I was a Dean supporter, but there is NO WAY Dean would have done THAT good

[gWbush is Mabus]

it was a flawless performance.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. one weird look, one sigh, one twitch from Kerry and...

the media would have BLASTED it 24/7.

Kerry gave them NOTHING to work with!

[cali]

2. agreed.

and I was also a Dean supporter. Kerry was wonderful.

[oc2002]

3. watched it with a group of fanatical Dean supporters...

..who have been unimpressed with Kerry so far in his handleing of BushCo and Rove..

But last night was impressive, Kerry deserves all the credit for his handing BushCo a shattering defeat last night.

[fujiyama]

4. As one

that admittadly was losing some confidence these last few weeks, I must say that it would have been difficult for the other primary candidates to have done this well.

I now can see how Kerry came back to win his seat in '96. He debated his way back. He truly is skilled at this.

[kcwayne]

5. It depends on whether you think being engaged in the Iraq war is wise

Dean is not encumbered by a previous position that supported the war in Iraq, Kerry is. Kerry's plan is a better managed execution of the Bush plan, which is to use the military to carve out a government in Iraq. Kerry is proposing to bring a wider array of military partners to the conflict to share the burden, but other than that, I fail to see a distinction between what Bush or Kerry will task the military to do in Iraq.

The end game of both strategies is that we have successfully executed the invasion and overthrow of a third world Islamic country. Color me a doubting Thomas on this one.

We won't defeat the insurgents, just as we could not kill enough Vietnamese to break their will. The more people we kill, the more that will rally to their cause. The only way we are left in control of the situation in Iraq by using the military to exert our will is to become more brutal than Saddam. The efficacy of using spiraling violence to win has been shown to be unworkable in Israel, Lebanon, and Vietnam just to name a few.

A candidate such as Dean could clearly draw the distinction between a war on terror and a war of aggression in Iraq, and could lay out a strategy that will divert us from making the same mistake we made in Vietnam. Having a completely divergent perspective on what needs to be done to stop the violence in Iraq might (and I emphasize might) have been a very powerful and attractive message that would reach beyond the Democratic partisan base.

So while I was very impressed with Kerry's delivery last night, since I disagree with the principle idea that the solution in Iraq is to use more military force, I thought there were several flaws in the policies being promoted.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. We'll never know.

I still would have loved to see it.

My suspicion is I think Dean could battered Bush even harder, especially on Iraq - Dean was the wild card for whom Rove didn't have the playbook - but it wouldn't have mattered, because the media would have relentlessly beaten Dean down.

[sybylla]

7. Agreed

I think Dean would have pushed Bush into a rage. I was, to some degree, hoping to see Bush lose it last night. Though he fell apart in his performance, Kerry didn't push him over the edge.

I think a Dean/* debate would have been a far different debate. Dean isn't Kerry. But Dean would still have kicked ass.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. "pushed Bush into a rage"

True. Dean was the only contender who could have made Bush "lose it." There would have been no "Hey, I'm a calm guy" bullshit.

I would like to see how Bush would have answered Dean's truth-telling on Iraq, without having recourse to "he saw the same intelligence I did...."

[FarLeftRage]

8. I disagree

I'm still a Dean supporter (voting for Kerry) and Dean would have BLOODIED *boo$h big time!