Hartmann: "GOP wanted Kerry in '04"

[welshTerrier2]

tomorrow John Kerry will be asked along with every other Senator to vote an additional $50 Billion to continue the occupation of Iraq ... Mr. Kerry recently returned from Iraq and an "updated" position and speech have been speculated about ...

Well, the time for speechmaking was before tomorrow's vote to enable bush to continue his occupation for oil ... leadership, real leadership, comes before the vote ... not during or after the vote ...

I continue to hope that every Democrat in Congress, Kerry included, will finally wake up to the realities of bush's Iraq debacle that not only cannot succeed but is being fought for ill-conceived purposes ... I'll welcome all of them when they finally awaken ... the American people have had enough of bush's insanity in Iraq and the sleeping Democrats don't even have the decency to follow their lead ...

the time to find real leaders among most of our elected Democrats has long since passed ...

fwiw, here's a brief comment from Thom Hartman on last year's election:

From Thom Hartmann:

Dean was the only candidate the Republicans spent money to defeat in the Democratic primaries - over $1 million in the population-tiny but pivotal state of Iowa with the "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving" ads.

Why? Because their polling showed that in the general election he could have trounced Bush, whereas Bush had a chance against Kerry or Gephardt. Same as Nixon sending Colson to NH to put drugs into Muskie's coffee and forge the Canuck letter to make sure that Muskie would lose that primary, because Republican polling showed Muskie could have beaten Nixon but McGovern couldn't.

Republicans have been playing chess for 40 years - deciding who the Democratic candidate will be by intervening in the primaries - while the Dems are playing checkers...

[Mass]

1. And Hartmann may as well be wrong..

Actually, they spent months fighting against him and promoting Dean, and then, when they thought Dean was a shoe in, they destroyed it, but too early.

For the rest, I agree with you, but am sure NOBODY will vote against it, so tell me why the focus on Kerry?

[whometense]

58. I agree.

What's more, they're already hard at work pushing the candidate they hope to drown in a bathtub in 2008, Hillary.

[faithfulcitizen]

2. oh, pppplease, they went after Dean cause they thought he would win.

I really, really didn't want Kerry BUT he had a better shot than Dean.

[TayTay]

63. Rove had a dossier on Dean.

The Newsweek end of the year wrap-up book on the election showed this. Rove actually lost a bet because he predicted that Dean would win and was salivating at the chance to face him. Go look it up.

You know, this kind of stuff is pointless. People post stuff like this and piss off adherents of one person or another. The only thing this accomplishes is getting less people excited about going out and getting more Democrats elected. This is basic human nature 101. Supposedly, Democrats are the 'reality-based' community. Maybe we should start acting like it.

The people who support whatever candidate or elected official that you have decided to take after in today's faddish moment of choice contribute money, time and effort to get Democrats elected. All threads like this do is convince them to sit on their hands and not support the candidates or elected officials behind the mud-throwers. Is that what you really want, a willing and able group of people who stay home and don't join in a broad coalition to get Democrats elected.

This is the height of stupidity. I expect better from the so-called reality-based' community. Actions, as we have been told so many times, have consequences. One of those might just be that the next time you send out an appeal for money or time or worker-bees to come and help you in a race, some people don't respond. Look back to vitriolic posts like this as to why and then blame yourself.

[zulchzulu]

98. Rove did have a dossier on Kerry too...and yes, this is pretty stupid

We all need to focus on 2006 and kicking some ass. Enough with the scab picking.

[faithfulcitizen]

159. i totally agree with your post, but I hope you didn''t mean my post was

vitriolic, cause' that's not the way I wrote it. I worked damn hard for Kerry once he became the nominee.

[1932]

3. I remember seeing head to head polls

with Dean, and Dean never beat Bush in any of them, and I always wondered why the MSM never bothered to mention them throughout the hours and hours and columns and columns of coverage they gave Dean throughout 2003.

And the person who spent money on defeating Dean in Iowa was Gephardt, IIRC.


Do you have a link for Hartman's quote?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Actually is was people who were backing Gephardt

No one has ever provided a shred of proof that Gephardt or his campaign had anything to do with it.

[1932]

14. That's what I meant.

Gephardt couldn't fund the group himself, obviously. But everyone involved was someone close to Gephardt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. There was not one person involved who was on Gephardt's payroll

[OzarkDem]

109. And they were connected to Republicans

One reason why I'll never trust Gephardt again, even though he was my congressman for many years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

125. How exactly were they "connected to Republicans?"

:shrug:

[1932]

146. IIRC, they were all long-time Democrats with no connections to anyone but

Democrats.

[Ediacara]

25. Keep in mind

That at the time, NO Dem was beating Bush in polls. Dean was among the strongest in head to head polls from that time. You are right though, besides the GOP, Gephardt and Kerry were pouring money into that Osama ad.

[1932]

35. See my post below, Kerry beat Bush in two of the three polls I found

between November 3 and February 3.

Dean didn't beat him in any.

[Dr Fate]

4. If Kerry could really learn from his mistakes- he could be unstoppable

And I think his biggest mistake was taking the "Soft & fuzzy" strategy of not going for Bush's throat, while Bush never gave him that same courtesy.

They have smeared him with everything already- when they bring it up again, he really needs to say "Wolf- didn't you repeat enough of Karl Rove's lies last election?- Please- stop carrying water for these liars and let me get back to the issues..."- seriously.

I'm going to support the candidate who can clearly show they have the gumption to not only fight for DEM ideals, but to also stand up to GOP/media lies.

I'd truly like to see Kerry meet that criteria- Because I think he would make a great President- I'm just not sure how great of a CANDIDATE he is- sad, but a valid consideration in today's GOP owned media culture.

[welshTerrier2]

8. DEM ideals

we'll see how Kerry and other Dem Senators vote on bush's war tomorrow ... i think most of them have lost sight of "Dem ideals" a long time ago ...

[Dr Fate]

10. I also want more opposition to Bush's FP.

We shall see.

[wiley]

62. Isn't this the bill with 200 amendments?

including McCain's amendment to absolve the Pentagon of any responsibility for torturing or killing suspected terrorists? I can't see how anyone could ethically vote for that bill at all.

The Senate, House and President one party rule are accountable to NO ONE. It really doesn't even matter what Kerry says. Unless we win in 06, nothing will matter anyway.

"Sugar, we're going down"

[LittleClarkie]

12. I respect that your mind is open to the possibility

So many have closed theirs.

I have a few candidates I'll be keeping my eye on, keeping my mind open too.

(hey, Fate, I did my first peace rally on Sunday. We even had our own counter-protester.)

[Dr Fate]

16. And as you see, I could not stay away from DU!!!

But I am cutting down!!- congrats on your activism!!!

[Steely_Dan]

13. Absolutely Accurate!

My exact thoughts.

-Paige

[sendero]

60. If we're going for a re-do..

... I'd much rather see Gore than Kerry, and I think Gore has already shown that he can pull off some pointed rhetoric, something I've yet to see from Kerry and will be surprised to ever see.

[Dr Fate]

61. Gore will make the primaries a "Get out the Popcorn" event

Let's stand the two side-by-side and see what happens- I think Gore is great.

[karynnj]

127. Did you read the Brown or Boston speech?

Very Very pointed, but with the eloquence Kerry had in the 70s. As an ANGRY candidate, Kerry is hard to surpass because as he gets angrier, he gets more eloquent and appeals to basic values and the constitution. He is impossible to write off as an angry, red-faced lunatic. (Note: I agree with the anger, but people not already angry aren't persuaded by rants.)

[wisteria]

87. Unstoppable-I like that and I agree with you! n/t

[Armstead]

130. Kerry lost me when he was asked whether he was a liberal.

In at least one interview he was asked directly whether he considers himeself to be a liberal.

Instead of replying "Yes, and here's why." Kerry evaded the question with a lot of waffling about how labels don;t really mean anything, blah de blah.

Maybe that sounds trivial, but that just epitomized his approach to everything in the campaign.

[Dr Fate]

155. Acts mean more than labels- but I did not like that either. n/t

n/t

[Carla in Ca]

158. I agree, Kerry has already been 'swift-boated'

I don't think he would make his Vietnam service such a large part of a campaign again, but he doesn't have to.
Funny, isn't it? * was the best candidate (Rove) and the worst president. Kerry needed to be a bolder candidate, but he probably would have been a great president. I'd definitely consider him again. If it is anyone else, the relentless R smear campaign starts all over again.

[Dr Fate]

180. I agree- a potentially awesome president, but bad candidate in '04

Or more likely, bad advice from those awful strategists we cant seem to fire.

[Amonester]

5. Too bad JFK won...

because the following unnecessary counter might have stopped counting last month or so (according to the Kerry/Edwards' 6 months withdrawal plan)...

1941 (+ on ** watch)

http://icasualties.org

Diebold & Co might have (or not) beaten any Dem candidates...

