean is a good candidate, and Kerry is a good candidate, and both of them can win.

...what is perhaps most important is that any campaign with a chance at the nomination take a page and trully be interactive and empowering of their supporters. We aren't going to win by not taking on Bush (and I was SO glad to see so much unity in message at the debates yesterday in attacking Bush policy), or by allowing those who would divide and alienate those we wish to empower.

Any of our candidates would be better than Bush, it's up to US to make them the best, and to make sure they beat his sorry priveledged incompetent arse...

comes off like an ADULT and not an idiot weenie.

Here I am the eigth response on this thread. I will be the fourth Dean supporter to say that this needs to stop and is dumb. Funny how that never, every happens in anti Dean threads no matter how cheap the shot, untrustworthy the source, or editted the quotes. Yet, bizarrely we have the bad rep. Go figure.

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

For example, this thread does not cross the line to becoming a virulent statement, but it is troubling. Should we leave it to the mods to decide who is a troll?

I just believe that Kerry can do it the most decisively.

the fuck out people!

i didn't detect an OUNCE of bashing in the original post... the poster just mentioned reasons why he/she thinks kerry won't win... (and i'd have to say i agree)... the poster repeatedly said positive things about kerry, but saying he can't win, and then stated reasons why...


some of you guys are so obsessed with coming across as bashers, that you, in turn, bash and flame other posters...

from some of the shit i've read posters write here about dean, THIS is nothing!


so lighten the hell up!!!


to the original poster, pardon these up-tight posters who need to get their heads out of their asses

If you check anything, you should NOT check someones OWN canpaign site, but what the liberal progressive Media says about the candidate

like:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

Or:


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15211

This is what is most cult-like about Deans following, they lead you into Denas own canpaign site, and vehemently attack any question on the disconnect between Deans record as governor, and what he claims to be as presidential candidate.

Using the Dean supporter techinique, one would presume that George W. Bush is the greatest president ever by going to his own campaign website of by asking Karl ROve.


This is what is WRONG with Dean.

Kerry stated, dont listen to a word I am saying while campaigning, but look at my ENTIRE record in government.

That is why Dean will eventaully lose, and Kerry win.

THAT is bashing...

the original wasn't... the above post is what we're used to here at DU...

i urge all of you who got your panties in a wad, to compare the two

To compare the two candidates by researching BOTH their records, and not by going to their campaign sites.

That is called informed voting, not being led by the nose.

Kerry could easily win as could dean or most of the other candidates. Your 'no one but dean has a chance' rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. Counter productive rhetoric. We have several GOOD candidates.

If you check anything, you should NOT check someones OWN canpaign site, but what the liberal progressive Media says about the candidate

like:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

Or:


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15211

This is what is most cult-like about Deans following, they lead you into Deans own canpaign site, and vehemently attack any question on the disconnect between Deans record as governor, and what he claims to be as presidential candidate.

Using the Dean supporter techinique, one would presume that George W. Bush is the greatest president ever by going to his own campaign website or by asking Karl Rove.


This is what is WRONG with Dean.

Kerry stated, dont listen to a word I am saying while campaigning, but look at my ENTIRE record in government.

That is why Dean will eventaully lose, and Kerry win.

nicholas,

do you ever have anything positive to say about YOUR candidate? or do you instead just bad mouth dean? :shrug:

i stay out of these threads for the most part, but i've never seen a post from you where you don't take a cheap shot at dean...

you know, your time could be better spent campaigning for kerry... ((he really needs the help))

Did Dean, threaten to veto the reinstatemtn of health benefits to the working poor and middle class:


Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk.

Just hours after an angry Gov. Howard Dean leveled a series of charges about how irresponsible he believed the Senate, controlled by his fellow Democrats, was being, senators did precisely what he warned them not to do.

They restored money to a pharmaceutical assistance program that he had slated for elimination, redirected some money to cities and towns to help pay for education, and passed the budget by a 21-8 roll-call vote.

