Transcript of Howard Dean's Face the Nation interview

[Larkspur]

It's in PDF format. No video posted yet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_81405.pdf

[madfloridian]

1. Thanks.

Unusual to be in pdf format for a transcript. Glad they put it up.

[femrap]

2. I watched him today....asked about John Roberts'

nomination and he slipped up by saying that the Dems need to focus on his record of 'Women's Rights and ....no I mean Civil Rights.'

Of course Dean stood up the Iraqi Women....he said they are going to be much worth off because of our Occupation....he thought that was BAD.....but John Roberts is ..... what for women?

The Dems can't stand up for women's rights because why? Any theories? Maybe the Dem males don't really like women having control over their destinies...maybe the Dem males liked the 1950's when women were all secretaries and birth control wasn't widely available? Maybe the Dems like a war economy as well?

Or is standing up for a women's right to choose a 'girlie man' stance? Anti-catholic stance? Why is it that women's rights are not worthy of a fight? I guess 'free women' are just politically incorrect these days....

Dean has become another disappointment to me. Just part of the Established Dems....who I am beginning to see as co-conspirators in this Loss of our Democracy. Minimum, they should be charged with 'neglect to properly feed and care for our Democracy.'

[Larkspur]

5. Oh poppycock! Dean is hated by the Dem Establishment.

What he's trying to do is re-frame the debate on Roberts as a debate on Civil Rights, which covers women's reproductive rights. The Repukes want to attack all our civil rights and take them away if they could. Corporations are not democracies and the Repuke horde in Congress are vassels to many corporations.

Dean has stood up for women's rights many times. He was on the board of New England's Planned Parenthood for many years. Dean is very well aware that women's rights are under attack.

The fight against Roberts and the Repukes isn't just about Roe vs Wade, which the Repukes will reduce to a support partial birth abortion debate. The real battle is a class battle. The Repukes want this nation to be a corporate feudal estate and we their serfs and slaves. To do that, they need to convince a majority of us to give up our constitutional rights.

[Pepperbelly]

10. that's ridiculous...

what do you think the DNC is BUT the Democratic establishment? You know, he is the chairman of that group.

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

12. What a naive statement for one so smart.

I perceive you are either employing a wee bit of sarcasm, or are unaware of the coming out of the Democratic version of the neocons this week..

There are several threads on this. The DLC/PPI/Third Way are trying to marginalize the DNC. They want to keep doing things the same way, you know, the one that lost us all?

[Pepperbelly]

18. I view those people just like the one's who ...

compain about the DLC. Two sides of the same coin ... partisan partisans ... go figure on a partisan discussion forum.

And I suppose it is natural as factions within the faction struggle through the electoral process to see who ends up running things. Right now, Dr. Dean IS the chairman of the DNC, the biggest part of the Democratic establishment. Nothing naive or dumb about that remark. It is merely true.

[Larkspur]

20. Obviously, you weren't paying attention to the race for the DNC Chair

earlier this year. Howard Dean initially didn't plan on going for the job of DNC Chair. He was urged on by many progressives and after he finally committed to doing it, none of the Dem Establishment, including John Kerry, supported Howard Dean.

The only Congressional support Dean got was from progressive congresspeople, like Rep. Jan Shadowsky and Rep. John Conyers.

John Kerry nominated Gov. Vilsack, Bill Clinton asked Wes Clark, who declined to run for that job, Roemer was picked by Nancy Pelosi. The Dem Establishment all said that Dean was too maverick for the DNC Chair.

When it appeared that Dean had the election sowed up, the Dem Establishment said that Dean could be a figurehead but didn't want him speaking publicly, but the state DNC members who wanted Dean to rebuild the Dem Party from the grassroots upwards, rolled their eyes at the Dem Establishment. The state DNC members, who voted unanimously for Howard Dean, wanted Dean to publicly fight for core Democratic principles. After Dean got in PR trouble with the Biden wing of the Dem Party, it was the 40 member DNC Exec Committee who gave Dean an overwhelming vote of confidence and gave the Biden wing of the Dem Party a political "finger" by telling Dean to keep speaking out forcibly against Repukes.

Dean is not going to publicly buck Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid or show Dem Disunity in public as DNC Chair. That's not his job. His goal is to rebuild the Dem Party in each state of the union with an army of small donors so that the Dem Party is responsive to us and not to Big Business.

Dean's goal is to rebuild the Dem Party infrastructure in all 50 states so that Dems can behave like a national Party again. In contrast, the Dem Establishment wanted to keep the Dem Party infrastructure centralized in Washington DC, as it had been under Bill Clinton's toady, Terry McAwful.

[Pepperbelly]

23. can you even hear yourself?

Arguing that the head of the DNC is not part of the Democratic establishment is so silly on its face, I can't believe that you're still arguing.

[madfloridian]

25. PB, there is a fight on for the heart of the party.

Right now, most of us think of the DLC/PPI/Third Way contingent, along with the NDN of Rosenberg....as the "establishment."

[Pepperbelly]

30. And the proper venue for deciding that are elections ...

I haven't made up my mind yet but I do know this, if anyone wants my vote, they are going to have to persuade me, not frame arguments in self-contradictory ways or, as some have done, mock me for not holding their particular world view.

The lefties are losing me because if anyone, including myself, questions them, they get pretty damned pedantic and slef-righteous at the same time. And at this point, I do not know who I support for what but I do know that if you and your partisans want to win the 'heart' of the party, you will not do it by snits and name-calling.

[madfloridian]

32. I am not a lefty, not pedantic, not partisan.

You are just using those words and saying I am.

What is it you think I am trying to win you over to? I fight against the DLC methods and ideology, that is what I do.

Were you referring to Dean? That would be silly, though, as this is about the party now...not Dean.

I am not reliving the primaries with you. If you love the DLC and fighting eternal wars, go for it.

[Pepperbelly]

33. i'm not reliving a damned thing.

I am against the war in Iraq.

I like Dr. Dean.

I think Dean bashing is stupid.

I think DLC bashing is stupid.

I think that elections are the proper venue to decide party matters.

[madfloridian]

35. Elections like last year?

The DSCC and DCCC are going to pick the candidates. I even have Schumer on audio saying they will pick the candidate and step in if he is attacked.

What kind of elections will those be?

[Pepperbelly]

45. they still have to win the nominations...

Shumer doesn't have the Nebraska nomination to decide. He doesn't have any election to decide.

[madfloridian]

60. Schumer hand-picked Casey in PA.

Others may be in the race, but they are never mentioned at all. It is like they don't exist. Schumer called Rendell, and they picked Casey.

[Pepperbelly]

64. has casey been nominated? nt

[Larkspur]

27. Guess you didn't even bother to read my post. Why are you here?

The Dem Establishment is the inside the Washington Beltway crowd. They are composed of elected leaders who lean Right and right wing or hawkish consultants from think tanks, like the Brookings Institute, and the DLC, who influence those leaders.

Dean is from Vermont and while the DNC headquarters is located in Washington DC, Dean spends most of his week touring the country to rebuild the Dem Party, especially in those "Red" states where the Dem Party has languished or nearly gone extinct.

If you are calling Dean part of the establishment because he's DNC Chair, then you are very naive.