[Dr Fate]

9. I'll be willing to entertain that as soon as Kerry himself backs that up.

As soon as Kerry wants to publicly back you up on that (and I think he should), that info may as well not exist.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

79. Alert another conspiracy theory on DU

get your tinfoil hats on folks :tinfoilhat:

[blm]

7. Thom Hartmann is being ABSURD. No poll showed that Dean would beat

Bush, let alone "trounce" him.

Thom Hartmann never heard that the GOP would have BOMBARDED Dean with his support for Biden-Lugar which had no SIGNIFICANT measures that would have prevented war in Iraq?

GOP would have BOMBARDED Dean with a faux scandal set up by the Koch brothers when they dealt with Dean on Vermont Yankee deal. That would have forced Dean to open his papers that he had sealed to defend himself.

GOP would have had Vietnam era skilift operators for truth to bombard Dean while they trumpeted Bush's noble choice to serve in the national guard.

Puhleeze.....the corporate media LIED every step of the way to try to kill off Kerry's candidacy while they hyped up Dean's support numbers for months.

Dean is in a good place right now. It fits him. He's learned alot in the last two years.

Hartmann is talking like a dumbass know-nothing.

And as far as that 50 billion appropriation for Iraq, I don't know what is to come. I do know that when Kerry returned from Iraq he said that the US only had a 2 month window of opportunity to turn things around, and if they didn't they would need to start to pull out. That was about 4 wks ago when he said that.

I am surprised that you would put up that Hartmann drivel and connect it to the 50bil. vote. I suppose there's a point somewhere?

[Dr Fate]

11. I followed the election closely too- and I dont remember that either.

Having said that, I do like Dean, and if he wanted to quit his post and run in the primaries, it would make them very interesting (once again!)

[1932]

18. Yes. I remember Dean doing worse than three or four other candidates

in the head to head polls, although within the MOE (eg Dean 45:55 with Kerry 48:52 and with MOE of 3%)

[karynnj]

129. Same here and I was compulsively following the polls

Early on the two that most interested me were Kerry and Dean. Until about January, my biggest fear was that they would knock each other because they could appeal to the same population. After extensive reading, I was both less impressed by Dean and more impressed by Kerry.

In the fall, it was weird that Kerry polled better against Bush than other candidates, but in the primary choice polls was near Sharpton. Dean, not Kerry, was on the covers of news magazines. Kerry seems to have won Iowa (and to a somewhat lesser extent, NH) the old fashioned way - by winning over people on a one to one basis. The ironic thing about the media's line that Kerry could not connect is that the ONLY explanation of his Iowa win was that he did precisely this - when he was neither the media's or the party official's favorite. (Pre-emptory defense: If he was the DNC favorite, he would have had money in Nov/Dec. He didn't, and mortgaged his house.)

[Upfront]

17. Bull Shit!

Dean spoke the truth about the war and kerry waffled and that is why he lost. Dean would have won!

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Hahahah

You ignored EVERYTHING she said, and your reply is devoid of facts and filled with the kind of histrionic hyperbole typical of one who does not have facts on his side. Blm wins.

[Dangerously Amused]

47. ...

Just curious. Why does it have to be about "winning," and how do they decide who gets to choose the "winner"?

[Dr Fate]

21. I think Dean could have won too- but we are talking about actual data

...from the primaries-not 20/20 hindsight on how the election may have played out...

[Mass]

23. You can believe what you want. But this is demonstrably false.

[blm]

31. Dean choked at the debate when Gephardt called him on his support for

Biden-Lugar. Dean didn't answer and tried to change the subject to a newspaper headline. My...how soon some of us forget.

Listen....BushInc had campaigns set up against ALL of them, and they had an accomodating media to help define any Democratic nominee. You think there wouldn't be 200 generals and commanders lined up to speak against Wes Clark even? Hell...it's standard operating procedure for these thugs. They own most of the media and they get away with it.

Cripe...Dean is still fighting the media lie that he's an angry far left nutcase.

[1932]

32. Here are some head-to-heads from Nov. 3 & Dec 17 '03 and Feb 3 '04:

Quinnipiac, Nov 3, 2003
Bush leads Dean 48 -- 44 percent;
Bush gets 46 percent to Kerry's 47 percent, a tie;
Bush beats Gephardt 48 -- 43 percent;
Bush beats Clark 48 -- 42 percent;
Bush beats New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 50 -- 42 percent.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x9048.xml

Quinnipiac, Dec 17, 2003
Bush lead:
50 -- 43 percent over Lieberman;
50 -- 42 percent over Kerry;
50 -- 41 percent over Clark;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt.
49 -- 43 percent over Dean
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x9457.xml

CNN, Feb 3, 2004
Kerry 53%, Bush 46%
Edwards 49%, Bush 48%
Bush 50%, Clark 47%
Bush 52%, Dean 45%
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/

[1932]

48. And another one from Jan 24 (Newsweek);

Kerry 49%, Bush 46%.

"In fact, all Democrats are polling better against Bush, perhaps due to increased media attention to their primary horserace: Clark gets 47 percent of voters’ choice compared to 48 percent from Bush; Edwards has 46 percent compared to Bush’s 49; Leiberman wins 45 percent versus Bush’s 49 percent; and Dean fares the worst with 45 percent of their votes to Bush’s 50 percent."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4049942/

[JaneQPublic]

28. Woulda-Shoulda-Coulda... What does it matter now? (n/t)

[1932]

39. I think right now it only matters as comment on Hartmann's credibility.

Is he talking the truth or is he saying what he wants to believe?

[bunny planet]

46. Thom Hartmann has never been a dumbass no-nothing about anything.

He's just an strong independent, does not like the established Democratic leadership, and sometimes his bias about that comes through on his program. He does also say that Kerry won the election and that Ohio was stolen however.

[blm]

64. In that analysis he's talking LIKE a dumbass knownothing.

As if he hadn't paid one ounce of attention to all the primary and peripheral factors of any campaign other than Dean's.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

83. Step outside the box for one fucking second.

Forget Biden Lugar.

Forget the IWR.

Forget ideology.

Forget everything but the thing that matters: crowds, aka "interest."

Dean's crowds, in a primary, were unprecedented. The people spoke with their feet. The PTB spoke with their...well...their..powers that be.

Trust me. Rove feared Dean plenty. He was outside the box. Rove ate inside-the-beltway(box) politicians for dinner.

Kerry very well may have made a better President than Dean. Or any of the other candidates, for that matter.

Did Kerry have 10,000 plus people at one of his primary rallies? No. No one in recent American history has drawn that type of crowd. Cry all you want but the crowds tell what all the spin in the world can't: Dean had the people.

He drew larger crowds than Kerry in Massachusetts!

Forget the spin.

The primaries were decided by two conservative states and vote swapping between the beltway insiders to cut out the populist.

Stop spinning!









I don't see much drivel coming out of Hartmann but BY GOD! Rove was going to nail Dean on Biden-Lugar! :rofl:

[blm]

134. Guess you didn't watch the Iowa debate where Gephardt tripped Dean up on

Biden-Lugar.

Laugh all you want. Dean had crowds partly because of the media hype. Not all those people in the crowds in Iowa and NH chose to vote for Dean. Maybe they were more impressed over time listening to Kerry at smaller events where they could better judge for themselves.


Sorry you were so snookered by the media hype.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

160. You don't understand.

Word of mouth had a thousand people at his events before he was even a blip on the media screen. I personally witnessed this. It's not a "chicken and the egg" thing. The media didn't create the crowds, they couldn't ignore them.

I know you think I'm biased but that's not true. The inside-the-beltway machine wanted him gone. Both Dems and Pugs. Example #2. Dean is the frontrunner and, understandably, he gets hammered by the other candidates in the primary debates. Iowa and New Hampshire happen. John is now the frontrunner. The hammering not only subsides, it doesn't exist.
:think:

Example #3. Vote swapping in the all-important Iowa caucus. Someone was cut out at the knees by the party.

:think:

Example #4. Gephardt, knowing he is going to lose Iowa, a cornerstone of his candidacy, puts all of his energy into taking down Dean with a media blitz in the last days of the Iowa campaign. He also agrees to swap his fractional caucus votes with Kerry.

:think:

These things are all documented.

And they point to only one thing.

[blm]

165. You can argue that vote-swapping increased Edwards' second place total

but it didn't give Kerry the win. And I'm quite sure that you know that even though you imply otherwise quite often. Sad, since less experienced activists may believe your charges.

And I DO understand how it all came down. You just seem to have blocked out the FACT that Dean didn't perform so well the entire month before caucus day and don't factor it into your analysis.

Yes people CAME. They SAW. Most decided on a very worthy OTHER candidate who they happened to hear at smaller events.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

166. Edwards was helped but Kerry wasn't?

:wtf:

Certainly, Edwards was helped the most by the deal because Kucinich had more fractional votes than did Gephardt. And Dean did perform badly, mostly by getting down-and-dirty with Geppie. But Kerry was undoubtedly helped by the deal as Geppie's strength waned, thereby creating more fractional caucus votes.

Kerry got more votes by having smaller crowds?