“I believe what the Senate Appropriations Committee presented to you was a budget that listens to what Vermonters have asked us to do,” committee Chairwoman Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, said just before the vote.

“I believe that it is responsible of government, when times get difficult, to protect our most needy and our most vulnerable. ... I think turning our backs on Vermonters is what’s fiscally irresponsible.”

A final version of the budget is still weeks away. A conference committee will be appointed probably by the end of the week where the House and Senate will negotiate their differences.

Dean made clear in a morning news conference, though, that he didn’t support either version and he wondered aloud how they could find a compromise that would be to his liking.

“If it gets to this office, it’s going to get sent back,” Dean said, speaking in code for an assured veto.


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

Did Dean do this. This is a legitimate article from a legitmate newpaper without a political agenda.... Explain

THIS IS A LEGITIMTE QUESTION...

NOT a Cheap Shot...

Now lets see how Dean decided to handle an alternative to the cuts:

Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent.

Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.

In 1991, then-Gov. Richard Snelling, a Republican, and the Democratic Legislature imposed surcharges on upper-income Vermonters to dig the state out of a huge budget deficit. Those surcharges were temporary, and they were lifted after the shortfall was repaid.

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

Why did Dean object to a tiny raise on the income taxes of the wealthy, but favor cuts tobthe poor, the disabled, the elderly, the blind, the handicapped...

Again. legitimate question, not cheap shots.

Unless you pprefer as it was said:


Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

Which is to me, another legitimate question, not a cheap shot...

Answer, prove that it is best, the policy of the democratic party, to balance budgets on the "backs of the middle class and the poor" in oder to protect the wealth of thr rich...


Again. another legitimate question, not a cheap shot.

Dean supporters are most afraid of legitimate questions.

As Dena has no humane, legitimate answer.

do you ever have anything positive to say about kerry?


or do you spend all your time digging up supposed dirt on dean?

i mean, i understand you're probably helping the kerry campaign by finding info on dean (which is all fine and good, b/c god knows he needs the help) but it'd be nice if you at least SOMETIMES had something to say about why you support kerry and his war vote...

sounds to me you know more about dean than you do kerry? how very telling indeed.

But as Dean supporters alway throw up the ONLY two criticisms of Kerry they cn locate. The Patriot Act adn the October Resolution, Denas record is so overwhelmingly FILLED with legitimate questtions that the supporters of other candidates have about Dean, and that neither Dean or his supporters can ever find adequate excuses for, thatn it is JUST as legitimate to aske such questions about Dean, as it is for you to ask your questions about Kerry and other candidates.

But neityher you, or Dr Dean can find a road through the disconnects of hjis record as governor, and his campaign for the nominations. YOu avoid them, you attack them, you give vague answers like "DEAN BALANCED THE BUDGET' or "DEAN IS A CENTRIST"

But you do not answer the questions posed by the articles and Deans DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and PROGRESSIVE PARTY critics.

Why does Dean choolse to favor the rich, and take away services from the poor.

One need not ask such questions of Kerry, or indeed of any of the other cnadidates, EVEN Lieberman. Only Dean...


Answer, you last post was just a typical Dean supporter avoidance of the question.

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

I actually find the links to be quite informative and he asks and posts legitimate questions and concerns.

In fact, they are no more "useless" than the dozens to Dean threads we have been reading for months.

This is an election, not a cheerleading squad.

But the above Dean supporters are still avoiding answering legitimate questions about Dean. Which is the most noticable characteristic of Deans campaign, and Deans supporters...

Dean makes comments about the marvels of his health care system...

While he was governor, a commission HE ordered discovered:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

A. On January 24, 2001, Governor Howard Dean issued an executive order establishing a Special Governor's Bipartisan Commission on Health Care Availability and Affordability.

1. The Governor appointed former Human Services Secretary Cornelius Hogan to chair the commission and appointed current Human Services Secretary Jane Kitchel and Commissioner of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Elizabeth Costle to serve on the commission.