[Pepperbelly]

29. up is down and right is left ...

and the head of the party is an outsider and a jerk with no office, no stature (Al From) is the establishment? You should find some way to frame your argument that isn't contradictory on its face. And btw, I don't really know that you have to understand why I am here nor do I think that your failure to properly frame a discussion is any reason to resort to personal aspersions.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

46. LOL

What a good spokesman for the party you are!

Telling voters to go somewhere else. If I hadn't been an active Democrat since 1968, I might be offended. Since I am what I am, though, I am more amused.

Perhaps, if you see yourself as a player, you should re-think your choices.

[sendero]

48. Your argument is disingenuous..

... in that it makes the absurd assumption that the day an outsider is elected DNC chair, s/he becomes an insider.

It is an idea that is ridiculous on its face.

[Pepperbelly]

55. definitionally ...

it is spot on whether you like it or not. It is you who is disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge the facts.

[sendero]

65. When you use the term..

... "insider", you are refering to a belief system, not a job position. Sorry, it might be technically true, but is it still disingenuous.

[Pepperbelly]

66. so even though it's true, it's false?

You guys are cracking me up.

Face it, the good Doc is NOT an outsider. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[sendero]

68. The term "insider"..

... in the context you are using it will be true when the DNC (and the Dem party for that matter) is unified behind Dean's vision and he is defending the new status quo.

Sorry if you are so simple you think that "insider" in this context means "in".

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

71. a sincere question here ...

what information is there, other than Dean's title which historically would suggest, as you have, that Dean is an "insider" ...

my point is NOT that i disagree with your conclusion ... it's just that i've seen some suggest he is a rebel who is fighting against the evil insiders and i've seen others suggest he is, by definition and more, absolutely an insider ...

what is not at all clear to me is what exactly Dean's relationship really is with other elite Democrats ... it seems like everyone is very clear on this except for me ...

what's the scoop ??

[Pepperbelly]

72. He ...

runs the party.

He decides who works there.

He decides the projects.

He issues statements.

Who knows what his relationship is with others? I suspect that it is okay or he wouldn't have been elected. I think that the problem people have is that they are conflicted about supporting someone is not an outsider pounding on the gates.

Dean is no longer one of those.

[welshTerrier2]

74. DFA

i thought it was very interesting that Dean terminated his association with DFA when he was elected DNC Chair ... perhaps this is just what is required but it seemed odd to me that someone affiliated with a group that preached reforms could not continue an association with that group ...

is there something inappropriate about becoming Chair and still pushing for reforms? i mean, i guess i could understand the break on one level but it just sent an odd message ...

and, whether one is a Dean devotee or not, the issue about Dean raising so much money from the grassroots "so that we can tell corporate donors to take a hike" also seems a bit daft ... i don't think it's very likely that anyone contributing money will be told to take a hike ... it does not seem that raising "grassroots donations" will necessarily give any more voice to the grassroots ... i hope i'm wrong about that ... i really do ...

but the jury is still out on whether Dean will be able to, or even wants to, deliver a greater share of the Party's direction and decision making to the grassroots ... increasing grassroots' contributions of money without seeking increased grassroots' contributions on policy and values would be the epitome of exploitation ... selling the message of reform without trying to deliver shared power would be a very sad lesson for many who believe in Dr. Dean ... let's hope, as i do, that their faith is warranted ...

[madfloridian]

75. That is just so insulting to Dean, DFA, and all of us.

I am so stunned about these whole 3 paragraphs. Why in the world would you want to phrase it this way? What in the world do you stand to gain? He can not associate with any DFA fundraising, it would not be legal. He is still listed as founded and honorary chair. He was the main speaker at DemFest in Texas. What are you gaining by this?

"I thought it was very interesting that Dean terminated his association with DFA when he was elected DNC Chair ... perhaps this is just what is required but it seemed odd to me that someone affiliated with a group that preached reforms could not continue an association with that group ...

is there something inappropriate about becoming Chair and still pushing for reforms? i mean, i guess i could understand the break on one level but it just sent an odd message ...

and, whether one is a Dean devotee or not, the issue about Dean raising so much money from the grassroots "so that we can tell corporate donors to take a hike" also seems a bit daft ... i don't think it's very likely that anyone contributing money will be told to take a hike ... it does not seem that raising "grassroots donations" will necessarily give any more voice to the grassroots ... i hope i'm wrong about that ... i really do ..."

[welshTerrier2]

77. "He can not associate with any DFA fundraising"

what i asked in my post was why? i didn't see your answer to that ...

what i asked about in my post was how raising money from the grassroots would convert into a greater voice for the grassroots ... i asked whether this would necessarily lead to a decrease in corporate influence which many Dean supporters seem to accept as a matter of faith ...

and what was your insightful response to these questions (note that they were questions, not allegations)???

you failed to respond with anything but a description of your emotional reaction (i.e. stunned) and an attack on me by questioning my motives (i.e. "what are you gaining by this?") ... great response ...

thanks very much for not responding ...

[madfloridian]

78. I see a lot of your posts in the PDA forum.

I wonder if that is the way many there still feel? I wonder. Do you really think there is something suspicious in Dean and DFA? Why in the world should I have to even begin to answer such an insulting question.

Do you really think Dean and DFA are suspicious? If so, then we have some real problems at this forum.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

82. Did you say "put up or shut up" What you wrote is personal.

I am a member of DNC and DFA. DFA, Howard Dean, Jim Dean, and the whole group are honorable and above reproach. What you wrote is personal.

QUOTE: "i thought it was very interesting that Dean terminated his association with DFA when he was elected DNC Chair ... perhaps this is just what is required but it seemed odd to me that someone affiliated with a group that preached reforms could not continue an association with that group ...

is there something inappropriate about becoming Chair and still pushing for reforms? i mean, i guess i could understand the break on one level but it just sent an odd message ...

and, whether one is a Dean devotee or not, the issue about Dean raising so much money from the grassroots "so that we can tell corporate donors to take a hike" also seems a bit daft ... i don't think it's very likely that anyone contributing money will be told to take a hike ... it does not seem that raising "grassroots donations" will necessarily give any more voice to the grassroots ... i hope i'm wrong about that ... i really do ...

but the jury is still out on whether Dean will be able to, or even wants to, deliver a greater share of the Party's direction and decision making to the grassroots ... increasing grassroots' contributions of money without seeking increased grassroots' contributions on policy and values would be the epitome of exploitation ... selling the message of reform without trying to deliver shared power would be a very sad lesson for many who believe in Dr. Dean ... let's hope, as i do, that their faith is warranted ..."

You can send your ideas, a lot of people did. They are considered. I do take it personally when both groups I belong to are criticized so unfairly and unjustly.

I felt very good after listening to the interview today. I felt we had a fighter. What this thread has done has shown that our party and many in it are not ready to fight for the future..just with each other.

[welshTerrier2]

84. suspicious of DFA ???

that's what you regard as being suspicious of DFA? this had nothing to do with raising suspicions about DFA ...

and you still have not answered a single question asked in my post ... you still have not explained WHY Dean had to end his affiliation with DFA when he became DNC Chair (a position i supported him for, btw) ...

you still have not explained how you think increased grassroots contributions will lead to more shared power in the Party and a decrease in corporate influence ...

you just talk about being stunned ... you talk about how good you felt ... you question my motives ... you even said that groups you belong to were "criticized so unfairly and unjustly" ... get this through your head: i made no criticism of DFA whatsoever ... in fact, the only reference i made to DFA, iirc, was to call them a group that "preaches reform" ... is that not an accurate characterization?

you've been able to enter into this great emotional argument without stating any information at all ... i raised questions and you have yet to answer any of them ... these are not accusations ... they are calls to keep focussed on the goal of giving greater voice to the grassroots ... they are raising concerns that processes like increased grassroots funding do not automatically translate to a more democratic party ... as i said, i hope that it does ... you never seem to hear the entire statement; you just jump all over selected parts that you misinterpret ...