:wtf:

Absurd on it's face.

[blm]

168. Kerry had MORE evnts with well-attended BUT smaller crowds. Why pretend

that Kerry didn't earn his Iowa win? He worked his ass off for it with little media attention.

Those smaller events PAID OFF because more people were able to interact with Kerry and hear his positions in greater detail which the larger Dean events prevented.

And it was highly unlikely that Iowa voters who LIKED Gephardt for years would vote for Dean over the mutual attacks that were occurring between the two.

No mystery here, no matter how much you would like to pretend there is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

173. Last thought. Hopefully : )

Why pretend that Kerry didn't earn his Iowa win?

I never said that. I've said that he had help from his powerful friends. Spin.

Kerry had MORE evnts with well-attended BUT smaller crowds.

I'll bet you a $1,000 that Kerry had fewer events than Dean during the primaries. Kerry had Senatorial duties to attend to (although he went missing quite a bit during the later stages of the primaries), while Dean had an event a day. Prima facie SPIN.

Those smaller events PAID OFF because more people were able to interact with Kerry and hear his positions in greater detail which the larger Dean events prevented.

I'll bet you another $1,000 that Dean spent more time with the people who attended his events than Kerry did. I remember an event that Dean spent almost an hour with the crowd after his speech. I also remember Kerry bailing out at one of his events within ten minutes of his speech. I commented on this phenomena on these boards at the time. Spin.

And it was highly unlikely that Iowa voters who LIKED Gephardt for years would vote for Dean over the mutual attacks that were occurring between the two.

True. But the attacks eroded Geppies base thereby throwing his fractional caucus votes to Kerry, per their deal. This was by design. Not spin but not wholly stating the facts.

Let me be clear. Kerry won. He worked hard. And he beat Chimp. But his primary road was paved by the machine.

[blm]

185. Kerry had more events IN Iowa while Dean's were national.

And Kerry still would have won Iowa even without Gephardt's votes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

189. Agreed. Kerry was more focused on Iowa.

:thumbsup:

However, Gephardts last week, all-out assault on Dean clearly changed the tide. Geppie knew it was over and went kamikaze for his pal. Dean made a mistake responding in kind to Geppie's attacks and Kedwards reaped the benefits.


Sen. John Kerry stands with Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) as Gephardt endorses Kerry before his address to local supporters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-05-kerry-gephardt_x.htm


Edit to add:

stalk·ing-horse (stôkng-hôrs)
n.
1. Something used to cover one's true purpose; a decoy.
2. A sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition.
a. A horse trained to conceal the hunter while stalking.
b. A canvas screen made in the figure of a horse, used for similar concealment.

[karynnj]

177. The other alternative is that many in the large Dean

ended up either not voting or picking someone else. (or maybe not even being Iowans), while Kerry gained the loyalty of a much larger percent of the smaller crowds he saw.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

188. I don't necessarily have a beef with those theories.

:shrug:

I maintain, however, that the Party wasn't evenhanded in it's approach to the nomination. Ask a Braun supporter.

[sandnsea]

164. Sorry hon, the crowds just didn't vote

And that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the Deaniacs are strong, all the Deaniacs are good-looking, and all the Deaniacs are above average.

They just forgot to show up and vote. Anywhere.

[Dangerously Amused]

15. ...

Something I have always wondered about, and I don't know where to look for resources to research it:

If Bush stole the election, and there are scores of evidence to suggest he did... why wouldn't he steal the primary, too?

How do we know Bush didn't get Kerry as an opponent because he WANTED Kerry as an opponent?

Because, as was said... Bush thought he had a fighting chance against Kerry, but knew he would be sunk against Dean. But then when the "I'll choose my own opponent" plan didn't work, and Kerry started trouncing Bush in the returns, Bush pulled out "Plan B" with the rigged numbers, coming from behind to take a "surprise" win right at the end.

Which, by the way, is exactly how Kerry "beat" Dean... coming from way behind in the pack to take a "surprise win" right at the end.

Has anyone done any research into whether the primaries were legit?

[Mass]

20. Total BS!

Kerry won in Iowa caucuses. Tell me how they could have cheated there? Hypnosis?

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. How laughable.

You seem to forget that the MSM hyped Dean's candidacy before the Iowa caucuses. They were prepared to slime ANY Democrat beyond recognition to "win" in 2004 - but I daresay Dean wouldn't have made Diebold necessary.

[Dangerously Amused]

41. ...

Look, I said I don't have the resources to do the research, it's just a thought that crossed my mind and I wondered if it occurred to others as well. If there is evidence that it couldn't have happened, I am interested in that as well, as I always welcome polite argument. I'm not here to try to force an unsupported theory onto anyone, I realize it would be foolish to try. And I also realize that there may be boatloads of evidence/information out there of which I am unaware and which would blast my little hypothesis out of orbit. I am willing to accept that.

Some things about the election and primaries just strike me as odd though, and I guess I'm looking to gather more insights and information. I was kind of hoping that people would take pity on my "laughable" ideas, though, and offer polite and constructive comments.

[blm]

69. I'll help you. Iowa had a CAUCUS. No machine tallied the vote. PEOPLE

stood under the name of their candidate. You have to PHYSICALLY be there for your candidate.

The media had been over-reporting Dean's support on the ground in Iowa for months, while UNDER-reporting the ground support for Kerry.

While the media focused their stories on all the Dean activists who travelled to Iowa, they were refusing to report on Kerry's endorsement and support from Firefighters and Veterans, and all of Kerry's town hall meetings where he would answer every question thrown at him. All of those factors were actually a greater influence on the voters of Iowa but received little attention from the media.

Dean and Trippi weren't as surprised as their supporters....they knew the internal polling numbers showing Kerry's strength.

I also believe that the media hyped Dean's scream just so they could distract from the question that everyone should have been asking - How and WHY did the press get it so wrong? I believe they were doing what their bosses wanted - doing what they could to kill Kerry's candidacy while hyping Dean's to create a greater groundswell than there was.

The voters in Iowa were not as easily swayed as the press would have liked.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. And...

Geppie gave Kerry his fractional votes. And vice-versa.

Kooch gave Edwards his fractional votes. And vice-versa.

:think:

[KoKo]

107. Your ideas aren't laughable...it's just that there are too few left here

who can give you the info you need. The info was here. But, the Kerry folks aren't going to help you with Dean...and what happened to him.

I'm sorry I can't help you with this. :-( I wasn't partisan about my Dem Candidates but was a Dean/Kucinich supporter who worked for Kerry/Edwards when they were the nominees. I know there were Dean folks here who could give you all the info you need but many with the best info on what happened to Dean have left ...hopefully others can help you with this. Your post was interesting...but "attack" seems to be the mode of some these days.

Peace!

[KoKo]

108. moved

[karynnj]

137. C-Span filmed 2 Iowa caucus locations

Never having seen a caucus before, it was fascinating. Dean did not get the most people out - Kerry did. The process was surprisingly civil and very Democratic. At the smaller location - it had almost a block party type feel - neighbors greeting each other and exchanging pleasantries before choosing up groups.

In NH, Kerry gained support after he won Iowa. This happens every election. The polls showed him gradually moving up - the results weren't a surprise.

The truth is that as the primaries heated up - Dean imploded. His "I don't like being a pin cushion" whine in response to Gepheart's tough but not unfair ads questioning Dean's positions belies all the arguments here that he could have taken the heat better than Kerry.
His angry, "Shut up and sit down" (quote may be off) statement to an elderly Iowan was shown on tv in the same as Kerry's reunion with the man he saved in Vietnam. The justaposition of a slightly shy Kerry saying that anyone in his position would have done so and an angry Dean on TV hurt Dean in Iowa.

[janx]

141. It didn't look very civil to me.

All I can remember now is a young woman screaming and crying and the chaos of vote swapping.

[karynnj]

147. The smaller location was very civil

The larger one - more chaotic. I remember that the initial request to go to rooms based on candidates led to a huge surge of people moving when Kerry's "room" was named. Then they identified the groups with less than 15% and asked them to pick their second choice.

I think the words "vote swapping" aren't quite right for this process. There were Edwards' people asking Kuchinich people to join them because Kuchinich asked them. Many Kuchinich people continued going around begging people to join them till the end. This second stage process moved a very small part of the numbers - Kerry was very easily ahead. (People caucusing for him we're far less aggressive then some of the others.)

You might have an easier time arguing that Kuchinich gave Edwards the second place over Dean. (By telling them to go to Edwards rather than Dean (or Kerry for that matter))

[IowaGuy]

161. good point....

I was precinct captain for Team Kerry in my precinct, In our initial vote Kerry led, however, after the second vote, all the Kucinich supporters switched to Edwards and he naroowly edged Kerry in my precinct. Both Kucinich and Edwards supporters told me they received word from their HQ that if any one of their candidates were not "viable" (<15% vote) than they needed to go to the other. This worked to Edwards advantage tremendously.