2. The House Speaker subsequently appointed Representatives Thomas F. Koch, R-Barre Town, who is chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, and Frank M. Mazur, R-South Burlington, who is vice-chair of the Appropriations Committee.

3. The Senate Committee on Committees appointed Senators Nancy I. Chard, D-Windham County, who is chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, and Cheryl P. Rivers, D-Windsor County, who was chair of

II. Introduction

A. Our commission is made up of people who have spent years listening to testimony and otherwise studying the problems of health care availability and affordability. We have differences, some of them passionate differences, in our political philosophies, and it should come as no surprise that we differ on some of the directions reform should take. Although we have taken a substantial amount of new testimony during the past nine months, our real task has been to try to find common recommendations, despite our philosophical differences.2

B. Based on what we have learned, we do agree on this: Health care in Vermont is near a state of crisis -- some of us would say it is already in crisis -- and all health care sectors are on edge. We also note that many of these problems are national or even global in scope and that our abilities to solve them at the state level are limited.

C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds).3

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect.

D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:

1. No one is in control.

2. No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

3. No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full.5

4. There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

5. There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

6. There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

7. Although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Dean appointed these people to examine HIS baby, Health care in Vermont. Nancy Chard, one of Deans strongest Democratic supporters in Vermont was among the members on the comittee.


Again, legitimate question...

Not and attack..legitimate political campaign question...


Dr Dean, why do your statemetns about the wonders of the Vermont Health Care system established in Vermont not square with the findings of a commission you asked for, and whose members you selected?


My point is far better proved than yours.

Dean supporters are AFRAID of these legitimate questions, and must attack them, as they have NO legitimate answers.

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

I don't have to base my support of Governor Dean on whether or not YOU are convinced....

Your virulent hatred of Dean is way off the meter...and somewhat questionable and many here just laugh when they see one of your threads posted....because it is usually the same old tired nonsense regurgitated every fifth day....

usually you just post and run...never to return to the thread you started...

If you think the way to win the election is to go negative...fine...you and your candidate will win the battle but lose the war...as history has shown...

In fact....I get concerned if I don't see any Dean bashing going on...the level of crying (or in the words of Hamlet..."me thinks they doth protest too much") only goes to show how concerned they are that Dean is doing well...

What I take exception to is this particular poster's creative editing and use of source material from right wing news sources to slam fellow democrats....

To BLM: I will be elbow to elbow with you working for Senator Kerry should he win the nomination....I for one am very proud of the level and quality of all the candidates seeking the nomination of our party....

People need to remember...the universe doesn't revolve around you...you reasons are your reasons....and if all you have to resort to is negative attacks against your opponent, instead of providing a reason FOR VOTING for your candidate is not getting any converts...

and by majorities in all of them? He even won majorities when facing opponents from the opposite political spectrum.

If Dean is so bad, why did Vermonters put up with him?

If Dean is so bad, why is it that he, and not Kerry, can inspire thousands to come to his rallies?

If Dean is so bad, why did the Burlington Free Press http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/bfpnews/editorial/wednesday/1000h.htm recently update their approval of Dean and his chances of winning the Dem nomination?
Perhaps the most important aspect of Dean's governorship in Vermont as it affects his presidential qualifications is his solid record as a fiscal conservative. Vermont has avoided the budgetary pain suffered elsewhere largely because Dean, while governor in the late 1990s, resisted demands for the kinds of tax cuts and spending increases that have since flooded many state capitols in red ink.

That record in Montpelier should give Dean the fiscal credibility the other Democrats lack when attacking the president's controversial tax and economic policies.

If Dean is so bad, then why did a highly respected former spy and intelligence Reform Author practically endorse Dean for President http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/nym186_1.html
Robert David Steele, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. national security community, founder of OSS.NET, and author or editor of three seminal works on intelligence reform, today cheered for Howard Dean's superb appearance on Larry King Live.

"Howard Dean is the real deal," Steele commented. "This is a man who is accustomed to getting the facts, weighing all opinions, and making an informed judgment. There could be no sharper contrast than that between this honorable man, and the incumbent President who led America to an unjust war on a platform of lies.

