Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[IndianaGreen]

1. Kerry blew his brains out when he voted for the IWR

Kerry committed political suicide! His ridiculous attempts to justify his vote made him look like a fool or, at worse, as an opportunist that bet on Iraq making Bush popular.

Those that liked Kerry's military background can find a better deal in Wes Clark who provides clarity where Kerry gives obfuscation.

Kerry's campaign is dead!

[onebigbadwulf]

2. It doesn't make sense to me that Kerry'e numbers are higher than Clarks

Dean and Clark should be running this machine.

(yes kucinich SHOULD should be)

[IndianaGreen]

4. Kucinich is the ONLY true peace candidate

Dennis is the only of the antiwar candidates that will withdraw the troops out of Iraq upon taking office.

BTW, I support all antiwar candidates against the four Bush enablers.

[woofless]

41. That's just Bull

and disingenuous. Clark and Dean did not have to vote. One vote in the Senate does not make one unsuitable for the Presidency. Surely you are not implying that Kerry was in favor of the war or is behind the Bush cartel as they pursue it. Kerry tried desperately to slow/halt the march to war. He was lied to by Bush just as we all were.

[AWD]

49. Oh, please....

...you're actually claiming that Dean and Clark are irrelevant because they didn't HAVE to vote??

Frankly, I'd rather have the guy that was forced to sit on the sidelines than have the guy who got in the game and handed the ball to the other team.

[JI7]

3. he doesn't avoid them

he has no problem talking about the issues. it's the media that wont report on the actual issues and on what he says. why didn't they report when he called for rumsfeld to resign ? why not report when he went after bush for appointing kissinger to the 9/11 investigation. during this time they reported on the cost of his haircuts. but it's not only him. it's done to edwards, and especially kucinich so i try not to complain without including others.

[JI7]

6. and

they didn't report he got the firefighters endorsement.

[Padraig18]

7. Actually...

... his call for Rummy's resignation was above-the-fold, front page news in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Sadly, far too many people, even DU-ers, fail to read traditional Democratic newspapers. If they did, they'd see that not ALL the media are biased in favor of the Republicans.:shrug:

[blm]

5. Kerry should never have expected the Media to do its job and scrutinize

Dean's record and compare it to his election year rhetoric. The media showed it refuses to do its job for Bush while attacking Gore.

If Kerry had reciprocated against Dean's attacks earlier it may have helped open more eyes. Too bad Kerry and the other Democrats waited too long to reciprocate. Dean is to his supporters as Bush was to his. Unswerving in their faith to the image.

The media will kick in against Dean once Rove is secure he is the nominee and the Democrats will be saddled with an unexamined candidate whose inconsistencies and expedient flexible policies will be used to smear the entire Democratic party.

[tjdee]

11. I agree that they waited too long.

As usual, the other Democrats really overestimated the ability of people to wade through the bullshit. This is a chronic Democratic party problem.

They also underestimated Dean.

[dfong63]

14. Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean

... get over it!

[MercutioATC]

23. Yeah, that's the issue...

...couldn't be that people actually agree with what Dean has to say and think Kerry's attacks to date have been petty, could it?

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Above All, Democrats Want Someone That Can Beat Bush

I think there are very apparent reasons for thinking that Dean will not be able to beat Bush. That needs to be said. There is also a huge credibility gap between Dean's statements and what he has said in the past. "Mercurial" is not a term often associated with Presidents, nor is "furious." It also needs to be said that after 9-11, Americans are better off with someone with 18 years of foreign relations experience (15 on the Terrorism Committee, 8 as Chair) than with the Governor of 564,964 people.

The media will not give Dean this sort of scrutiny until it is TOO LATE. Think about those two words. Can you imagine the sinking feeling as you watch the inevitable ass-whomping Dean will take against the Rove machine? Gay marriage, Mondale-esque tax-raises, re-regulation, protectionism. That's just off the top of my head, without even going into the footage of Dean looking maniacal on the stump, let alone his foot-in-mouth disease.

I know for a fact, like most here, that Kerry is the best suited for the job. He may not be the rock star, he may not have a four-star Captain America shield, but he has both the intelligence, experience, and character best-suited to follow in the footsteps of the Jefferson and Lincoln. His policy initiatives, so rarely a matter of debate at DU, are amazingly both bold and commonsensical. He can actually transform the 21st century in terms of energy development, health care, government and corporate accountability, international relations, environmental protection, and so on.