[madfloridian]

89. Oh, wait.

You are saying I owe you explanations of the relationship of Dean, DFA, and all the reasons he could not be chair of both the DNC and DFA...or something.

This was a post that simply listed the transcript of a powerful interview. It has been turned into trash.

It has been turned into personal critiques of me, especially. I very much resent it. Yeh, I take criticism personally, when it makes no sense.

[welshTerrier2]

90. you were NOT RESPONSIVE

you don't OWE me anything ... i joined a discussion in this part of the thread that did not state anything at all ... the discussion, by two other DU'ers, was about whether Dean was or was not an "insider" ...

you'll notice that i stated i had no information on the issue and raised perfectly legitimate questions to see how others felt about this issue ...

and then you and your "resentment" attacked ...

you don't owe me a damned thing but when i raise questions in a thread, rather than make assertions, it might just be reasonable to hope for answers instead of raging paranoia ...

[madfloridian]

91. It just does not matter.

After reading your other posts in the PDA forum I can see that it would do no good to try to win you over. I am sorry you have such a low opinion of me. I do try to be fair and factual in what I post.

[sendero]

87. You know really..

... I just cannot let you characterize my objection to your misuse of language that way.

I support Dean for his views, and most importantly, his approach to communicating those views, not any label anyone would give him.

When he starts talking like an "insider" with measured tones and nuanced, hangwringing, pink tutu, milquetoast pronouncements, then I'll be done with him because he really will be an insider.

As for now, I don't think he'll ever be that kind of insider, but only time will tell.

[Pepperbelly]

95. I sincerely and truly hope you are right about that.

I like Dean and wish him well at every turn.

[Upfront]

86. I Can't Beleive

you are that dam dumb, but maybe.

[Cha]

101. You should "hear" yourself..

like you've been cloistered.

[xxqqqzme]

110. You need to read the

Dean interview in the August issue of 'American Prospect. The democratic establishment R very, very anti Dean. Dean was elected DNC chair because of us - a force they could NOT ignore. The democratic establishment is NOT supporting Howard. He is raising a million a week from donors averaging $50.80/donation - not from big moneied interests

interview: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9995

read it. you will understand how he can B chair and opposed by the democratic establishment.

[Eloriel]

26. Excellent summation, Larkspur

and I'll add that Dean's election -- by the REAL members of the DNC, the 400+ party "delegates" from all the various states -- was an absolute COUP which told the DLC types -- the ones considered the Elite or the Party establishment -- to go take a hike: WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK!!

So really, it's a continuing battle between We The People and the Party Elite, led by the Clintons and their sycophants, and others (Biden comes to mind as one example) who stand to have to be accountable to The People if Dean continues to get his way.

DUers NEED to get it about all this. That DNC Chair election was no small thing.

[second edition]

50. John Kerry did support Dean and even raised money for him.

Please don't post misleading statements. John Kerry has even supported Dean when he was being criticized by other Dems. He said he though Dean was doing a good job.
Although, as far as the DLC and some other Dems, I will agree there seemed to be some dissatisfaction.

[femrap]

99. Dean has become

LESS....which irritates the hell out of me....he is NOT the man I knew a year ago. I thought he was going to fight for a REAL DEMOCRATIC party.....and today he couldn't even say what the democratic party stands for.....

I am disappointed....I know he is a doctor and that he knows what happens to women when abortion is made illegal....SO WHY THE HELL DOESN'T HE SAY THAT?

He is becoming a wimp....just like all the others....they're co-conspirators in our loss of Democracy....

[ProudToBeLiberal]

54. I think your statement is illogical

Your tactic of guilty by association is illogical. That's like saying that people who study "women Studies" are all girls. WRONG.

[Pepperbelly]

57. not even close to analogous ...

Not even in the same ballpark.

[orleans]

73. i hate to interrupt but getting back to the first post of the thread

did you like the interview with dean?

[Pepperbelly]

96. Yes.

He said a lot of what I wanted to hear, as I noted below in my post directed to the OP.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

85. proof?

[Pepperbelly]

97. Do not be obtuse.

He is the leader of the Party and its chairman. By definiton, he cannot be an outsider. He is not studying party chairman, he IS the party chairman.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

103. so...

So a white man cannot be head of the NAACP? by your definition only an insider can be a party chairman. Or a black person can only be the chairman of the NAACP. Dude i believe in diversity. Please don't be stuck behind in thepre Civil Rights Era.

[madfloridian]

6. What a steaming pile of .......

Never mind.

[napi21]

16. I think you're wrong on Dean. He's never put down women's rights!

I watched him today too, and I think he did a terrific job!

Don't you realize that every Pub, and every reporter on every chanel has been talking about the Dem problem with Roberts is abortion and womens rights? Dean was pointing out that there are SEVERAL issues the Dems have with Roberts! I think he was trying to raise the other issues and put a bit of a damper on the one issue the Pubs have latched onto like vultures!

[femrap]

100. I know....

standing up for women's rights in this day and age is simply politically incorrect....we are AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE...civil rights are worthy of a fight and a mention....but a women's right to control her destiny is just too much for the Democrattic Party to take on right now...

Thankfully I am post menopausal...you fertile women are on your own......sorry.

And that is exactly what Dean said today....he even had a Freudian slip and said 'Women Rights' and then caught himself ('Oh that's right I am head of the DNC now and I can't support women anymore') and changed it to 'Civil Rights.'

I am so tired of the hypocrisy....irresponisible ejaculators need to be targeted instead of ovulating ova.

When will the Feminine be considered Sacred and Divine? About the time that War is considered obsolete......

[Eloriel]

21. I've watched Dean for several years now -- well before he came on

the national scene. He has absolutely STARTLED me with his feminist views and comments at times. I absolutely regard him as the one male Dem politician who is most pro-woman, bar none. The comments that thrilled me would tumble out of his mouth unrehearsed, in answer to unrehearsed questions from audience members (e.g., at the Town Hall Tom Harkin scheduled for each candidate, and other venues as well).

I don't know what the hell is going on with him at the moment on the abortion issue, and I'm not that pleased with what I've seen either, but I will be watching with concern while giving him the benefit of the doubt on this for a bit longer. I don't know if he's under orders from the wing of the party that kept "policy-making" for themselves (Pelosi and Reid), or has been influenced by Lakoff re changing the framing of the debate, or what.

I'm not liking what I am seeing and hearing (tho I missed the show this morning, so I don't really know -- Dean followers know that seeing and hearing Dean personally is the best way to get what he means), but I'm not willing to give up on him yet.

Maybe we need to make a real concerted effort to get his attention on the matter? (If we knew what what going on with him, that would be a little easier.)