On a second point, after having participated in several caucuses over the years, I'm always amused at the tin foil nut cases that actually believe it would be possible to "fix" a caucus - its all about grass roots organization and strategy, not a bad test to make a future candidate for prez to have to go through.

[karynnj]

175. I'm actually jealous of Iowans on this

I had mixed feeling on the idea of a caucus before watching the CSPAN show. I was concerned that the threshold of having to commit that much time to process seemed a deterent and I wondered what it would be like to have to publicly declare your choice.

Then I turned on the CSPAN show thinking it would be interesting to watch a few minutes of. I kept it on till it ended, it was fascinating.

I also think it is good to have at least one place where the candidates really have to interact with the people. It seems it would especially help candidates not designated by the powers that be. It also seems that it really helped Kerry, because he could really impress people on a one to one level.

Living in NJ, I saw none of the candidates. I did see Kerry about a month ago when he appeared in 5 NJ towns. What was amazing was how nice he was to the people who were asking for him to sign things and speaking to him afterwards. He was very soft spoken and smiled easily, definitely not the image the media gave him. I'm sure the other candidates were also not like the media created images - some positively different some negatively. It's good that there is one state where everyone taking the trouble to caucus would at least know people who met each of the candidates.

[Lexingtonian]

24. nice flamebait

and amusing revisionism. But zero points for creativity due to the conspiracy theory.

You should look up the story of the ad the RNC made of showing the Oval Office with an empty chair that they were going to use against Dean. Focus groups showed it worked extremely well. My guess is he would have gotten around 42% or 43% in a general election.

About the Kerry bashing...is there quota system, or something? Is there any excuse that won't do? Do you think if vanity and selfhatred were extracted from the motivation, that you would engage in it???

And how about the idea that the Iraq occupation is selfdefeating, that its continuation will break down all the stupid ideas that prop it up politically for a lifetime?

[sadiesworld]

26. The media pushed Kerry.

Whether it was the repubs that were behind it, the DNC/DLC, or just TPTB, it was fairly obvious. I've always thought Clark was the candidate the repubs feared most, but I'm sure Dean (as the progressive candidate he became) gave them pause.

I think, at the very least, Kerry was a nice fit for the liberal elitist vs. regular-joe-conservative script that both the media and the RW love.

[Mass]

30. The media pushed Dean for months, ignoring Kerry

It was totally ridiculous. You had tons of shows full of Dean and ignoring or making fun of Kerry. Where have you been?

[sadiesworld]

43. There came a point when

the media couldn't show enough of the guy Kerry saved in Nam nor enough of the Dean scream. I remember both quite well.

[Mass]

49. Dean scream came after Iowa. Kerry won Iowa.

I agree that they showed the scream way too often, but Dean lost before that and before Iowa, the media were absolutely silent on Kerry. The day before the caucuses, most people called the caucuses for Dean.

[sadiesworld]

52. They had started slamming Dean and pushing Kerry prior to the scream.

The whole dynamic of the election started to change as Clark's star rose.

I have business to attend to, the last word is yours

[Mass]

54. I will let it here as I dont see the point reliving the 2004 primary.

I think the first line of your post has the key of why Dean was slammed (little to do with Kerry).

[karynnj]

140. The Dean scream was AFTER Dean lost Iowa badly

The Rassman coverage was about the first poitive coverage Kerry got. It was played on the news shows on the day it occurred. It was a genuine news event.

The fact that Kerry DID risk his life to save someone is newsworthy and the tiny about 30 second clip was almost made for TV. Kerry's slightly shy comment that anyone would do it added to make it fit the "boy next door hero" theme.

[rodeodance]

132. yes, I agree

[wisteria]

89. I wasn't evening following that closely at first and when I did

hear anything it was about Dean- not Kerry. Apparently, your news didn't come from CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC and Fox.

[Mass]

27. Thanks for the flamebait, it seems that people are missing the point

on the $ 50 B on Iraq.

I imagine this was your goal!

[welshTerrier2]

33. actually ...

i have no idea whether Hartmann's comments are accurate or not ...

let's just say it was a warning shot being fired in advance of tomorrow's vote ... i neither endorse nor reject what Hartmann said because i don't know if he's right ...

[Mass]

42. What Hartmann has said is not related to the rest of your post!

Or at least, I dont see the relation (Dean has not spoken about the $ 50 B either).

So why the focus on Kerry in your post? Why not a post on the issue by itself if you did not want to create a flamebait post.

[wisteria]

92. This sounds like a threat- if a Dem doesn't vote your way you want

them to, you are going to smear them with trash like you just posted. Only problem with this threat is that people will begin to realize what your about and ignore you and your posts.

[welshTerrier2]

97. guess i'll have to deal with that ...

i intend to support only progressive candidates and highlight the shortcomings of those who are not ...

smear? i prefer to call it honest criticism ...

tell you what though, why don't you go ahead and put me on "ignore" now ...

[wisteria]

112. No, I won't put you on ignore. I'm interested in what you have to say,

however wrong or one dimensional it may be. Remember, there is always more than one correct response to any situation or problem.

[welshTerrier2]

29. interesting responses so far ...

first, don't misconstrue my posting of Hartmann's comments as an endorsement (nor a rejection) of them ... my reference to his comments were prefaced with a "fwiw" ...

what's interesting to me is that only one response thus far has commented on what i wrote in the OP ...

i will say a great big "the hell with any Dem who votes another penny for bush's war" ... we don't need them and we should work to replace these losers with more progressive Democrats ...

it's pathetic that Kerry and most other Party "leaders" have failed to speak on this issue prior to tomorrow's vote ...

[blm]

36. How do you know they haven't said anything? What media is discussing it

and what media is repeating the comments of the Democrats so faithfully that you count on them for your news?

And why put up a subject about Hartmann's claim about Kerry and Dean and then wonder why few are addressing your point about tomorrow's vote?

Sheesh...take some responsibility, welsh...you're better than that.

[Mass]

38. They have not, that is true.

None of them have spoken about that at all (the $ 50 B), which is why I find the focus on Kerry interesting for the least.

[welshTerrier2]

40. i don't depend on "the media"

i depend on Kerry's DU faithful and i depend on Project Vote Smart and I depend on Kerry's Senate webpage ... all of these have been excellent sources ...

but most importantly of all, i receive frequent emails from Senator Kerry on topics he considers important ...

[Mass]

44. Once again, why Kerry and not Kennedy, for example?

[welshTerrier2]

50. good question ...

reread the OP and you'll see that i was setting a standard for ALL elected Dems to meet, not just Kerry ...

my particular annoyance with Kerry is that he recently returned from Iraq and there was a huge amount of "chatter" about his issuing a bold new position on Iraq ... well, bold happens before a vote for more funding ...

heard anything yet ??

[Mass]

51. No, and I would not say I am not bothered by that.

but I have not heard a bold position from people like Feingold and Boxer either (let say I do not consider a withdrawal date in 18 months and no plans in between a bold initiative - Why wait 18 months if nothing can be done, and if they think something can be done, what is it?).

(I have not seen a major Dem with a position that I find satisfactory on the issue, and that includes Kennedy's latest position and Feingold and Boxer).

[welshTerrier2]

57. i just called both Kerry's and Kennedy's offices in DC

the person in Kerry's office said that he was not aware whether Kerry has made any statements on continued funding for Iraq ...

Kennedy's office said that Kennedy is issuing a press release that can be seen on Kennedy.Senate.gov ... the release has been delayed because of the Jewish holiday ...

and in response to: "I have not seen a major Dem with a position that I find satisfactory on the issue" all i can say is "me neither" ...

[Mass]

59. Thanks for the info.

[wisteria]

93. Do you really know all there is to know about what exactly is in

this new request for money?

[welshTerrier2]

99. $50 Billion is earmarked for continued operations in Iraq ...

the total package i believe is a $441 Billion defense appropriation bill ...

[wisteria]

113. Continued operations is to broad, can you supply any details into

types of operations?

[welshTerrier2]

115. what more do you need to know ??

bush has no plans to change the current course in Iraq ... the money this time will go for the exact same insanity it went for the last 3 times ...

we are bombing Iraqi cities ... we are killing civilians and journalists and rounding up any males in the "bad areas" ... we are building permanent military bases and the world's most expensive embassy ... we still have not properly outfitted our troops with necessary safety gear ... we are establishing a puppet government to cater to the greed of Big Oil and their largest shareholders ... we are alienating almost every other country in the world ... we are helping impose a religious fundamentalist regime on a secular population ... we are pushing an outrageous Constitution that will deny the Sunnis of any future ... we are promoting global terrorism ... we are losing more and more US troops everyday ... we are approaching the $300 billion mark at a time the US has record budget deficits ... we have turned Iraq into a toxic sewer ... Iraqis have little or no water, food shortages and a very high infant mortality rate ... many believe civil war has already broken out ... after 2.5 years, we now have only ONE trained Iraqi battalion able to operate without US assistance ... women will lose most of the rights they've had for generations ... Iraq has had to become an importer of oil ...

the next $50 billion will go for stuff like that ... if Democrats vote for that without a guaranteed near-term timetable for withdrawal, they deserve to lose and lose big ... they are promoting bad policy, actually insane policy, and they are not representing either the American people or even their own constituents ...