But to do so, Kerry has to win. Honestly, I would prefer to win pretty. I would love for him to target his whole campaign towards winning over liberal activists on the internet, but there are certain political realities to be dealt with. Kerry no longer has the luxury of showing off his stuff and expect to win. Not with BULLSH*T MEANINGLESS debates and a hostile media. It's not going to happen. He now has to do double work - showing why he is the best candidate AND why Dean is not. It sucks, but it is the reality of an underdog.

Kerry had to do the same against Bill Weld, and he did so successfully:

"John's at his best under pressure, when he's being seriously challenged," Paul Nace, an old Navy friend, says. "He gets really cool, very calm. He really is a warrior-he just loves it. I took one look at him as he was walking into Faneuil Hall for one of the last debates and I thought, Bill Weld has no idea what's about to hit him."

Weld-who calls the debates a "bloody draw"-says that Kerry successfully attached him to the national Republican Party. (Weld had said some embarrassingly positive things about Newt Gingrich two years earlier.) "The turning point came when he asked me if I'd vote to keep Jesse Helms as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That was a killer."

I asked Weld how he responded. "I ducked it, of course," he said, with a smile. "I mean, I hated Jesse Helms. But what could I do?"

Kerry won the election by eight percentage points. "John has always been underestimated politically," Marttila says. "But that race had the quality and intensity of a Presidential campaign, and he won. I don't see how they can underestimate him anymore, but they probably will."

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[slinkerwink]

10. that's true...I'm glad that Kerry is now challenging the new Medicare bill

that'll put a more positive light on him.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. I Don't Buy It

Naturally, I agree that Kerry's message needs to be sharper, and it is clear from the language being used that he is doing that. But having a great platform isn't enough at this stage of the game. The reality is Kerry is down, and having the best ideas is not enough. He has to prove he is a fighter and that not only is he good, he is better than Dean. I know it sounds ridiculous, because we all know that Dean has a half-assed platform and is about as Presidential as a pit bull, but this still needs to be pointed out.

There are ways of going at Dean without "attacking" him, by talking about experience, consistency, character. These are legitimate points of discussion. It doesn't have to be "gotcha" politics, but experience does matter, and having walked what you talk does, too. Dean's stump speeches are complete reversals of alot of the positions he's held the rest of his life (and sometimes even earlier in the race!). That should be pointed out, especially if the media is sluggish to do so.

As for being Gored, I think that is an overlapping, but different issue. Gore had no spark, and seemed to be an amalgam of poll testing. Kerry has the gloves off and is ready to brawl. Same thing with Dukakis. He was from Massachusetts, too, but he didn't have the eye of the tiger like Kerry does now.

I don't see any evidence of Kerry being called a "laughing stock." It is more of a "what happened to that guy's campaign?" But anyone worth their salt knows that the situation is much more fluid than the polls suggest, and no one is writing Kerry off just yet.

Kerry is now surrounded by people he trusts, and that helps him trust his instincts. And he has a killer instinct, make no mistake. Kerry WILL be the Comeback Kid of 2004.

[AWD]

50. I agree...

Kerry WILL be the Comeback Kid of 2004.

I agree. He will be coming back to the Senate in 2004.

[tjdee]

12. I have one word for you: SCHWARZENEGGER.

Or however you spell it.

The best person for the job really has nothing to do with anything anymore in this country. Things make a lot more sense when you look at it that way. People may need brussel sprouts, but that doesn't mean that's what they're going to choose.

They have to play the game.

[JI7]

13. ughhhh

sad but true. i'm in california. i can't believe that buffoon is governor. i will never refer to him as such though.

[sandnsea]

20. Someone admits it

It's all a big smoke and mirrors show. Facts don't matter. Character doesn't matter. Policies don't matter. All that matters is the show. Write a check, change America.

What a Revolution!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. I have one word for you: Goebbels

There is already a model for how to create a fascist regime out of a democracy. Create a shadowy enemy who could be anywhere among us. Exploit a national tragedy to subvert the constitution. Spread the Big Lie to consolidate your grip on power.


Does anybody here really think we can out-lie the Republicans?

If we are going to beat Bush it will be with truth, not lies.

[tjdee]

27. You don't have to lie to play the game.

What you *do* have to do, though, is make the truth as palatable as the lies.

A candidate can't get up there and wonk up the place. I'm still busting a gut over Bustamante's "Tough Love" program. I knew he'd lose the instant I heard the title.