[lojasmo]

39. Roberts horrendous record on civil rights goes way beyond Roe.

Roberts will be bad for women, children, immigrants, and people of color. Limiting the scope of criticism on Roberts as purely a women's issue, would be counterproductive, and dismissive of all the other people who Roberts will screw if appointed to the SC.

[femrap]

102. since you can't get pregnant....

we'll take your concerns under advisement.....and encourage you to look into having a vasectomy.....Thx!

Do you realize how sexist you sound? OK to be sexist...and force women into motherhood...change their lives forever?

We are 52% of the population...so how many people does he want to screw?

Most of those children, immigrants, and people of color are women....now do you understand?

You are the one being dismissive.....NOT ME!

[lojasmo]

109. Hey. 52% isn't statistically significant

It means half, essentially. Also, somewhere around half of all women would NEVER HAVE an abortion.

And to focus on reproductive rights when there are a myriad of other civil rights is simply myopic.

Also, I already had a vasecotmy, thanks.

[femrap]

111. well when you are a women, civil rights

mean that you have a right to privacy....a right to determine your future....

Are you promoting Compulsory Motherhood?

It gets tiresome discussing this issue with men who are incapable of empathy...who can't understand a woman who has been raped and finds herself pregnant...

Why aren't you 'good' men going after the rapists? Why do continually keep the hardship on the woman?

How do you know that 1/2 of the women would NEVER have an abortion? PLEEEZ....you are talking out of your vasectomized peehole....Who do you think you are, Zogby the pollster of pregnant women? LOL!

[lojasmo]

112. EVERYBODY has a right to privacy

Limiting the scope to women is shortsighted.

Don't get me wrong. I am FIRMLY in support of a woman's right to chose. But I think Dean was correct to stick to the issue of civil rights, which MOST people support.

[lojasmo]

113. See, here's the thing...Roberts scoffed at equal pay for women...

Not exactly covered under the rubrick of a woman's freedom to choose, is it?

[phiddle]

3. I'm upset with Dean about this interview.

From the transcript:
"He has allowed a real danger to the United
States, which is an atomic or nuclear-armed Iran to be--to go for five years while he has focused on what I frequently refer to as the..."
AND even worse:
"The problem, again, with this president is he squandered
our resources in Iraq, which was not a danger to the United States. He doesn't have much left to fight a country that is a danger to the United States."
Dean is conceding that Iran currently is a danger to the US, and therefore is both letting Bush define the issues and ceding the territory to the neocons.

[soothsayer]

4. Yeah, he shoulda' said North Korea, if anything. Or resurrected

poor dead Osama.

[madfloridian]

7. Uh, Iran is a danger.

Right now we are in no position to be calling the shots. We are not the leader anymore.

You don't think Iran is a danger? I think we need to work with them, as we should have all along.

Wow.

[phiddle]

9. Uh, Iran is NOT a present danger

From today's UK Independent (DU Thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1699657):

Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.

But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.

The new information, which strengthens Iran's case after last week's contentious IAEA board meeting in Vienna, will be a central part of the next report to the board by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief. "The biggest single issue of the past two years has now fallen in their favour," the diplomat said. The meeting of the 35-nation board, which ended last Thursday, urged Iran to suspend the uranium-related activity at its Isfahan plant, which many fear will be the first step towards building a nuclear weapon.

IMO: One point we (Howard Dean) need to be making is that we can NOT trust Bush's evaluation of Iran; he has cried "wolf" too often.

[madfloridian]

17. Iran was well on its way to being more westernized....Bush fixed that.

When he attacked a country that never attacked or threatened us, then Iran began to be a threat....and it is. They are a threat because we have threatened them....but now there is no teeth in that threat.

Bush may try something anyway, he and his neocon buds, but the world is wise now.

We are not leaders anymore.

[wli]

79. Iran is not a military danger, but an economic one n/t

[Larkspur]

8. Dean is right about Bush squandering our resources.

Iran has the 3rd largest supply of oil in the world. Saudi Arabia and Iraq precede it.

If Iran expands it's influence in Iraq via the Shiites, that does pose a national security problem for us because whether we like it or not, our national economy for the immediate future is heavily dependent on oil. Iran could use it's influence with Iraq to hurt us with oil, not nuclear weapons. Iran having nuclear weapons poses a threat to our military if we need to use a military attack against them.

Also, with our military stretched thin and bogged down in Iraq, we can't even bluff a military attack against Iran. With our bluff exposed, Iran and other anti-American forces can make bold moves against us and we will either have to eat the damage done to us or risk a regional war with an overly stretched Army.

That's the short term affect an Iran with nuclear weapons can have on us. Do I think Iran will willfully use nukes? No. I think they want them as a deterrent against us and Israel, and I don't blame them for wanting them.

But let's remember that Iran is a Islamic Republic, not a secular democracy. I really would not want them spreading punitive Islamic practices in other nations, including Europe, which has a high Muslim population.

[Pepperbelly]

11. it is a threat ...

I think that a nuclear weapons program there would be disasterous for the USA.

[phiddle]

13. Yes, it would.

But there are NO, repeat NO indications that they have a nuclear weapons program. Are you advocating pre-emptive military action to remove the possibility?

[madfloridian]

14. That was not what he was saying.

Dean was saying we don't have the power to threaten anymore. In other words, guess who's taking the lead now. Not us. I see China and other nations on TV talking about handling Iran. Not us. Not anymore.

[phiddle]

19. I agree with Dean's points which you mention.

However, I think that it's a BIG mistake to agree at this point in time with the neocons that Iran is a threat. 1) We don't yet know that, and 2)it allows them (the neocons) to push the action, open another theater of engagement in their mad quest.
Rather, we should hammer home that Bush has been untruthful time and again, and that every thing he says should be treated with scepticism.

[madfloridian]

22. Bush allowed Iran to become a serious threat to us.

And Dean does hammer that home. He also got across that we are not in any position right now for threats....

[shance]

28. I cant see how Iran is a threat to us any more than any other country

we have insulted and ignited with fear and anger. I would imagine if anything they are very fearful of this Administration.

Time to quit looking at how everyone else are a threat to us and look at our own actions and words.

I think the bigger question is who are we threatening? Why is this Administration threatening and blaming those countries? Is it valid? What are we doing to exacerbate the problems?

And why is it okay for this Administration to threaten any country it wants other countries and it is not okay for them to defend themselves?

Isn't that what we would do?

And isnt that the more appropriate question we should be asking?

[madfloridian]

31. Before you disagree with what I said, read the transcript I posted.

I am sorry, but they were a manageable possible threat before, but now Bush has threatened them.

And right, all countries hate us, not just that one.

I don't see how you are getting all that out of what I said, I really do not.

:shrug:

[shance]

67. I was posing some questions in general, not towards you Floridian***

and in particular towards the Bush Administration.

Didn't mean to give that impression.

:grouphug:

[Pepperbelly]

15. I haven't yet decided what I advocate ...

I am making an observation.

[madfloridian]

24. From the transcript on Iran

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about some politics in a minute. I want to go back to one
international question. The president said earlier this week that if diplomacy fails, that we may
have to resort--he said every option will be on the table including military action, concerning
Iran, if they go ahead with plans that--and we begin to think they're building a nuclear weapon.
What's your response to that?