"Dean is not only solidly in the center, he is the only Democratic candidate capable of revitalizing the vast majority of America that has dropped out of politics or been marginalized by the Republican-Democratic conspiracy to dump the League of Women Voters for the specific purpose of eliminating third party participation in the presidential debate process."

The real question is WHO elected Dean five times. It was not as much Democrastc as republicans:


Some Republicans back Dean
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Democratic Gov. Howard Dean got a boost from the other side Thursday when a group of prominent Republicans turned out to support his re-election bid.

Led by South Burlington attorney William Gilbert, a core group of 11 Republicans said they believed Dean has proven his ability to lead the state in a fiscally responsible direction and for that reason, and his nine years of experience, he is their choice over GOP candidate Ruth Dwyer


The group, known as "Republicans for Dean" represents the first organized GOP endorsement for Dean in any of his five campaigns

Gilbert, a former member of the late Gov. Richard Snelling's administration, said he took the initiative to form the group, which boasts a membership of more than 30 moderate Republicans from around the state who back Dean.

He said the committee would support Dean's candidacy by reaching out to other moderates in the party as well as helping Dean with fund-raising.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/repbackdean.html

Dean received NUMEROUS endorsements from republicnas, and so many Democrats left the party to go to the Progressive Party in Vermont due to Deans super-conservatism, that Dean almost lost in 2000:


"Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

But if you want it from Deans own mouth:


There are a number of Democrats and a number of Catholics who I have lost the support of, and I need to get that support back. The biggest problem for me (in November) is (Progressive) Anthony (Pollina). Anthony is going to take votes away from me and he’s not going to take any votes away from (Republican) Ruth (Dwyer). So actually the better he does, the more likely it is that Ruth Dwyer is going to be Governor.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Here Dena staes it is PROGRESSIVE, who are going to possibly take votes away from him, not Republicans.

Dena iss scarring liberal gays into voting for him, rather than Pollina, who had always been the preferred candidate of Vermont gays.


So when bringing up Deans five terms, lets not forget to ask:

WHO GOT HIM ELECTED:


PROGRESSIVE MICHAEL BADAMO PUTS HIS FINGER ON IT:

*Howard Dean:

Howard Dean is clearly the runt of this litter. Dean is shallow, glib, mean spirited and overly ambitious yet Vermonters continue to reward him with term after term. On issues that matter, Dean is regressive and responsive only to the needs of elite vested interests. Taking his lead from the new generation of grossly hypocritical, Bill Clinton type Democrats, Dean mouths the ancient words of Democratic Party idealism but then repudiates labor and the poor confidant that they have no where else to go. Big money motivates Howard Dean, a spoiled brat rich kid from Long Island who always gets his own way.

Dean has never had serious opposition in any election campaign. He slid into the Lieutenant Governor's office and took over the top job when Snelling died. He has won easily since because Republicans like to vote for him while their own Party candidates have been either little known or hopelessly right wing.

Of our six modern governors over the last thirty five years, Deane Davis gets my vote for number one, definitely a good guy. I'll rank Phil Hoff a not too shabby number two because Vermont really needed a good kick in the ass. From there, they go down fast. Dick Snelling gets a grudging number three because he represented stability and administrative competence. We'll give Madeline Kunin number four simply because she was less of a snake oil salesman than Tom Salmon, our choice for number five. Howard Dean, of course, is the worst in modern memory.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to plot the trend.

So what's happening here? Are Vermonters really getting dumber or do we just not care any more? If the past be any guide to the future then we got trouble down the road.


Michael J.Badamo has written political commentary in "The Watchman" for eight years now


http://www.sover.net/~auc/6govs.htm

So just be becasue he got elected five times in Vermont, does not mean Dean deserves the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

Dean's Republican opponent got 37+% of the vote, Dean got just over 50%, and a progressive got 10%. Just how many Republicans do you think Vermont has? Presumedly all, or nearly all, of the Republican's voters were indeed Republican. Lets call it 30%. Is it really your contention that Vermont is 55% Republican (her 30 + half of his 50)? If so just how do Sanders and Leahy win? For you to be telling the truth instead of yet another bizarre story you like that has to be the case. Otherwise Dean is winning with Democratic votes.

tweak honk burp

or something left over from kindergarten?