[w4rma]

15. S.C. survey gives Dean best chance to beat Bush

Posted on Sun, Nov. 23, 2003
By LEE BANDY
On Politics

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would have the best shot at beating President Bush in 2004, according to an unscientific online survey of moderate South Carolina Democrats.

More than 500 Democratic activists participated in the week-long survey, conducted by the South Carolina Democratic Leadership Council.

The survey — handled completely by e-mail and through the council’s Web site — included numerous questions about the nine presidential candidates and issues.

When asked to name the candidate with the best chance of beating Bush, 33 percent chose Dean, followed by retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark with 27 percent and U.S. Sen. John Edwards with 14 percent.
…
The SCDLC held a lunch earlier this year at which former White House press secretary Mike McCurry was the honored guest. All the presidential candidates were invited. Only Dean showed.
…
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/columnists/lee_bandy/7330067.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=90337

[blm]

16. Why is anyone surprised that DLC Dems like Dean's CENTRISM?

What a bunch of HYPOCRITES who attacked the DLC here at DU knowing FULL WELL that Dean was a DLCer and only PRETENDING to be a populist.

Too bad it's 11 months now, and the story is STILL not straight on Dean. No media complicity here, heh?

[sandnsea]

19. Oh, it's the party leaders

they're the bad DLC. This is the rank and file, the good DLC. And did you see how they think on the issues? Just like Howard!! It's amazing they're in such complete agreement!

[MercutioATC]

24. You HAVE seen the DLC's comments on Dean, haven't you?

They're hardly buddy-buddy this election.

[blm]

26. That's a couple officers. They knew he wasn't a liberal

and that's why I'm suspicious they called him too far left. That was a dog and pony show by From, imo. As if he was just going along with Dean's portrayal of himself as a liberal antiwar candidate. He knew Dean was one of the furthest right among the centrists.

[MercutioATC]

28. So From fell on his political sword...to what end?

If Dean gets the nomination, From's essentially history. What does this accomplish if he's really not opposed to Dean?

Additionally, as long as From is presenting the DLC's position to the world, he's not just an "officer", he's the mouthpiece of the entire organization. To say the DLC is backing Dean but "a couple officers" aren't is ridiculous when those "couple officers" are the ones issuing the official press statements for the organization.

[blm]

33. Get real. Dean is further right than most of the DLC.

CATO gave him their highest marks for Democrats and he had higher marks than many Republicans even.

What From has done, I can only imagine. However Dean is bringing more lefties into compromising their core liberal principles for "pragmatic centrism" than anything any other centrist has done. He's like the Pied Piper for ungrounded lefties leading them further right.

The DLC's goal will be met more by Dean than by From.

[MercutioATC]

38. And that changes what I said, how?

I agree that the "official" position as stated by From does not represent the Democratic will.

As for "core liberal principles", I believe we're talking about many different groups. A small number are far-left progressive liberals. They, in general, seem to have an issue with some of Dean's decisions, but they should realize that Bush is still much worse. The majority are centrist Democrats...social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Balancing the far-left Dems are the far-right Dems...those who believe in both social and fiscal conservatism.

Dean is a centrist Democrat with the ability to speak to ALL Democrats as well as some from other parties (as evidenced by the www.republicansfordean.com site).

Dean has broad-based appeal with traditional Democratic underpinnings. Want to win in 2004? Dean is definitely a viable choice

[blm]

48. Until all his lies and inconsistencies are pounded home in ads.

You all are happy he has the teflon now, but it will come off when Rove needs it off.

Dean is VERY unlikable, ESPECIALLY when he's lying or tripped up on his own inconsistencies. He gets angry when he's called on his loose relationship with the truth.

[MercutioATC]

58. Kerry's IWR vote?

Rove: "He voted to support the President"

Kucinich's choice stance?

Rove: "He was anti-abortion until a year and a half ago"

Clark's stance on the Iraq war?

Rove: "He commended this administration for taking action."


I'm sick to death of hearing how Rove is going to damage Dean so badly. The fact is that ALL of the candidates have things for Rove to exploit. None of them are safe. Personally, I think that a "yea" on the IWR will be the most damning thing. Any time a candidate picks on Bush for his handling of Iraq, Rove can say "you personally voted to let the President do exactly what he's doing and are only taking issue with it now for political gain."

[AWD]

51. Shhh....

...don't confuse their delusions with facts. You'll only make them angrier.

[Hep]

52. LOL

TheDLC has been attacking Dean since day one. I want some of what you're smoking.