Dr. DEAN: My response that that's the proper thing for any president to say. When I was running for president I said the same thing. You can never take any option off the table. The problem with this president is he doesn't have the credibility either at home or abroad to make that into a believable statement. The problem is the president's got 138,000 people pinned down in Iraq. He doesn't have the capability to do anything in Iran nor the international support to do anything because of his extraordinary blunders so far in defending the country. So while no president can ever take any option off the table, this president's words are--can't be taken seriously by people either at home or abroad. He has allowed a real danger to the United States, which is an atomic or nuclear-armed Iran to be--to go for five years while he has focused on what I frequently refer to as the...

SCHIEFFER: But if he said we may have to resort to military action, you can see
circumstances where you would support that.

Dr. DEAN: What I--I didn't say that, Bob. What I said was...

SCHIEFFER: No. I'm just asking.

Dr. DEAN: Well, that sounded like a statement, not a question. I think obviously you have to
look at what the circumstances are. The problem, again, with this president is he squandered
our resources in Iraq, which was not a danger to the United States. He doesn't have much left
to fight a country that is a danger to the United States. So while he--any president should
always say, Democrat or Republican, that no option should be taken off the table, he lacks the
credibility both here and abroad to actually exercise that option. He shouldn't say it, because it
can't be delivered upon."

SCHIEFFER: OK. Let's take a break. We'll continue this is just a minute.

[welshTerrier2]

34. Dean: no plan from Democrats on Iraq

this is a cross-post from another thread ...

Schieffer: "Why do you suppose it is that people are not buying what Democrats are saying?"

Dean: "I think they are buying what Democrats are saying. People believe that we need a plan to get our troops to come home."

Schieffer: "Sure you need a plan but do you have a plan?"

Dean: "You can't expect a particular Senator or a particular Congressman to have a plan (for withdrawal from Iraq); Only the President can do that."

This highlights exactly what problems the Democrats have ...

first of all, i was under the impression that some Democrats have, indeed, proposed very specific plans about how to handle Iraq ... I include statements from Senator Kerry in this category although i totally disagree with Kerry's views ...

the core problem, though, is that, as a Party, as an OPPOSITION party, it is not at all clear exactly what Democrats are offering Americans as a solution in Iraq ... Dean's comments about the dismal failures and the cluelessness of the bush administration in handling the situation were dead on the money ... but for Dean to say that Democratic legislators cannot be expected to propose a plan is absurd ...

exactly how does a "non-plan" appeal to Americans? ... how does a "non-plan" demonstrate the kind of leadership we hope Americans will see in our Democratic representatives?? how does a "non-plan" show Democrats as being "tough on defense" as some have advocated as a political strategy???

the Democratic Party's refusal to sit down with left, right and center and "find our passion" as a Party on this issue and present a clear, unified statement to the American people about how we would do a better job sits at the core of the problems we face ... how can we convince Americans that we are passionate about our beliefs and that we have the courage of our convictions when our own party Chair argues that Democrats are not even in a position to understand the issue and formulate positions?????

and don't waste any bandwidth defending Dean ... Dean is not the problem; the problem is party-wide ...

[madfloridian]

36. Schieffer got huffy with Dean in the interview....

He was practically insulting about where the hell is your plan to get us out of the mess we are in....yes, it was that attitude.

Dean handled it well, let him know it was Bush's problem, and his place to come up with a plan. And it is.

They want us to make all the plans so they can shoot them down.

If I choose to use bandwidth defending anyone, I will.

Dean put Schieffer in his place on this one. It is Bush's problem and the problem of the Republicans.

[Larkspur]

38. Yes, Dean did a good job shoving Schieffer's question back down his throat

Bush got us into this war based upon deceit and delusions. They have no exit strategy because they had no post-war plan orginally. It wasn't until a few weeks before they launched the war that they started thinking about how to handle post-Saddam Iraq. The war and the post-Saddam plans were based upon delusions and a con job by Amad Chalabi, not facts.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

41. Why are you saying that I am making it about Dean?

I get tired of this BS all the time. Schieffer was rude, he asked the impossible...he was going to let Bush off the hook. Dean stepped in and controlled the interviewer.

These verbal condemnations here everytime one of us speaks up on something need to stop.

I explained what happened. Our Democrats voted for the war, at least two, Kerry and Hillary via their own words, would have voted again....So Dean did right. In a way he protected them.

He put the burden back on Bush the fool who got us in to the war.

If you think I make a good whipping girl, go for it. It bothers me not at all now.

[madfloridian]

44. I much resent being called tone-deaf.

I resent being told I did not understand. I resent your sarcastic response about my "insightful" response.

I am tired of it.

[welshTerrier2]

51. contradictions here?

first you wrote: "It bothers me not at all now."

then you wrote: "I resent being told I did not understand. I resent your sarcastic response about my "insightful" response.

I am tired of it."

[madfloridian]

52. Yes, I am tired of being called out on things.

Yes, I was wrong, the more you said the more it bothered me.

Are we having fun yet?

I can play word games all day with you, but wouldn't it be nice to admit that it was a very impressive powerful interview? We had a couple of neighbors call to tell us they were impressed.

Wanna play words games some more?

Yes, it bothers me to have things said to me that are not true.

It is tiring and non-productive.

Our party is so screwed anyway, it just felt nice to see some spunk and fight this morning.

Coming here took away the nice feeling. Back to the same old crap.

[welshTerrier2]

58. sorry about your "nice feeling" but ...

does that mean i am supposed to agree with the idea that our Party should not have a strong, unified position on Iraq ??

does it mean that i should "just go along" with the idea that we'll win even if we don't offer the American people a clear alternative on this critical issue and that we are willing to fight like hell for what we, as a Party, believe in ??

we would all like to feel good about the direction of our Party and know that it is choosing the best path for the country and for the Party's political interests ... but pretending that's the case when many don't feel that way is a dead-end street ...

i have great hopes that Dean will succeed as DNC Chair ... as i said in my first post, my criticisms were not directed at him ... but i do disagree with the Party's refusal to try to build intra-Party consensus and i do disagree that the current "non-position" is in the Party's best interest or the country's best interest ...

[madfloridian]

59. You don't seem to understand.

The DC folks are not welcoming Dean. But go ahead. I give up.

[welshTerrier2]

61. "The DC folks are not welcoming Dean"

did i make any statement whatsoever about whether the "DC folks were welcoming Dean" ?????

i have no idea what the behind-the-scenes interactions are between Dean and the "DC folks" nor did i make any reference to that relationship ...

[madfloridian]

62. I said you win.

.

[welshTerrier2]

63. and i said ...

that what you wrote about Dean and the DC folks had nothing to do with anything i wrote ...

this is not about DU'ers "winning and losing" ... we are talking about the critical issues that face the Party and the country ... the fact that not all agree with the direction of the Party on a variety of important issues seems unacceptable to you ...

my criticism, as i made clear in my first post in this thread, was not about Dean; it was about the Party's lack of a clear message on Iraq ... twisting my words and my intent to provide yourself with a basis to claim you are "the victimized party" does not change that ...

[wli]

81. eh? the DC folks aren't welcoming Democrats

DC has been taken over by neocon Rethugs.

[Larkspur]

43. The only Democrats who can develop such a plan are those with access

to intelligence on Iraq. I don't know if those on the Foreign Relations committees in Congress can view the same intelligence as the President or can only see what the President allows.