Can Kerry do that?

Kerry can easily win the Presidency against Bush. He is not my favorite candidate. He is a second choice for liberals like me. But I have noticed that the Dean people only think they can win by attacking other people's electability.

people have said anything negative about Kerry, and about ten have said not only is this wrong but it needs to stop....but you choose to use the words "Can't you Dean people..."

Stop painting with a broad brush and maybe Dean supporters wouldn't be so sensative to anti-Dean threads that label every Dean supporter nasty mean and thin skinned...

Perhaps what this all boils down to is a level of maturity....there are people who are unable to express themselves without resorting to generalities, black and white thinking, and circular reasoning...on all sides....

Howard Dean (the most liberal candidate except for maybe Al Sharpton) can't beat a popular president who is moving the country towards the right. I think if Bush screws something up really bad John Kerry would make a great candidate to beat him, not that I think he would make a great president but that's a totally different story. BTW I think things in this country would be fine if the Democrats had just won the 2002 elections.

...at what point will you folk stop calling him "popular"? In most parts of the world, when nearly half (within 5%) think of a candidate in a negative fashion, they can't really be called "popular" unless you are only polling that persons friends and family. I'm sure Bush is very "popular" with his oil-slick pals...

LMAO

Streamlining criminal trials to expedite convictions is untra-conservative.

ok,!

At least he can do more than attack. Also, his supporters aren't running around harrassing innocent people.

has a bigger dick than your candidate. This goes for anyone on this board, especially if your candidate is Moseley-Braun.

..."X will lose" or "X will win".

The party should realize that there are a lot of former Gore voters who are now firmly supporting Bush because he "kicked some Arab ass" after 9/11. They will probably vote for him in '04. On the other hand there are a lot of former Bush supporters who are horrified at the war and disgusted at the deficit. Democrats need to nominate someone who can attract these cross-over Republicans and independents. I cannot conceive of them voting for Dean. Kerry, maybe. Lieberman, no. Might as well hold their noses and vote for Bush. Graham is the only one in the race who was against the war and has a solid record of bringing cross over votes.

Not that anyone will listen amid the din. :(

What's worse, besides not having a "crystal ball," no where in your post do you give a SINGLE reason to support your premise. At the same time, you open your horse up for one knockout shot after another.

FYI: Kerry has done more in the service of this country than ANY other candidate. As a US Navy commanding officer, he volunteered for the most dangerous missions. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for gallantry in combat. When he came home, he did all he could to end the war as a civilian. When he was a Massachusetts DA, he busted the Mafia. As a Senator, he's gone after the crooks in high places, from busting Ollie North and the drug-runners sending the Contras money to the Iranian terrorists banking at BCCI. Kerry has an 18-year pro-Liberal voting record where he has demonstrated his support of labor, women's issues, the environment, education, small businesses and other issues of conern to ALL the people. Regarding the Iraq war vote: Kerry did what he thought was best for protecting the United States from further attack.

Gee. In all that I don't see too many other candidates doing anything. Sure, they might talk about it. Great.

Here's what my crystal ball says: As President, John F. Kerry would bust the Bush Organized Crime Family and send the bloody lot of them to prison for the rest of their natural days. That's why Smirk, Sneer, Turd Blossom and the rest of them are crapping their pants worrying about John Kerry.

This is news?

See, I personally think Dean has peaked too soon and has too big a mouth to last it out. What is considered refreshing right now is going to become grating before too long. Also, I have read some pretty dicey stuff about him on this board just in the last two days. Seems to me that when it gets a lot closer to voting time, reporters are going to be crawling up his ass with a microscope and I have a feeling he is not going to be able to withstand that kind of scrutiny. And he is basically a Democratic version of Bush. Same background, same basic politics, raised Republican, same kind of 'shoot from the hip' persona...they just seem like the same guy, only Howard is a doctor who moved to Vermont and adopted the accent.