[TLM]

59. BLM, Kerry is a current DLC member.

Dean is not, and has spoken out against the DLC's recent attacks on dems.

Has Kerry?

[IndianaGreen]

17. Kerry will have to renounce his vote on IWR

and come clean and straightforward on his reasons for going along with Bush on Iraq. Kerry has repeatedly failed to do so, and I don't think he is capable of doing so with any degree of conviction and sincerity.

To my great surprise, Wes Clark has played the role that Kerry should have played: war hero, strong national security credentials, and strong opponent of pre-emptive wars and unilateralism.

Kerry's day in the sun has come and gone. Kerry has no one else to blame but himself that a man with strong liberal credentials such as he cannot connect with people as newbie Democrat Wes Clark can.

[sandnsea]

18. You can't put words in his mouth

You keep saying he has to renounce his war vote. He's given his reasons for that vote and people refuse to believe him. Why people choose to believe Dean or Clark, who haven't been totally consistent, and refuse to believe Kerry, who has, is a real conundrum.

[blm]

22. For those who BOTHER to comprehend the truth:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0713b.html

>>>>>>
As someone who helped form the broad American coalition supporting the use of force last year, Kerry did not do so by inventing weapons programs Iraq had abandoned or never attempted, or creating connections with Al Qaeda that never existed, or manufacturing an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.

He made ''truth'' an important word last week as well. The war is continuing, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq is proceeding at a snail's pace when it proceeds at all, and for the job ahead international support is imperative. Kerry said the things George Bush should be saying.

I continue to be struck by something else in Kerry's rhetoric that is worth quoting:
''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''

Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.
>>>>>>>

[IndianaGreen]

29. What "rogue nations... with aggressive records and intentions"? Israel!

Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.

By Kerry's logic, which is an imperialist logic, we should be bombing Israel. Israel is a rogue nation with a record of aggression, and Israel has shown aggressive intentions towards her neighbors time an time again. Israel also has WMDs.

What do you say about Israel, Kerry? Or did you sell your soul to the AIPAC Likunids?

[blm]

35. all that sanctimony, when you support a Likud hardliner

who can't keep his story straight on I/P.

[Scott Lee]

39. Spin it any way you like - Kerry supported Bush's unilateral war.

Whether he whines about "winning the peace" or not. That is why this issue will probably be the one that takes him down.

People aren't as stupid as you think they are, blm....and repeated pedantic posts that still avoid the central issue won't make it go away, nor win Kerry new friends.

[Carolina]

30. you hit the nail on the head, IG

Kerry blew it. Time to get back to the Senate fulltime.

[blm]

36. What have YOU done that warrants that advice?

Did YOU help end THREE wars?

Did you advocate for gays when noone else would?

Did you risk your life for 6 years while investigating and exposing the entire DC powerstructure in BCCI, IranContra and the CIA drugrunning?

[Carolina]

40. give it a rest, blm

I wasn't talking to you. Again, per your point,look at all the great work he's done in the Senate. He should stay there.

[blm]

54. And let Bush stay in the White House and Dean destroy the Dem party?

No thanks.

[sandnsea]

46. Better to have a compromising centrist??

That's a choice we're making here. Someone with a long record of leading on civil rights and the environment and women's issues, etc. Leading. Not following 15 years later. We're losing a real opportunity here. I'm sorry he voted for the war too, but I just can't throw away what we could have under a President Kerry over one vote.

Think about what we're losing. Please.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Kerry supports the occupation of Iraq

and continues to oppose a US withdrawal. A Kerry Presidency will turn the Iraq war into a Democratic Party war.

[blm]

55. False, IG. Kerry said last July and since to end the occupation of Iraq.

He wants control turned over to the UN.

Why pretend you know Kerry's stance and spread false statements?

[quaker bill]

21. He has the position. (Senator)

He should use it to show some leadership. I am not saying he hasn't done so in the past, I am saying he needs to do it now while everyone is watching. The medicare bill is an excellent choice.

No doubt, knowing Bush*, Kerry will have other great opportunities between now and next November. Win or lose as far as the nomination is concerned, showing leadership now will only do the party good and enhance his personal standing.

Even if he does not win the nomination, it would put him in great shape to be a leader in the Senate. We only need two seats to resume control there.

[oasis]

31. Many myopic Democrats won't let go of Kerry's IWR vote no matter what, but

what you say makes sense.