The main reasons that Dems as a whole can not develop a unified plan on post-Saddam Iraq are 1) Bush continues to lie to them about the real situation in Iraq, 2) a third of the Dems supported the war, so the Party leadership feels the need to cover for them, 3) Israel via AIPAC is a major lobbyist for US intervention in Iraq and Iran. Iran's expanding influence in Iraq has got to be a big political problem for Israel. And 4) exiting Iraq because we could not defeat the Sunni insurgency will encourage Al Queda and other Muslim extremist groups, especially those fighting Israel, to continue or escalate their violent ways against the West and Israel.

Those are just the main reasons I can think of as to why the Dem Party as a whole can not develop a logical plan of withdrawal from Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

47. all good points but ...

i disagree ... i'll address each of your valid points but i think the bottom line is that we have clearly failed in Iraq and nothing is going to change that anymore ... it is time to leave because we cannot succeed ... more occupation only creates more violence, more insurgency, more dead Americans, more time before reconstruction of Iraq can begin, more budget deficits and less hope for the Iraqi people ...

anyway, before we go overboard with "Dems don't have access to important intelligence", let's understand that many Democrats have visited Iraq, some multiple times, and have spoken with not only our top military people over there but key people, e.g. Jafaari, in the Iraqi government ... even with bush lying to them, and bush has less than zero credibility on anything at this point, it should be rather clear that no progress is being made in Iraq ... after something like two and a half years training Iraqi troops, they have virtually no trustworthy battalions and civil war is breaking out throughout the country ...

on your point about providing cover for Dems who have supported the war, and this is a very disturbing argument, should Dems not be allowed to change their position as the situation changes?? isn't this what a majority of Americans have done? sure, republicans will always find ways to attack Democrats ... but it seems to me, strictly looking at the politics, that aligning with the views of the American people that things have become hopeless in Iraq is not such a bad thing to do ...

on your third point, about Israel, this could cause some political problems for Democrats ... but, again, has what has already occurred in Iraq been to Israel's benefit? if we want to build a strong alliance with Israel, they need to understand that American occupation of Iraq has destabilized the region ... Israel may not like a US withdrawal but that does not change the reality that continued US occupation will lead to less, not more, stability ... the US invasion of Iraq has been incredibly damaging to both the US and Israel and it's time for real leaders to acknowledge that and chart a new course ...

and finally, your fourth point that withdrawal from Iraq will only encourage Al Qaeda fails to recognize what occupation has done ... will America lose prestige when we finally withdraw? yes, we will ... but just how much prestige has failing to quell the insurgency earned us? the US occupation of Iraq has served as an enlistment campaign for a generation of Muslims; how are US enlistments coming along by comparison? Americans are not committed to continuing this madness and Democrats shouldn't be either ... btw, i actually believe the reverse of your point will occur ... i think there will be far less incentive for Al Qaeda to be active in Iraq once the US leaves ... is there goal in Iraq to fight against Sunni, Shia and Kurds or is it to fight Americans and any puppets they might try to install in key positions (e.g. Chalabi or Alawi)??

my bottom line to all this is that we have to be the OPPOSITION party ... all of the reasons you cited are factors worthy of consideration ... but in the end, most Americans, even those without special access to secret intelligence or those who support Israel or those who initially supported the invasion, now see that the US has failed in Iraq ... in spite of a screwed up media, in spite of WH lies, in spite of the hopes some had that we could really do something positive for the Iraqis, it is very clear to most Americans that remaining in Iraq will not achieve anything no matter how long we stay ...

regardless of what position they choose, and i would strongly advocate withdrawal, Democrats are not going to convince Americans that we are able to lead without taking a clear position as a party and showing Americans that we are deeply committed to our beliefs ... the "no position on Iraq" feels like political chicanery to me and i think that's one of the key reasons we didn't do better last year ...

[madfloridian]

49. Yes, the opposition party thought was all through the interview today.

Perhaps you are agreeing with us.

Dean agreed we need to be an opposition party, but he did not let Schieffer take Bush off the hook.

And the plan to leave Iraq MUST come from the ones who put us there...they are in control.

[welshTerrier2]

53. "Perhaps you are agreeing with us. "

if your point is that Democrats should highlight the insanity of bush's failed policies in Iraq, then i am absolutely agreeing with you ...

but if your point is that criticism without alternatives is adequate opposition, i don't agree at all ...

as an example, think about this in terms of a Presidential debate ... can you imagine a situation where the challenger criticizes the incumbent and highlights the damage his policies have done but refuses to provide the American people with a vision of what he, himself, would do?

do you think this would be politically effective? does it demonstrate leadership such that Americans would be comfortable voting for the challenger? is it good democracy? shouldn't the opposition Party offer Americans a choice of policies rather than just an opinion of the policies of the incumbent? wouldn't that be what is best for the country?

i really don't understand why the Democratic Party is afraid to take a stand on this issue and fight for it ... maybe it's what they consider good politics but i don't think it's good government ...

[madfloridian]

56. The party should take a stand.

Dean did take a stand today. Our congressional leaders can't really right now. They voted for the damn thing, and most of them say they would vote again.....Dean did take a stand.

Guess what? Do you remember last year? Do you? The frontrunner took a stand, he was brought to earth quickly by his own...and guess what...today he is begin criticized for saying that the war is the president's fault.

Go figure, because I can not.

We are acting like losers. I am tired of it. Every damn time he speaks out powerfully, someone jumps in to say it is not right, not enough.

We are acting like loser party, then when someone stands up to Schieffer and a WP editor...and does it brilliantly...he is not doing enough. That is a loser party.

You win.

[Larkspur]

93. I wasn't offering an apologia for the Dems. I was just guessing as to why

the Party as a whole doesn't have a plan, short of "staying the course." Howard Dean can't set policy for the Dems. He can only be a spokesperson for the Dem Party as a whole and as long as the Dem Party has no unified plan to address Iraq, Dean's best bet is to push back onto Bush, Bush's lack of a plan. In a way that is good strategy for now. Bush must be held accountable for taking us into an immoral war and the Media have let Bush off the hook too many times.

I agree with you that we have failed in Iraq. Juan Cole, a Middle Eastern expert, had agreed with the Dem position for a long time until he read a recent British account of how our troops see every Muslim male 15 and over as an enemey and will shoot to kill and not ask questions period. He said that if that is the state of our troops in Iraq, it's time to bring them home. They are causing more harm than good.

While it's true that many Dems have visited Iraq, they have come away with different views on what to do. Rep Jim McGovern of Massachusetts wants us to pull out ASAP. Sen. Biden says we need to stay until the Iraqis are trained to handle the insurgency and crimminals. The closest Biden will get to McGovern's position is to base pullout on a benchmark or timetable for Iraqis to meet.

Regarding covering for Dems who voted for the war, I say let them hang out to dry. I have no sympathy for them. Yet these same Democrats who voted to enable Bush to go to war in Iraq want to increase the size of the Army by 80-90,000. The Army that can't meet it's current recruiting goals because of Iraq, so what plan to these nimrods have to attract people to volunteer to join the Army that is being stretch too thin? None.