Kerry seems like a nice guy, but my off-the-cuff impression of him is that he runs every time somebody opens the gate. Hasn't he run for this nomination and missed several times before?? I don't know this for sure, this is just an impression. And the most immature thing of all is that Kerry looks like Lurch. A lot of people are going to have a hard time voting for Lurch.

Plus, they spend so damn much time badmouthing each other, they are doint the other candidates jobs for them. All the other guys have to do is sit still and look charming and let Kerry and Dean beat each other to death.

I will support whoever gets nominated. I like Edwards, but I am game to support Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, and I am trying really hard to like Lieberman enough to support him, if that is what it takes to get rid of Bush.

This is John Kerry's only run.

You're not saying that people are entitled to "their turn" for running for President are you? I mean, we're not the GOP (joke)!

Yes, Kerrey ran in '92 and witnessed (like everybody else) the campaign master known as Bill Clinton. That doesn't mean an older, wiser candidate wouldn't fare better. Plus, different times call for a candidate with different traits or strengths.

I was saying that no matter what anybody thinks, electability is important. I thought that Kerry had run for the Democratic nomination before and that if he had and lost, it is a problem to running again. Once a loser, it is hard to overcome the stigma of being a loser. I have been corrected because it was not information that I was sure about, the name was floating around in my head.

straight. You don't even know who is running.

"And the most immature thing of all is that Kerry looks like Lurch."

That is YOUR immature thing - noone elses.

I think Bill Maher said it before I did. But once it was pointed out, I couldn't help but notice the likeness. It IS a stupid reason, but don't you think that sort of thing does count with the average guy who votes? Appearances DO count. Edwards might be almost too cute, but a candidate needs to be personable and attractive to people. Part of that is their appearance. And their appearance gets more important as the campaign shifts into TV ads. Whether anybody wants to pretend it is the case or not, appearances are important. Do you HONESTLY think that Bush was elected because of his keen political acumen? Why do you think Arnold is leading in the polls now? Because of the well known phenomena of weightlifting action heroes being competent to run the fifth largest economy in the world? Get real.

I'd have to say that Edwards has a little more potential to take on Pres. Bush in 2004 than the others running right now. He's young and his speaking skills can only be surpassed by Clinton. However, he's got a very short term of service in elected positions and no matter how well he fights the "trial lawyer" attack by the Bush campaign (he's won some major cases for the little guy) it will have some traction (especially with doctors who are nearly going out of business because of malpractice insurance rates).

His problem is essentially the same as Dean's: Your average American will not trust an inexperienced person to assume the role of commander-in-chief. After Pres. Clinton (Bosnia, Somalia, & Rwanda) and Bush (the mess right now), I've got to say I've got some reservations about governors with no foreign policy experience too.

I like Dean and I think he's really sharp, but he's a small state governor and his position against the war in Iraq (no matter how much he's admired by the Left) would hurt him in the general election. In the end, Hussein was an incredibly oppressive ruler and people just won't care to understand the nuances of his position. I'm not saying he or Edwards can't defeat Bush, but it will take an awful lot of work to make sure people have confidence in their ability to take over the ill-named "War on Terror." Bush and Rove will ride 9/11 and war-time flag waving sentiment as hard as they can, we better have an answer.

As for those who think Kerry is clearly the best choice, I think he lacks the ability to excite anybody other than die hard Democrats. I moved to Boston a year ago and you wouldn't know that he's a senator here. I mean, the convention's going to be here and he's one of the front-runners but I just don't get any sense that people are excited about his candidacy. Besides, the media's already locked in on the idea that Kerry's too careful and sits on the fence with issues. At some point, he's going to go to the well one too many times and talking about his Vietnam experience won't get him where he needs to go. We need a candidate with a vision for this country. I hope he steps up his game.