[wisteria]

119. You haven't answered my question.

What type of operations. Suppose some of the "operations were to further the training of the Iraqi soldiers to provide them with the help and support they needed in order to protect themselves and bring our soldiers home. Suppose another "operation" was for much needed medical supplies and help for the Iraqi people. Would your opinions concerning this addl. money still be so resolute and unyielding?

[welshTerrier2]

120. let's try this just once more ...

let's take the issue of training the Iraqi troops ... Generals Casey and Abizaid (spelling?) testified on Capitol Hill last Thursday that as of last July there were 3 Iraqi battalions sufficiently trained to operate without US support ...

They said there is now only 1 trained Iraqi battalion so qualified ...

Get it? after 2.5 years of training, more than $200 billion, more than 1900 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, we basically have gotten nowhere with "turning security over to the Iraqis" ... and you want to continue this insanity because ... ??? you want to spend more money on this training because ... ???

And the first $87 billion "supplemental" for Iraq had all kinds of money to "rebuild Iraq's infrastructure" ... well, the first thing that happened was $9 billion "went missing" ... $9 Billion is a serious chunk of change ... Waxman's been trying to investigate it but faces nothing but a cover-up ... and the rest of the "reconstruction" funds couldn't be spent because "Iraq is too dangerous to begin reconstruction" ... well then, where the hell did the money go ?????

and you think there will be money in the defense allocation to provide medical supplies to the Iraqi people ... we just bombed a city of 200,000 people out of their homes ... they're living in the desert with very little food or water ... and today we started a new bombing campaign on two cities inside Iraq near the Syrian border ...

if you're worried about providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, and you should be, call for the US to withdraw its military and begin a campaign through the UN to distribute humanitarian aid ...

my opinions are "resolute and unyielding" because i understand that bush is prosecuting this war and occupation for illegitimate reasons ... we are there for oil and we are there for regional control of OPEC ... perhaps with a moral US government in power and a sincere desire to help the Iraqi people, something positive could come from continued occupation ... but that is not the situation we're in ...

the American people have had it with this war ... i'm hopeful that things will soon change although most Democrats seem to be too blind to see the writing on the wall yet ... perhaps they will before it's too late ...

[wisteria]

121. I get it, I just don't agree with your assessment entirely.

You mention the two generals who support your point of view,but ignore the general who counters the others testimonies.How do you explain away the inconsistencies? Perhaps a new approach on training would be more effective. While I share your opinions concerning the reasoning for this war and the mishandling and mismanagement of the funds, I can't, like you, advocate an immediate pull out and ignore what we are responsible for creating. We have a moral obligation to fix what we have broken. You think an immediate pull out would do more good than harm, I think just the opposite. Law and order is the only way they may eventually have peace and right now, dislike it if you must, we are helping them keep the peace as it is.I believe all hell would break lose if we left immediately. The insurgency will make an attempt to overtake the country and Iraq will be a very unstable force in the Middle East.
The Dems have an opportunity this time to demand that Bush be more accountable for the funds he is requesting. With spending and borrowing increasing because of Katrina and the war, Reps as well as Dems can place stipulations with approval of the funds. They may even be able to direct the allocations.You are correct when you state the American people are sick of this war, but they aren't sick of it enough to demand immediate pull-out. There dissatisfaction does however, give the Dems and some Reps more support and allow them to demand and get more accountability for the money. I'm sorry, you can't try to understand others' points of views about this war. We all,I believe want to achieve the same end results.

[Mass]

37. Dont tell me you did not expect that - You are the one who gave the title

of the thread.

As I said, I agree with you on the first part of the post.

[welshTerrier2]

45. no ...

i wouldn't tell you that ...

glad to hear you agree with the first part of "my post" ... the real defense of Senator Kerry his proponents should be making is in response to what i wrote ... but people seem to get more energized by the politics than the issues ...

[KoKo]

111. Which Candidate did you support for 2004?

I notice you joined at the end of 2002...so you were here for the Primary Wars if you joined then. What do you remember about it. :shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

117. the primary wars on DU were awful ...

it became much harder to discuss the issues and DU was inundated with Party operatives who attacked anything that sounded like criticism of the Party's positions ...

here's a recap of my 2004 "candidate migration":
i was one of the first if not the first DU'er to post about Howard Dean ... i was very interested in Dean's campaign for a very brief time ... i remember several calls i made to Dean's 5 person campaign office in Burlington, VT about all the online activists who "would be very receptive to Dean's message" ... but i could not support Dean's equivocating about the War ... i still don't ... when Dean made a statement saying the US should give Saddam 60 days to disarm and then we should invade, he violated the long-held standard of "imminent threat" ... even if Saddam had WMD, there was no evidence he could, or would, attack the US ... invasion in 60 days, as Dean called for, was inappropriate ...

second, i moved to Kucinich ... Kucinich had the right message on the war ... i voted for him in the primaries but, to be honest, i think he's a terrible candidate ... i think he relates well to people when he's one on one but there's just something that strikes me as odd about his personna ... i hate to say it but i don't think he'll every be viable nationally ... but his views on the issues were very appealing ...

and finally, once Kerry got the nomination, i got behind him financially although i never did much work for his campaign ... i was very involved with a local Dem running for State Senate (she won!!) ... my Kerry support was as ABB as you could get ... i did NOT vote for Kerry in his 2002 Senate race because of his support for the IWR ... and i had no passion for Kerry last year ... my view at the time was that he was a necessary albeit undesirable alternative to bush ... i know feel that i was totally wrong ... i had hoped a new spirit of unity would well up in the Democratic Party in appreciation of those who chose an ABB route rather than voting for a third party candidate ... how foolish and naive was that ?????

not that you asked, but here is my current thinking on Kerry ... i'm totally disappointed in him ... i read most of his speeches ... some of them are truly excellent and should become part of the Party's roadmap on certain issues ... his thoughts on an energy program are especially noteworthy ... but as a candidate, i though Kerry was awful ... he just never learned that you can't play it safe and i doubt he ever will ... because of this, Kerry comes across as more calculating than passionate ... and, to digress even further, this is the essential flaw in today's Democratic Party ...

Democrats believe they can regain their majority Party status if they can repaint their image ... they think Americans see them as weak on defense and they blame the left for sticking them with this problem ... and they are wrong on both counts and will continue to lose until they learn the truth ... the truth is that Americans will not measure strength by calls for war and a hawkish foreign policy ... what Americans value as strength is having the strength of your convictions and the passion to fight for them ... until Democrats learn this lesson they will continue to lose and we will be stuck with two parties that value war and conquest more than peace, security and stability ... it's really tragic ...

anyway, that's what the world looks like from my little window ...

[KoKo]

148. Thanks....

Where you were, was kind of where I was in my "migration."

[karynnj]

145. Isn't the Iraq constitution vote next week?

Would you really want Kerry (Feingold, Clark etc) to come out with an indictment of how things are going in Iraq and to call for a pullout immediately? You know that things are going poorly and things may blow up after that vote.

Do you really want to put Bush in the position of saying that the reason things failed is that the Sunnis saw in the Democrats' statements the likelihod that America would give up and leave if things didn't go smoothly? Kerry's comment about a very short window seems to be giving this effort its last chance. I assume that he is weighing the options and trying to do what is best.

[welshTerrier2]

151. good policy makes good politics

the short answer to all your questions is "Yes" ...

the Democrats are essentially nowhere on Iraq ... since you asked "what i really want", i'll tell you ...

please let me know whether you agree or disagree with the following point ... bush and the neo-cons do not have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart ... they are in Iraq for imperialistic reasons ... their policy objectives are not as advertised ... they are seeking a weakened central government in Iraq ... and they are seeking to strengthen their hand in negotiations over Iraqi oil ...

where you seem to be focussed on a "perceived politically pragmatic position" (i.e. what bush would say about the Democrats), i am focussed on the policy ... what bush is saying about the Democrats right now, and he's right, is that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has provided no leadership on the issue ... that's not exactly what Americans are looking for from the opposition party ...

the Sunnis are going to reject the new Constitution because they have no choice ... the US brokered deal for "peace and stability" is garbage ... women who have held high office and have gotten good educations and enjoyed professional careers will be relegated back to a world of repression under Sharia law ... let me ask you this ... what would you want the Democrats to be saying if you knew you were about to become subject to that type of repression????? and Iraq's oil wealth will be divied up between the Shia and the Kurds ... there is nothing for the Sunnis in the Iraq that bush is pushing ...

by supporting bush's vision for Iraq, and Democrats are whether they squawk about the details or not, we are refusing to be honest brokers in resolving Iraq's internal differences ... it really is obscene ... from day one, what was really needed was a call for a regionally supported, negotiated resolution among Iraq's factions ... what the US, bush and the neo-cons, and the enabling Democrats are doing now is forcing an institutionalized tyranny of the majority and repression of the Sunnis ...

