Attacks on Dean may leave voters dizzy

[Larkspur]

from St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/28/Columns/Attacks_on_Dean_may_l.shtml

I wish Howard Dean's opponents would make up their minds. First they told us the former Vermont governor was a reincarnation of George McGovern, a scary, antiwar liberal who, if he wins the party's presidential nomination, would take Democrats over the cliff. Now, some of his opponents are suggesting that he is Newt Gingrich's political soulmate.

My head is spinning. Would someone explain to me how Dean can go from being George McGovern one day to being Newt Gingrich the next. He can't be both, so which one is he? If I were Dean, I'd take the McGovern comparision as a compliment. Wouldn't the country have been better off with McGovern in the Oval Office instead of Richard Nixon and his Watergate gang? But the Gingrich jab is another matter. It's an insult that, in another time, would have been settled with pistols at 10 paces.
<SNIP>
By the way, Liberal Oasis got from the Gephardt Campaign the Times-Argus article, "Dean Says State Won't Absorb GOP's Cuts". Go to http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/092103.htm to read LO's analysis of this piece, and piece does not support Gephardt's smear of Dean.

The New York Times reported that Dean at the time did say Medicare was poorly run and its budget could be reduced, but there is no evidence he specifically endorsed the Gingrich proposal. As the attacks continued, an annoyed Dean at one point said that to hear his opponents tell it, "I'm anti-Israel, I'm anti-trade, I'm anti-Medicare and I'm anti-Social Security. I wonder how I ended up in the Democratic Party."

Meanwhile, some are wondering the same thing about the newcomer to the race, Wesley Clark...

<SNIP>
Think about it - the two Democratic presidential candidates who are the talk of the party are a former small-state governor who is being tagged as George McGovern on foreign policy and as Newt Gingrich on Medicare, and a retired Army general who voted for Nixon, Reagan and probably George W. Bush. That says a lot about the other eight candidates, especially the four senators and two congressmen in the contest. If Clark's entry shakes up the race and slows Dean's surge, as many Democrats are hoping, it will be less a rejection of Dean's candidacy than a vote of no confidence in the Washington Democrats in the race.

This columnist has it right, Dean's people-powered campaign and Clark's entry in the Dem race are a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the Washington Democrats. I'm no fan of Clark, but I'm not a big supporter of the other Washington Dems either.

[niceypoo]

1. I agree.....same with Clark

There are elements here.........newbies and veterans alike......that are taking one from the GOP smear game playbook. The GOP's policy of smear your rivals seems to be the play of the day in the DU as of late. Disgusting.

[Malikshah]

2. This is hitting the issue right on the head

Dean and Clark are being ripped new ones on a regular basis on these boards, in the media, and by the competition's water carriers...

The attack mode that is so prevalent on this board has been addressed ad nauseum--but no one from what I can tell has touched on the main problem--imho.

The constant attacks, the constant "Question about Dean/Clark" threads, etc. are destructive elements.

Yes--the candidates need to be questioned. But the mode of questioning is aggressive and offensive and constant. The idea is to constantly be on the attack mode so that Dean/Clark supporters are constantly responding. In other words they are reacting as opposed to acting.

In this scenario -- the questioners/attackers are controlling the message, controlling the discourse.

When Dean/Clark folks respond angrily--they are viewed as radical, crazy, whiny, defensive, etc. Guess what--they have a right to respond.

The scenario I just mentioned above--is quite similar to that of the Right wing against the Clintons for 8 friggin years.

I guess a lot of you learned a lot during that time. Good for you. You too can now destroy the political process by acting like would-be freepers. I am so damn proud of you.

For those of you starting the Dean/Clark questioning threads ad nauseum--and you know who you are-- and WE know who you are-- you should be publically shamed.


Honest questioning on NEW issues that have been raised is clearly warranted. Constant questioning on issues that have already been addressed is vile, freeper-like actions that should be pilloried.

Begin to talk with each other and not at each other and maybe we just might get the * out of office.

This article sums up the stupidity of the process as exists today-- can't we learn from it?

[Castilleja]

3. What about a candidate FAQ thread

For each one? Read only, maybe? That way, concerns and questions can be posed, and answered with link or a cited source (contextual info included, of course). And then direct people to them when a new question thread pops up? That way, rather than just getting irritated and moaning about how "it has all been refuted before", have somewhere to link people to, so that they can find out the info they need.

[Eloriel]

4. Larkspur

Clark's entry in the race IS the Washington Dems. I'll post this a third time this morning:

Clark has been put in the race specifically to stop Dean, by other Democrats. And it's NOT because Dean is unelectable - it's precisely because he IS electable AND the movement that has formed around him, which is intent on "taking back our country" from ALL the special interests and putting it in the hands, for the first time in a very long while, of THe People.

He's raising his money from small donors -- people like you and me. He's running a grassroots, Open Source iterative Presidential Campaign in which he and his campaign listen carefully, respond and adopt the ideas of his supporters -- people like you and me. He's not bought, he's not handled, he's free and able to respond to The People. He is revitalizing the democratic process itself, and it's very scary for some who do not want to let go of THEIR power (which isn't The People's Power).

So he has become unbelievably dangerous for those who do NOT want to let go of their power and influence -- the DNC, the DLC, and people like the Clintons.

I should've paid attention when Bill Clinton said a few weeks ago that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark." I should've listend when Hillary gave a glowing review of Clark to a reporter, but said, "but this isn't an endorsement, I can't endorse anyone." I should've paid attention when Howard Fineman wrote a column about the Stop Dean effort in the party. But when Clark finally announced and then shortly thereafter I heard him spouting some DLC talking points, and THEN it was revealed that not only was Clinton "encouraging him to run," but a bunch of ex-Clinton aides and campaign workers had joined his campaign, I got it.

Bill Clinton does NOT have the right to pick our nominee for us, especially when he's thwarting the will of the people to do so. I have been increasingly "over" the Clintons (and Bill IS the only Republican I ever voted for), but this little move clinches it for me. He is NOT a friend of democracy, AFIC, or The People. And he needs to get the hell out of this primary race. Period.

And here's some reading for you:

Tinoire did some amazing research here:
WTF, Clark Was Planning on Running as a Republican ?!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423043

also see: Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons
Wayne Madsen
http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

and: The Awful Truth About General Wesley Clark, A Dissident Voice News Service Compilation, September 18, 2003
Updated: September 27, 2003
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Still Clinton's Show?
Wm Greider
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&s=greider

=======================

Eloriel

[Larkspur]

5. You're right, Eloriel. Clark is a facade candidate for the Dem Party

bosses, like the Clintons.

I've never cared for Clark and I don't trust generals becoming president unless they prove themselves in another elected office beforehand.

And I do think that Clark's entry was designed to torpedo Dean's rise, but the St. Pete Times columnist is right that Dean's popularity and Clark's entry, even though it has the support of the Dem Party hierarchy, is a slap at Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Graham. Dean's support is a sign of NO CONFIDENCE from the We the People to Kerry et al, and Clark's is a sign of NO CONFIDENCE from the Dem Party hierarchy.

Even though I don't like or trust him, it wasn't Clark, who called Dean a Newt Gingrich wannabe, and it wasn't Clark who backed up the accuser. It was Gephardt making the false charge and Kerry backing up Gephardt.