I think this article, The Strategic Class, by Ari Berman http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman explains a lot as to why these pro-war Dems are keeping the Dem Party out of step with the American people in regards to Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

98. The Nation article ...

thanks for the link to the Nation article, Larkspur ... very interesting ... somewhat depressing, but interesting ...

fwiw, last Monday night, i heard Congressman McGovern speak about Iraq ... here's a link to my write-up on his speech: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2002366

i also read Biden's speech ... i thought he was incredibly articulate, really showed an understanding of how bad things are in Iraq, and then proceeded to draw all the wrong conclusions on how we should proceed ...

btw, i DID think you were defending the Democrats lack of a plan on Iraq ... thanks for setting me straight on that ...

what bothers me is NOT that all these Democratic hawks disagree with how i see things ... what bothers me is that, and the article seems to agree, they have a stranglehold on power in the Democratic Party ... what kind of democracy and what kind of party do we have if the majority view, the view that the war is unwinnable, fails to be represented?

the one statement you made that i don't fully agree with was: "Howard Dean can't set policy for the Dems." ... it is certainly true that Dean can't go around telling elected Democrats how to vote or what to say ... but i still have hope that he will see his role as calling for changes in how the Party operates ... i still have hope that he will challenge elected Democrats to regulary participate in Town Meetings or open forums on a regular basis to explain their positions and listen to the views of the rank-and-file ...

as a political strategy, and i do think this comes under his purview, i think the state of affairs described in the article that points out that the hawkish view of those controlling the direction of the Party is not the view of the majority of Democrats and therefore is not a healthy political climate ... DU, the supposed home of left-wing Democrats, demonstrates that point all too often all too clearly ...

[Larkspur]

104. I think that the only way to break the stranglehold of the Dem hawks on

Dem Party is for grassroot Dems and progressives to support candidates, like they did with Paul Hackett in Ohio's special election. That kind of support for candiates, who are ignored by the DCCC and DSCC, is the only way to break the Dem Establishment stranglehold. Of course, we need those kinds of candidates to defeat the Dem Establishment candidates to really break that stranglehold.

Kos of Daily Kos says that he has a plan to defeat the DLC influence in the Dem Party. He won't publicly say what that plan is right now, but keep an eye on Kos.

As far as Dean, I don't know from whom or where he gets his information to base his policy views. He probably uses a variety of sources, and his travel schedule keeps him in touch with Dem Party activists outside of Washington, so he probably gets feedback from a variety of Dem Party leaders at the state and local level that challenges the Washington based views he gets back at the DNC Headquarters. I don't know what Dean tells these Congressional Dem leaders in close door sessions, but in public Dean is not going to parade Dem disunity. He's going to cover for them in public. I hope in private he's being frank with them.

What I want out of Dean is what he is doing now -- rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure from the grassroots up. That rebuilt infrastructure along with grassroot Dem and progressive support of non-Dem Establishment candiates is what will break the stranglehold of the entrenched interests that are killing the Dem Party.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with Dean's public statements, but be fair and understand the situation Dean is in. Technically, he can not make policy decisions contrary to what the Congressional Dem leaders are willing to do. Yes, he can give them feedback, but remember, most of these Dem leaders on the Hill don't like Dean and didn't want him as DNC Chair. There is a civil war going on within the Dem Party. Dean's ascension to DNC Chair was one battle in this civil war, and it was a victory for us outside the Washington beltway Dem activists, who are ticked off at the Washington Dem elite. With Dean pulling from the inside the Washington Beltway, we need to push from the outside.

If you think your ideas or opinion are important, send your comments to Dean. I have found him to be open to criticism and new ideas. He may disagree with them but I've found him willing to listen and he can change his mind when the facts present it self. Don't forget Dean is a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

[welshTerrier2]

105. "Dean's public statements"

again, thanks for your input, Larkspur ...

i want to clarify something ... in my very first post in this thread, i wrote, and i quote: "Dean is not the problem; the problem is party-wide ..."

the impression, the wrong impression of my post, has been given by another poster who badly misunderstood both my words and my intent ... I continue to hope that Dean will indeed become the reformer those of us who supported him for DNC Chair believed he would be ... my criticisms of Dean's very specific statements yesterday regarding the development of an exit plan from Iraq were not "anti-Dean" or frankly even intended as criticisms of Dean; they were criticisms of a "party-wide" problem ... that's exactly what i said and that's exactly what i meant ...

and they were criticisms based on two key points ... first, i believe the "war" has failed ... Democrats have an obligation to the country to offer solutions to the American people ... we should be MORE than just trying to win elections and gain power; we should be about demonstrating vision and leadership to help the country solve its problems ... criticizing bush's total failure in the Middle East is great; real "American leaders" need to go beyond that ...

and second, i believe the "make bush 'stew in his own juices' and come up with a solution to the mess he made" strategy, while effectively "weakening" bush, fails to "strengthen" Democrats ... it tries to convince Americans to vote for Democrats on a "well, at least we're not him" basis ... could this be politically effective? sure it could ... but i believe a much better political strategy is to demonstrate our own competence, our own ideas, and our own commitment to what we, as Democrats, believe in ...

the above points are what all of my posts in this section of the thread were all about ... to reiterate, they were never about Dean or what he should do or say in public ...

finally, i wanted to address, and ask you questions, about some of the statements you made ...

you wrote: "in public Dean is not going to parade Dem disunity" ... fwiw, i agree with this ...

you wrote: "What I want out of Dean is what he is doing now -- rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure from the grassroots up." ... i have asked (elsewhere in this thread) for specific information to support this conclusion ... to be clear, i stated that i have no idea what Dean is doing in this area and hoped others could provide specifics ... my point is NOT that Dean is NOT working toward (in my words) "sharing power with the grassroots", it's that i would like to know more about the specifics of what is being done and what he hopes to do ...

when you state that Dean is "rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure from the grassroots up", i'm glad to hear it ... could you please provide any information you have about this ... when i see things like Dean endorsing Casey in PA BEFORE A PRIMARY OCCURS, i become concerned that this is just more "top-down" insider politics ... that and an emphasis on increased grassroots funding is all i currently have to go on ...

and finally, you wrote: "I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with Dean's public statements, but be fair and understand the situation Dean is in." ... as i indicated above, my disagreement is not targeted at Dean but rather at ALL those, Dean included, who advocate a "no plan" on an issue of great national and international importance ... the problem i see is "party-wide" ...

what is of the greatest concern to me is that the Democratic Party does not seem to have a process to air the views of those who believe the "no plan" approach is not good for the country and not good for the Party ... a majority of Americans, not just Democrats, believe the US has failed in Iraq; Democrats should have a process for their voices to be heard ...

btw, i agree with your statements on how to break the current strangehold on power in the Democratic Party ... i believe we need to try to make changes "on the inside" ... leaving the Party and not participating in fighting for change, unless of course one no longer believes that changes from within are possible as many do not, is exactly what is called for and it's what i'm trying to do ...

however, those are the easy questions ... the tough question is: "what do you do when Democrats are running a candidate with whom you have significant disagreements and there are more progressives candidates in the same race?" ... my current thinking is to always vote for progressive Democrats first but to vote for other progressives when none is on the ballot ... continuing to vote for candidates i don't believe represent my core views seems kind of crazy ... this is not about "purity"; this is about fundamental representation ...