"I assume that he is weighing the options and trying to do what is best." ... what i assume is that the Democrats still refuse to question bush's motives in Iraq ... he's there for oil and imperial power ... he's there for greed ... i haven't heard Democrats say that ... what i assume is that the Democrats are too chickenshit to take the battle against bush where it needs to go ...

[welshTerrier2]

152. oops ... dupe post ... please ignore ...

the short answer to all your questions is "Yes" ...

the Democrats are essentially nowhere on Iraq ... since you asked "what i really want", i'll tell you ...

please let me know whether you agree or disagree with the following point ... bush and the neo-cons do not have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart ... they are in Iraq for imperialistic reasons ... their policy objectives are not as advertised ... they are seeking a weakened central government in Iraq ... and they are seeking to strengthen their hand in negotiations over Iraqi oil ...

where you seem to be focussed on a "perceived politically pragmatic position" (i.e. what bush would say about the Democrats), i am focussed on the policy ... what bush is saying about the Democrats right now, and he's right, is that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has provided no leadership on the issue ... that's not exactly what Americans are looking for from the opposition party ...

the Sunnis are going to reject the new Constitution because they have no choice ... the US brokered deal for "peace and stability" is garbage ... women who have held high office and have gotten good educations and enjoyed professional careers will be relegated back to a world of repression under Sharia law ... let me ask you this ... what would you want the Democrats to be saying if you knew you were about to become subject to that type of repression????? and Iraq's oil wealth will be divied up between the Shia and the Kurds ... there is nothing for the Sunnis in the Iraq that bush is pushing ...

by supporting bush's vision for Iraq, and Democrats are whether they squawk about the details or not, we are refusing to be honest brokers in resolving Iraq's internal differences ... it really is obscene ... from day one, what was really needed was a call for a regionally supported, negotiated resolution among Iraq's factions ... what the US, bush and the neo-cons, and the enabling Democrats are doing now is forcing an institutionalized tyranny of the majority and repression of the Sunnis ...

"I assume that he is weighing the options and trying to do what is best." ... what i assume is that the Democrats still refuse to question bush's motives in Iraq ... he's there for oil and imperial power ... he's there for greed ... i haven't heard Democrats say that ... what i assume is that the Democrats are too chickenshit to take the battle against bush where it needs to go ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. I don't buy that one bit.

I know too many Republican operatives to buy into that one. They were salivating over Dean.

[Lena inRI]

53. Nah, the one person both GOP and envious Dems. . .

DIDN't want on the Dem ticket 2004 was Wesley K. Clark.

So, yes, John Kerry was the GOP's softer candidate. . .and the rest is history.

Wes Clark was and still is the best choice.

:kick:

[1932]

56. See posts 32 and 48 -- Clark did poorly vs Bush

compared to Kerry.

[wisteria]

96. Sorry, he had very little experience in other matters out side of

the military. I like the man, but I don't think many people shared your opinion of him that way last election.

[karynnj]

176. Kerry is soft GOP, but Clark is a Democrat - Utter nonsense

Sure - Kerry is and has been well within the Democratic party since he was in high school. Clark voted for Nixon, while Kerry risked his future fighting him; Clark voted for Reagan, while Kerry risked at least his Senate seat trying to stop him from allowing the contras to bring drugs into the country to fund RW thugs in Central America; Clark voted for Bush I, while Kerry fought everyone in both parties to stop BCCI from facilitating terrorist activities.

It is great the Clark saw the light and became a Democrat recently. I ACCEPT he is now a Democrat, but resent that his fans, rather than just say they don't like Kerry, say he's a Republican.

[retread]

55. Cornel West said it best during the campaign. To paraphrase,

"Mr. Kerry needs to go home and put on some Coltrane and recall the fire of the young John Kerry." I guess he failed to take that excellent advice.

[Totally Committed]

65. Amen to bother Cornell!

The GOP wanted Kerry, so the media did their dirty work, and hyped him. The DNC believed the hype, and annointed him.

A recipe for disaster. Cornell was right. The "old Kerry" would have won... Diebold or not. He would have breathed fire. The wtered down wimp-ass campaign and candidate we saw was the most disheartening thing I ever saw, and I was expecting what happened.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Categorically false.

I really don't care about your so-called personal issues with Kerry, but let's not repeat the lie that the GOP wanted him. That statement remains the revisionist history version of supporters of 2004 primary candidates who were not elected, and as such, is little but whiny sour grapes.

[Totally Committed]

82. Once again, I remind you...

You have your OPINIONS and I have mine. I am only stating my OPINION. You can see things your way, and I see them mine. You don't see me attacking you for having your opinion. Please do not attaack me for having mine. I have every right to express myself on this board and as long as I stay respectful, and state an opinion, maybe you could relax and just talk to me instead of being so angry.

Peace.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Saying that the GOP rigged the primaries for Kerry isn't an opinion.

It's a lie.

I responded to your last post in that other thread the other day. I respected your plea for a civil tone, and politely asked you what, specifically, informed your beliefs. You did not respond. If you were truly interested in civil discourse, you would have followed up on the questions I asked of you there. Instead, it seems to me that you are mainly interested in posting strident condemnations about Democrats you don't care for and perpetuating untruths (ie, the GOP wanted Kerry in 2004). You have yet to engage me in any meaningful discussion about your beliefs. Do you think, on a discussion board of 70,000+ people, you can post highly-charged rhetoric that many would consider flamebait and NOT be called on it by someone? I remind you, this is a DISCUSSION board. If you are not comfortable having your beliefs challenged, and are unwilling to back up your opinions with anything resembling a coherent, logical argument, then perhaps DU is not for you.

[Totally Committed]

144. Why isn't it an opinion?

I don't see it being espoused in the media very often, or by people here. What I saw, and experienced, at that time has led me to THE OPINION that that is what happened. I'm sorry, but I feel the Party felt it was "his turn", and was delighted with the media reports that glowed with all the "he's the only one who can beat Bush" commentary, and got suckered.

THAT IS MY OPINION.

The DNC's cynical front-loaded primary all but guaranteed the winner of more than two of the first contests the nomination, by counting on the momentum of "lemming effect" to carry him forward into the first few Southern states. Kerry had a lock on it before most of the country even had a chance to vote in a primary. I know they wanted a candidate early, so the Party could back him early, but I also believe they had chosen him before the process began.

THAT IS MY OPINION.

What do you call my story about how Kerry has paled over the years, if not "backing up" my beliefs about him? It was the least inflammatory of my OPINIONS about him, and was even partially complimentary, so I figured that would be the best one to post. If that had been met by even a semblence of decency or openness by you, I might have felt able to discuss my feelings further. Do I have to cite the votes he missed while campaigning for President that meant I, people in my family, and circle of friends suffered losses? If that is what you want, then you are right... I won't do it. THAT, I would consider flamebait and meaningless minutia. Those votes are long past now.

We can argue semantics all day, but I have to tell you, I am up-to-here with it. I am sorry you feel as you do. I respect you and your opinion, but must stay true to my own. I sincerely believe what I have written here. If you wish to rebut, or make statements against it, fine. But, this is my opinion... I am no one's dupe. I have a mind and a heart, and in both those places, I feel what I have just said to be true and honest.

We could discuss it further, but you have convinced me -- you win! -- I have no right to talk about Kerry or have an opinion about Kerry, even if my own experiences with him have led me to where I am today. Fine. Just know... this sort of bullying behavior may get people to shut up about your candidate, but it does nothing to win back their hearts and minds. NOTHING. On a board of 70,000+, the statistics say I am not the only one who feels this way, and you might have been able to use our good will at some point.

So, congratulations... I am officially out of the Kerry business on this board. From now on it's "John who???? Don't know nuthin' 'bout him, and don't wanna know..." It may seem like a gift from the gods right now, but your side does not win when you simply drive off or bully a critic into silence. It just means you are good at being a bully. And, I have better things to do with my time and energy than deal with bullies.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

153. After reading all that self-righteous moralizing

I arrive at the same conclusion: you're willing to spout half-truths and make unbelievable claims, but I nor anyone else am not supposed to question them. I don't believe Kerry failed to vote on anything that personally hurt you. I just don't. I think you're engaging in pure rhetorical hyperbole in a hackneyed attempt to win sympathy. And in regards to your "opinion" about the primary: opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and often they stink. I met some Repukes last year who were of the opinion that Kerry lied to get his medals. It was their opinion, true, but that didn't stop it from being a bullshit pack of lies.

It's interesting that you overdramatically claim that I am not willing to respect you. I don't know you, so as far as respect goes, all I can respect is what you post here. And you're right, I can't. You never back up your "opinions" with anything resembling fact or reality, and you begin keening hysterically any time I dare prod you for, you know, justification for your opinion. I can't respect an "opinion" like that, without any sort of reasoning behind it, any more than I can respect the "opinions" of freepers and fundies.

