If Clark or Kerry beats * because they are a veteran was it right to

[MIMStigator]

go along with anti Dean attacks?

[billbuckhead]

1. YES, whatever it takes to beat the NRA and the Bush regime.

Let's end all the blacklists!

[JI7]

2. bush went awol

from a guard unit that wasn't even going to vietnam. he wasn't like bill clinton who didn't go but protested the war and didn't want anyone else to go. bush supported the war and used connections to get out by getting into that guard unit. and then he went awol from there.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Well, I hope it's more than that

but we'll never know. (I hope) :gulp:

[sandnsea]

4. I don't understand

:shrug:

I must be dense.

[MIMStigator]

6. is it right for other democrats to attack a candidate who wouldn't beat *

to make sure he didn't get nominated

[sandnsea]

8. No

Nobody is a clairvoyant. The people should have an opportunity to make a choice as free from blatant lies and distortions as possible.

Issues are important though and they should be brought up. And it's certainly legitimate to talk about who can beat Bush. After all, that's what killed Kucinich, electability. Whatever Kerry was talking about with that Ag Dept quote is important, although sleazy to release it 2 days before the caucuses. But they should have to answer everything.

And I think most of the attacking has gone on because of ego and power, not real concern for the country. And I'd bet there was ten times as much behind the scenes as there was out in the open too.

So while I personally think Dean doesn't have a snowball's chance, I'm not a magician and I honestly don't attack Dean just to try to knock him out of the race. I do it to try to get to what I think the truth is about each candidate. Howard isn't who he says he is and the people deserve the right to make their choice free from blatant lies and distortions, like I said.

[mikehiggins]

5. No

Many of us have legitimate doubts about Dean but bashing him for the sake of dragging him down was never a good thing to do. In all fairness it has to be said that he did not hold back from the fray himself. Still, it would have been better to argue over issues and ideas, rather than decades old quotes and a wife's decision to live on her own two feet rather than at the feet of her man.

This was a needlessly ugly season, and it's not over yet.

And neither Kerry nor Clark is going to beat Bush because they were veterans. All that will do is put the lie to the GOP claims of leadership and courage. Without a workable program that speaks to the needs of the people neither man will win.

We have to be better, not just different.

[blm]

9. Since Kerry offers the most comprehensive and progressive solutions

that are also workable, then we win all around.

Ever read his site? The clarity of his policies is amazing.

www.johnkerry.com

[NV1962]

7. To answer that question

one must either assume or establish that Clark or Kerry can.

The former is an exercise in futility (i.e., belaboring suppositions) the latter makes the question moot, unless the election result were really dependant upon the (Democratic) winner's veteran status, which is about as likely as bushies flying outta my rear.

In the end, I think the active service record of Clark and Kerry will count as a bonus - but the elections will be carried by succesful delivery of the essential message that Bush is a miserable failure who trashed the country, and that it's time to pick up the trash and send him packing.

At this point, I find it very, very hard to attribure "campaign killer" quality to vet status alone. Too many factors are in flux now. I don't think it's much of a talking point "against" the other Democratic contenders, either.

Just my .02