[slinkerwink]

32. I really pity the Kerry campaign now....

[blm]

34. sure you do. You're part of the campaign against him that spreads memes

and convincing other young people he's a "corrupt, Washington insider" when, all the while, he has been the ONE lawmaker who has exposed more government corruption than any in modern history. But, that's an inconvenient fact the Dean campaign actively obscures for those new to politics who have no idea what Kerry has accomplished.

[pruner]

45. …

[TLM]

60. So now it is Dean's fault Kerry can't get a message out?

While Dean can? What, are you going to blame kerry's crapy campaign mannager on Dean too? Was that also a conspiracy?

Kerry may have a great record 5 or 10 years ago... but he's not running 5 or 10 years ago. Kerry is running today after he spent 3 years voting for Bush's shit and refusing to stand up to him.

It is not just the IWR, but the 350 billion tax cut amendment, the no child left behind act, and the patriot act. Kerry has to face his record over the last three years.

[oasis]

37. From hate to pity....at least he's moving up on your emotional scale.

;-)

[woofless]

42. The Kerry campaign doesn't need your pity.

Keep it.


edit:typo

[RogueTrooper]

53. No, it needs votes and dollars

:evilgrin:

[blm]

56. Kerry built a team to counter Bush's lies when he should have had

one in place to counter the lies and the memes of the Dean campaign.

[Adjoran]

44. Politics ain't beanbag

When one candidate in a field of several becomes the clear frontrunner, the others will attack him in an attempt to point out their differences more sharply to the voters. Every other candidate who is serious about winning has to do it, else the frontrunner just rides that perception and its attendant publicity to victory.

The important thing is not to burn any bridges between the campaigns, because we will all have to unite behind the winner - with enthusiasm, or we will hand the White House right back to the Bushies.

I think all the candidates are sophisticated enough to do this. I'm not so sure about some of their supporters, when the latter react as if some great blasphemy has occurred whenever their guy is criticized in any way.

I'm still uncommitted, but my state primary (SC) is Feb. 3rd. I don't mind the negative stuff so much, for two reasons: 1) I want the candidate with the best chance to win, and pointing out weaknesses in other candidates is a fair way of bringing that out, it's a legitimate issue, and 2) because the primary infighting is going to look like patty-cake anyway once the Rove machine gets going, so our candidate has to be able to withstand strong criticism, whether it is fair or not, and show that he or she can overcome it to carry the day.

Weaknesses, as I perceive them thus far, of the major candidates (please, no one take offense; this is intended to be constructive criticism):

Dean: has a tendency to bristle and snap back when he believes he is wrongly criticized or asked a particularly stupid question. The short time allotments in the 9-way debates has hurt him in this regard, but he needs to discipline himself to take a deep breath and think a bit longer before responding to such things. People consider temperment and demeanor very strongly when making their biggest voting choice.

Clark: Inexperience. He has improved noticably in this regard recently, but he could also could benefit from more thought-gathering pauses before responding. When he is comfortable with the question and his own knowledge of the subject, he makes the best presentation of his ideas of any Democrat since Kennedy. Clinton was better as a speaker, but Clark's authoritative bearing makes him more believable. He needs constant crash-coursing on details of the areas with which he is unfamiliar, so he can carry that quality into the full range of subjects.

Gephardt: Doesn't excite people, and when he tries to jazz it up with impassioned rhetoric, it doesn't seem like him - for good reason, it's not. But he has the most effective Washington experience of any of the candidates, and being boring isn't necessarily the end, especially in these uncertain times. He should stop trying to be something he's not, and concentrate on his advantages.

Kerry: Has created the image of a campaign in trouble. He was right to shake up his campaign staff; they had not done the job in NH, an almost must-win state for him. But he failed to counter the media first take with his programmed early responses. Needs to stay on message on his vision, and take the campaign into specific policy issues, where his strong Senate experience will show.

Edwards: Sadly, his problem is one that can't be overcome in time for this election cycle: it's his youth and inexperience. He hasn't been able to raise his profile above the crowded field, and at this point, I think he's running for VP.

Lieberman: While he has appeal to moderates and independents, he hasn't clearly defined how he would be anything more than Bush-lite at this point, and given him as the choice, most of the middle ground independents would probably choose to stick with the devil they know against the one they also know, but is so close.


I don't think the last two can overcome their problems, but the first four have the chance to do so. I'm watching them all . . .

[BurtWorm]

57. Kerry would have run a better campaign being highly visible in the Senate

If he had been taking principled stands on the front line and been a visible leader of the active resistance against Bush, he would be in a far better position now. Even if he had voted voted for IWR.