I guess I should put you on ignore, but I don't really see the point. If you are incapable of justifying any of your so-called dearly held beliefs and opinions to me, someone you don't know from Adam on a message board, I wonder how effectively you could back them up in the real world.

[welshTerrier2]

154. "it's a lie"

i would assume that calling something a lie as opposed to an opinion would imply "intent to deceive" on the part of the person making such a statement ... your argument would be not that he is wrong but that he is intentionally wrong ...

does that observation seem fair and reasonable to you?

and, of course, for you to label Mr. Hartmann's statement a lie, you would presumably have some understanding that he must indeed have had such an intent ... if you didn't know he had the intention to mislead us for some reason, you would have no basis to state that he was not just rendering his opinion ...

what evidence do you have that Mr. Hartmann was intentionally deceiving us? what motives do you ascribe to such a well known, if not well respected, voice of the progressive community???

[WildEyedLiberal]

162. Lies can be born of many agendas

In this case, the agenda seems obvious.

[welshTerrier2]

163. obvious?

i barely know Thom Hartmann ...

what is his agenda?

[karynnj]

169. If not a "lie", it's at least an inflamatory charge made with no backup

If he wanted to make that charge, he should have some proof, which he doesn't. On the basis of what is known, it's untrue.

In fall 2003, I liked both Dean and Kerry - but on reading about their past - my opinion of Kerry improved, my opinion of Dean was lowered. I was intrigued by Clark when he first appeared trumpeted as a white knight by the press. But as I saw him in the debates and read more about him, I was less impressed. I think Kerry was the strongest candidate we had last year and in spite of Rove using every resource available to them he very nearly won.

People here say, "The Republicans feared Clark", "The Republicans feared Dean", "The Republicans feared Edwards" imply their was one view for Republicans and that it was passed down to "the moderate Republican who lived next door."

[welshTerrier2]

170. a few points ...

i have no disagreement with your observations ... Hartmann's "opinion" is certainly an "inflammatory charge" and he did not provide much support for it (note: he did say more than was excerpted in the OP) ...

a few points:

first, i want to be clear that i have no idea whether Hartmann's comments were or were not truthful ... and frankly, the evidence presented in this thread on either side is not particularly convincing of anything ... to be clear, i an neither agreeing with nor rejecting what Hartmann said ...

second, fwiw, here's the website that posted the information contained in the OP: http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005/10/gop-wanted-kerry-in-04-as-nixon-wanted.html

third, it's interesting that so many Kerry partisans feel the need to defend him ... the reality is that even if Hartmann is right, it really doesn't matter ... just because republicans may have believed they had the best chances against Kerry doesn't make it so ...

and finally, it's truly amazing that out of almost 170 posts in this thread, only one or two people made any mention about what was actually written in the OP ... the thread certainly contained an "inflammatory charge" but the entire part of the OP that I wrote had to do with voting against more funding for the war in Iraq ... a separate thread i started asking DU'ers to call their Senators and request them to vote against the $50 billion for more war got something like 3 responses ... i suppose that must say something about us ...

[blm]

66. I felt that the Kerry who investigated and exposed IranContra and BCCI and

wrote a book about the funding of international terrorism back in 96 before Al Qaeda even formed, was an extremely historical figure, as well.

I wonder why men such as West seem to always forget that John Kerry investigated and exposed more government corruption in the 80s and 90s than any lawmaker in modern history. You would think that would matter to them as much as his efforts to end the Vietnam War.

In fact, if it wasn't for Kerry's efforts then, how much would any of us really know today about BushInc and their international group of thugs?

[politicasista]

67. Probably cause he didn't want to look it up.

I kinda wish Kerry would have taken his advice. I think he (as many do) wanted Kerry to be the Kerry of 1971, which in some peoples eyes would have nailed * to the wall. Cornel speaks the truth.

[Totally Committed]

68. blm...

West and I, and people of our generation, who knew Kerry back "in the day" just keep waiting for the "real Kerry" to make an appearance. We are kind of disppointed when he doesn't. Iran Contra was a long time ago too. This is not a persona that has gotten better with age.

Just my opinion, but I was spoiled early on by what I thought was the real thing. I'm sure Cornell feels that way, too.

TC

[blm]

71. Sorry that you don't find IranContra and BCCI as important to history

as Vietnam war protests, but, I submit that 9-11 wouldn't have happened and no Bush would ever be allowed near the White House if the full revelations of IranContra and BCCI were made public.

Imagine if Kerry had HALF the support on BCCI that he had during those protests.

Too many of us were TOO dumb to know how important it was at the time.....me included. It was only just afterwards when I realized how enormous it actually was to us as a nation and to our policies with the rest of the world.

[Totally Committed]

76. You know, I tried to reason with you nicely...

I never said it wasn't important to history. Did I?

I said it was a long time ago. A lot of water has gone over the damn since then was all I was trying to say.

I have been bending over backwards to try and get my point across in the nicest, most non-belligerent way I can when I have something to say about your candidate, and all I get back for my trouble is jab after jab.

For Kerry to have half the support he had during those protests, he would have had to have been at least half the Kerry he was then. If you are too young to remember him back then, then maybe you'll just never be able to understand the depths of my disappointment that that Kerry seems not to exist any longer. And, maybe that's why the intolerance for my opinions about him. I try and remember that when I speak to anyone in your camp these days, but I tell you... this constant jab, jab, jab is not condusive to our ever seeing eye to eye.

I am trying, so I hope you will too.

Peace.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

85. You're not really trying, though, is the point

How can you say with a straight face that the Kerry who challenged BCCI is less of a man than the Kerry who spoke to Congress in 1971? No one supported him because there were big-shot Democrats who had just as many fingers in the BCCI pie as Republicans. Kerry did the RIGHT thing, regardless of partisanship, and he got NO support on it. The media, the political elite of both parties, and the government apparatus in general was too invested in the status quo to risk anything to help an upstart Senator uncover their dirty laundry. What Kerry did in those investigations was the most courageous act any politician has ever performed in at least a generation. And contrary to what you may believe, he's still the same man. He was never a firebreather. He wasn't when he was in VVAW. Kerry has always believed in working within the system to change things; why would he be any different now?

[Totally Committed]

122. Not really trying?

Are you serious?

You can get inside my head and heart and tell me that? If you knew how much I have to control to even type in his name, you wouldn't say that. I am trying. And that is my point... it just is not enough for you. There is no burying the hatchet and trying to meet in a place where we can talk about policy instead of personalities (I am trying as hard as I can to get to that place, but again, it's not enough. I know we're not there yet, but you won't even try to stop being so accusatory and cranky.)

Okay then. Maybe during the elections, when you actually need me and people like me to talk over policy or support your candidate for something, you'll take me up on this and try to meet me half-way. You are just not going to do it until you need something other than my opinion. I get it. I hear you.

TC

[Totally Committed]

123. BTW...

"And contrary to what you may believe, he's still the same man. He was never a firebreather. He wasn't when he was in VVAW. Kerry has always believed in working within the system to change things; why would he be any different now?"

Unless you saw him back in the early 70's, standing on the steps of City Hall in NYC, with a bullhorn in his hand, speaking off-the-cuff, and with total passion for his cause, you cannot say that to me. I was there. I heard it and I saw it. THAT is the Kerry I supported for over 35 years. THAT is the Kerry I watched ebb away until he was so beige I couldn't stand it any longer. THAT Kerry would never have joined the DLC. THAT Kerry would never have avoided Senate votes, as he was elected by the people of MA to do, just to make running for POTUS safer for himself. Never.

Don't tell me he never was a "firebreather". If you were there, you'd know that I was talking about. Do not presume to lecture me on this point. I know what I heard and what I saw. None of your vitriol will change that.

It is a pity that you cannot simply acknowledge that I simply see things differently than you do, and meet me halfway, and find a place where you can talk to me and not just lecture and accuse with such anger.

In the coming year there will be elections and it would be more productive to have most people here able to talk to each other without such rancor. I have been trying my damndest to forge relationships within most camps in hopes of being able to discuss a wide range of things productively, even if we can't agree about candidates as yet. I am hoping to meet you in that place sometime soon.

Peace.

TC

[blm]

142. He didn't avoid those votes. Frist scheduled votes knowing Kerry and

Edwards were scheduled at west coast events.

Kerry was also accused of avoiding votes when he was actually at his mother's side for the days prior to her death.

Funny, how the media can easily twist the facts to impugn Dems like Kerry and Edwards.

[WildEyedLiberal]

150. You may have seen the Kerry of then, but it's like you stopped listening

It's obvious to me you haven't seen the Kerry of now. Why can't you look past the stupid label of DLC? If you actually analyze his voting record, he clearly is one of the most progressive members of the Senate. That matters a lot more than some organization that lists him on their website. He doesn't even go to their functions. You're right, DLC is a stupid distraction that divides Democrats - but the ones I see doing the dividing aren't DLC Democrats like Kerry, it's people like you who tell me he's unacceptable, despite his liberal voting record, because of three stupid letters.