I've said to anybody who'd listen (or pretend to), I still hold out hope for Bob Kerrey to enter the race. Anybody who seriously looks at what kind of candidate will be needed to defeat Bush in 2004 will understand why I think he's the ideal candidate. Outsider with Insider experience (Governor and senator of NE). Moderate, but not on key issues. For the war in Iraq (in the name of freedom, not hyped intel of a imminent threat), but critical of its handling and the handling of the "war on terror." And finally, a Medal of Honor recipient that can stand next to Bush and say what needs to be said without being accused of being unpatriotic.

Anybody who brings up the "war crimes" issue needs to explain to me how this story would matter to anybody but Greens and liberals who wouldn't vote for anybody but Kucinich and maybe Dean (if he doesn't go center too much). Besides, any time this issue was raised would give Kerrey an opportunity to argue why the US should join and support the ICC (Int'l Crim. Ct.). Although not retroactive, this wouldn't exactly sound like somebody who has anything to hide...except for scars that is.

Probably won't run, but I think Dems need to continue to think outside the box and if you don't think the current choices will get the job done, try recruiting one that you do like.

Hope nobody's offended by my critique of their guy, it wasn't personal.

I think Kerry is the most attractive dem candidate- by far. I like his style. It's not populist- something I consider overrated. He's a thoughtful, well spoken man.

and

as a Vermonter I know Dean's similarities to Bush are superficial.

You're right about Dean sticking his foot in his mouth. He has a propensity to do that. He also has impressive teflon qualities. And yes, I see that as a good thing.

Foot in mouth=bad.

Look, in strict attractiveness, Edwards is your man. The guy is beautiful. Which could turn out to be a downside, honestly, he might be TOO cute to be taken seriously.

MORNING LINE

Most progressive Democratic candidates

Sharpton
Braun
Kucinich

Least progressive Democratic candidate

Lieberman

Most likeable Democratic candidates

Gephardt
Dean

Least likeable Democratic candidate

Kerry

Most popular Democratic candidates

Lieberman
Kerry
Dean
Gephardt

Least popular Democratic candidates

Sharpton
Braun
Kucinich

Giving plus and minus points (one each) for the categories above results in the following:

Gephardt +2
Dean +2
Kerry 0
Lieberman 0
Sharpton 0
Braun 0
Kucinich 0
Edwards 0
Graham 0

who the 'most likeable' candidate is? I am not trying to stir people up, but one of the reasons that I can't get excited about Dean is that I find him basically just unlikeable. After I had that visceral reaction, I began to find evidence to back it up or refute it. I think that is how most people work. Something about a candidate either attracts or repels them and they look into it. But they tend to look into it from the bias of that gut reaction.

about Dean. He's sharp, that can't be denied. But there's that whole "bulldog" persona that either fires people up (already angry about Bush) or turns people off.

Even if it's unrealistic, I think the undecided electorate likes to think that things can remain civil in Washington (or at least like the appearance of civility). No matter how ruthless the Bush campaign gets, Pres. Bush always plays the pleasant above-the-fray role while his people tear into his opponents. It's like the mafia: they kill you with a smile. Not sure how Dean becomes more "likeable" when his whole campaign's about going after Bush in an aggressive manner. Really hinges on whether independents like his message so much that they don't mind the tone if it's not their cup of tea.

And definitely ANY Dem can beat Bush - must admit I'm a tad baffled by the cult-like backing of Dean, even though I like him a lot as I do all the Dem candidates (except Holy Joe).

The conspiracy nut part of me thinks freepers may have a hand, though if Dean is for real and he can keep attracting people like he's apparently doing, including independents!!, then we'll win for sure - though I hope he can come off better on TV than what I've seen.

The war issue is definitely a wild card right now and it may play to Dean's advantage - here's to hoping it does

is that wrong?

Kerry is not my first choice but he is most people's second choice before Dean because Dean has so infuriated the supporters of every other candidate.

How many people DON'T like him might turn out to be more relevent than how many people like him.