[Larkspur]

107. Haven't you heard of Dean's "50 State Strategy"?

you wrote: "What I want out of Dean is what he is doing now -- rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure from the grassroots up." ... i have asked (elsewhere in this thread) for specific information to support this conclusion ... to be clear, i stated that i have no idea what Dean is doing in this area and hoped others could provide specifics ... my point is NOT that Dean is NOT working toward (in my words) "sharing power with the grassroots", it's that i would like to know more about the specifics of what is being done and what he hopes to do ...
Check out the outline of Dean's 50 State Strategy http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/ and I think checking in on the DNC web site -- http://www.democrats.org -- periodically would be good practice to stay abreast of what the DNC is doing.

when you state that Dean is "rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure from the grassroots up", i'm glad to hear it ... could you please provide any information you have about this ... when i see things like Dean endorsing Casey in PA BEFORE A PRIMARY OCCURS, i become concerned that this is just more "top-down" insider politics ... that and an emphasis on increased grassroots funding is all i currently have to go on ...

and finally, you wrote: "I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with Dean's public statements, but be fair and understand the situation Dean is in." ... as i indicated above, my disagreement is not targeted at Dean but rather at ALL those, Dean included, who advocate a "no plan" on an issue of great national and international importance ... the problem i see is "party-wide" ...
The DNC Agenda page http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html has the basic overall plan for the Democratic Party.

Until a Dem Presidential candidate is chosen, a party-wide position on Iraq and national security probably will not be set. Right now, the Dem Party is behaving like a committee and you know what they say about committees -- "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

what is of the greatest concern to me is that the Democratic Party does not seem to have a process to air the views of those who believe the "no plan" approach is not good for the country and not good for the Party ... a majority of Americans, not just Democrats, believe the US has failed in Iraq; Democrats should have a process for their voices to be heard ...
Some Democrats, like McGovern and McDermott, have aired their differences about Iraq in public against their Party leadership. The California state Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for withdrawal from Iraq. The Dem Party does have a process to air views -- Dem conventions where resolutions are passed.

I have to go to a meeting and will address some of your issues later.

[welshTerrier2]

108. candidates should eminate from the platform; not vice versa ...

you wrote: "Until a Dem Presidential candidate is chosen, a party-wide position on Iraq and national security probably will not be set. Right now, the Dem Party is behaving like a committee and you know what they say about committees -- "A camel is a horse designed by a committee.""

not to beat a "dead camel", and i'm afraid you're right that we will not have a "party-wide" position until we have a candidate (and even then probably not), but this is a recipe for disaster as we have seen over and over and over ... i view this approach as failing to lead for three years and then having the nominee tell us what we think instead of us telling the nominee what we think ... some will argue that the primaries solve that problem (assuming we will still have primaries) ...

my response to that is to ask how effective a Democrat can be running against Casey in the primaries when the Party apparatus has already endorsed Casey ... could a challenger win? sure, but the deck is stacked against them ...

the best quote on this came from Congressman Jim McGovern (i think he's great btw) who said in a speech i attended last week: "you can't build movements around candidates and election cycles" ...

if we continue to fight against the republicans who campaign 24/7 each and every day by only taking positions and leading once every four, or two, years, we are temp workers competing against full-time employees ... this is exactly what the Party doesn't seem to get ...

we cannot have a candidate compete with a movement ... we need to know who we are, what we believe and have our candidates eminate from that vision ... instead, we seem to have a somewhat non-cohesive impression of where the Party is at in a general way that then makes way for an individual during campaign season ... candidates should be able to "fine tune" the message during campaign season but the core views should derive from registered Democrats on an ongoing basis; not just at election time ...

this goes beyond my advocacy to have the Party push for withdrawal from Iraq; i'm talking pure political pragmatism ...

thanks for providing the other links ... i'll read about Dean's "50 state" strategy ... i have been generally aware of what he's doing but i'm not at all clear how that impacts my calls for a greater voice for the Party's grassroots ... have to get back to you after i read the website ...

btw, i am a regular reader of democrats.org ... i am VERY happy to see that they actually have an article about Iraq right there on page one ... i started a thread a few weeks ago complaining that the website's homepage failed to have any mention whatsoever of foreign policy ... the point was, that if we see ourselves as the "domestic issues only party", we're dead in the water ... foreign policy, especially given current circumstances, needs to play an equal role to domestic policy ... global instability is very much on the minds of American voters ...

[madfloridian]

42. What is pretty obvious here:

The transcript is posted of an interview which was outstanding. All of a sudden, everything is wrong. He didn't do this right or that right....yes, he did.

He answered tough hard questions, destroyed the president's credibility on attacking Iran (a good thing).

This is pretty obvious.

[madfloridian]

76. I was right. This thread speaks for itself.

Nothing more needs to be said. I thought I had seen everything here, but this takes the cake. Good for our party, Yay! :sarcasm:

[Pepperbelly]

69. very good interview ...

what are folks complaining about?

[DemocracyInaction]

83. If you didn't watch it, shut your pie hole!!

As usual, there's a bunch of idiotic spouting without ever having witnessed what was going on. The transcript doesn't convey the political 'art' Dean was bringing to the situation---and goddamn time someone in this half-wit party knows how to play politics!!! He was trying to get across a message when the Iran questions were raised. He wanted people to realize that we can't fight fuck anymore if it comes down Main Street shooting because Bush has squandered our means (money, material and men)to go get uppity with anyone or protect ourselves if necessary. He was trying to make the issues bigger revolving around Roberts by naming several areas that need to be clarified about positions he has taken (one little issue can be swept under a table but not a whole bunch that in essence relate to the same rights issues). He talked about how no one would "invest" (ahhhh, speaking to the repuke freaks) in the US of A if we flush science teaching and get into mixing in religious theory. He winked and nodded in confrontation to the winger idiots when he said that some may prefer to avoid "facts" in this life (and he meant more than science facts) but that you can't run a business, a government or a family by ignoring "facts". Bottom line: it's utterly rediculous how the media will take interviews like this and try to spin it as "crazy Howard". It was much like talking to the Doc who levels with you and tells you "like it is" whether you want to hear it or not. And he kept pointing out how lying is the thing repukes do best---ie., lie and lie until people believe them. If people are all shitted up from the excellent way he handled this interview, then stop pretending that you want anything more than the status quo in this country.

[madfloridian]

88. Thanks. This thread is indicative of our party , though, I fear.

It was a powerful interview. I know it was because we got calls from friends who watched it and had not seen him before. They were impressed.

This really does show the gap that exists in our party though. That a simple transcript can be posted, and all hell breaks loose.

AND it is mostly by people who did not even see it.

I guess in a way it is good to see this at a Democratic forum. It shows how very far we have to go.

But at least for a while after we watched it we felt good. I should know not to come here sometimes.

His point about the squandering will be picked up. I just heard from my friend in Belgium about it. It may be one of the things that actually contributes to Bush NOT actually going ahead with invasion plans.

[second edition]

92. I think Dean did a good job today!

I especially liked his comment about John Kerry. I also think he explained the Democratic positions well.

[hollowdweller]

94. What he said about the platform is really good too.

The Dems need to pick 5 or 6 really good issues. Issues that working folks can relate to, and bring them to the public consciousness. They need to keep the GOP from hamstringing them on these wedge cultural issues and keep the debate on issues that have to do with making people more economically secure, healthy and educated, also they should continue to try to draw folks together. Clinton had a real good ability to keep his agenda at the top of the public mind. They should try to do that.

[0007]

106. bttft