Please tell me what important votes he missed when campaigning that would have made a difference in MA. I know lots of other MA people and they don't seem to be incensed by the fact that he ran for president.

[blm]

131. My point is that you SKIP OVER a huge part of US history every time

you say that the Kerry from 1971 is gone. You bemoan the imagined loss of 1971 Kerry while giving NO CREDIT to the ENORMOUS effort and determination of the John Kerry of the 80s and 90s whose work we all SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO, because what happened in IranContra and BCCI...the real stories...is the root of everything that is happening TODAY in this country and in our policy towards the rest of the world.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You can't find anything about his work to uncover IranContra and BCCI that is worth acknowledging? To those of us who keep a sharp eye on government corruption, Kerry is a hero unsung by those in the media and in politics who don't want a spotlight on government level crimes.

Can you even TRY to imagine how different this world would be if Kerry had significant support from other lawmakers, the press and the public during the 80s and 90s instead of having to fight mostly on his own for so long?

Did the 1996 Kerry who wrote the book alerting this nation to global terrorism and its funding disappoint you? The Kerry who worked for 10 years crafting the Kyoto Protocol is a disappointment to you?

Why latch ONLY onto 1971 (which I was heavily aware of at the time) and then try to claim that Kerry deserves nothing for IranContra and BCCI because Kerry's work then was a disappointment to you compared to 1971?

Instead of complaining about my posts, try rereading your own objectively and see that you consistently skip a HUGE part of our nation's history when you claim that the Kerry post-1971 is a disappointment.

Personally, I think anyone who can say that hasn't been paying as close attention to the actual governance of this nation as they think.

[Mass]

70. I think the true Kerry would have won even with Diebold, I agree

Too many strategists took part in this campaign, unfortunately.

However, I disagree with the idea that the media promoted Kerry (or even the DLC). Anybody who followed the campaign during the primary and after knows this is not the case.

Before the primary, it was Dean, Dean, Dean from the media and the DLC basically ignored Kerry to promote Lieberman or Edwards (depending where they were coming from). They only endorsed Kerry once it became clear that he would be the nominee.

After the primary, the media promoted the myth of Kerry who does not connect and the DLC followed stupidely. If I had a quarter for each DLC member who criticized him or did not support him fully on a talkshow or a TV show, I would be rich by now.

[Totally Committed]

77. The real Kerry... the one from back in the day

would NEVER EVER EVER have joined up with the likes of the DLC. Not ever.

The DLC is out to do nothing but divide this Party so the NEo-Cons can finish it off for good. I believe that sincerely, Mass.

TC

[karynnj]

149. Unless he saw it as gaining a seat at the table

from which he could have influence. In 1971, he organized a march on Washington DC in such a way that he was invited to talk to Senators and Congressmen. He was invited to testify before the SFRC. In the late 80s early 90s, the Democratic party was run by the DLC.

Kerry by all his statements is not a neo-con. If it comes down to Clinton (who is more mainstream DLC and quite possibly neo-con) and Kerry - who will you pick? If it comes down to (Clark, Feingold, or anyone else willing to say no long term Iraq bases) vs (Hillary or someone else who is a neo-lib or neo-con), I know who it is important to fight for.

From your statements, you are holding Kerry to an impossible standard. (My husband and I went to a McCartney concert last week - I didn't hold it against him that his voice and appearance wasn't that of 1966.) It's ironic that you hold Kerry's courageous past against him but willingly ignore that Clark stayed in the millitary and didn't speak out against the efforts in Vietnam or in support of the Contras (even voting for Nixon and Reagan)- while Kerry twice risked any future career fighting against them. Kerry doesn't walk on water, but neither do any other potential candidates.

[KoKo]

174. Kerry should have done that...but I think he was long past Coltrane and

had invented a whole new life for himself. I don't think he was able to crawl back into his Psyche and call up that "fervent Anti-Vietnam Invasion Kerry" who appeared on talk shows and fought against the death and destruction and lies of Vietnam.

When he ran this time ...he was a Politico. He was seasoned and hardened. The John Kerry of the past was in photo albums tucked away in drawers left to memory.

He had to move on. And, to be imprisoned in one's past life is not good. As we can see by the "Chimperor-in-Theif's" performance.

Kerry should have done better...but he had morphed to far into the Senate to be able to express himself as "real" anymore. :shrug:

[Geek_Girl]

72. I'm not sure if the Repug's didn't want Dean

But I think it was telling when I asked my conservative leaning father about the election and he said he didn't like Kerry. When I mentioned Dean he said "Oh you mean the doctor. I like that guy." A strange realization came to me at that moment, the dems got played by the media.

[KittyWampus]

73. Hartmann Is totally wrong about Dean, of course. The Mediawhores MADE

Howard Dean's candidacy and then tried to prop it up after Dean imploded in Iowa.

I like Dean and support the job he's doing now at the DNC but this delusional bullshit has GOT TO STOP.

[Orangepeel]

75. I wish people would stop with the double reverse psychology crap

Democrats spend far too much time worrying about what the republican party is trying to do to psych them out. We'd be far better off if we stopped trying to figure out or second guess what they really want(ed) and just ran who we thought would resonate with the public and do the best job.

[DemDogs]

78. Not the only stupid thing

the Club for Growth did. Club for Growth attacks Edwards in NH, where he hadn't gotten much traction. They did not represent mainstream R thinking. Mainstream DC Rs desperately wanted Dean in 2008 (this is not flame bait, just well known in DC). There was never a single poll that showed Dean beating Bush in electoral college politics. Not one. This is not to say that they weren't happy with Kerry. What they didn't want was someone who could compete with Bush in his strong suits, which means they didn't want Gephardt, didn't want Edwards, and maybe didn't want Clark. But Hartmann is smoking something if he thinks there was polling showing Dean trouncing Bush. If you fall for that, you are falling for his 2008 manipulations.

[Skwmom]

80. They would have loved Edwards.

Of course now they are hoping to get him for 08. While they might like Hillary, they'd love Edwards - the gift that would keep on giving to the Republicans. Clark is the one they were terrified of.

[DemDogs]

171. Why should they be afraid of a Republican? n/t

[1932]

181. Why did the National Association of Manufacturers -- historically, since

FDR's days, one of the most conservative, pro-corporate lobby groups in America -- tell Kerry NOT to pick Edwards as his VP if right-wingers want Edwards on the ticket so badly?

Thomas Frank talked about this in a lecture at the Commonwealth Club to make the point that Edwards challenges the most entrenched pro-corporate elements of the political aparatus and that he has the ability to make a difference on the issues that those entrenched conservative groups don't want to see changed.

If you want to read some historical information about the N.A.M., you should check out Richard Parker's Galbraith biography.

Of course, if you want to continue to share your not very informed opinions without have to deal with the internal conflict of taking into consideration facts and arguments that contradict what you'd like to say then don't read the Parker book and don't bother to listen to Frank's C.C. talk (which might be available on the internet).

[Clarkie1]

81. Thom is wrong on this one.

The only one they ever feared was Clark, and they didn't fear him much because they assumed Democratic Primary voters would never nominate 4-star general.

[wisteria]

86. WONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

Dean they used to raise money. They pumped and promoted him as an extreme far left liberal with a crazy following. And a shoe-in for the Dem ticket. This helped them raise money not spend it. They never feared him or felt threatened by him. The assumption that the repubs considered Dean a serious threat is just ridiculous. Yeah, Rove was real afraid for sure.

[gulfcoastliberal]

88. That really strikes me as reasonable and true.

We needed a firebrand like Dean. The pukes were feared Dean much like the DLC (hmmm) did.

[NYCGirl]

90. Matt Taibbi says the same thing Hartmann says in his (Taibbi's) book,

"Spanking the Donkey." And, BTW, this is not Taibbi just propping up his favorite — he really dislikes Howard Dean.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565848918/002-5109522-9192025?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

He talks about working undercover as a Bush operative in Florida for an article in Rolling Stone.

This is from an interview in Salon where he talks about it:

"When I was in Florida volunteering for Bush, this came up quite a bit. Everybody there was so glad Kerry was the nominee. They all said the same thing: Thank God it wasn't Howard Dean"

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/05/12/taibbi/index3.html

[Mass]

100. Funny - I hope he had his dose of koolaid.

Republicans I know were too happy to see Dean win and afraid to see Kerry or Clark win.

But of course, I was not an undercover Bush operative for an article in the Rolling Stones.

[NYCGirl]

101. Guess you guys didn't know the same Republicans.

Here's the entire article from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6539082?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1097529183054&has-player=false

It's very good.

Now THIS is funny:

"In my first six weeks on the campaign, I saw only one black person enter our offices. He was a recently released armed robber from Newark, New Jersey, who was the guest of a local female Republican politician. The ex-con was not particularly interested in Republican politics, although he did say something about wanting to hit Christine Todd Whitman in the face with a brick. I urged him to support the president, even though he couldn't vote. He didn't make any promises."

[Mass]

103. I know the article and it is fairly good.

[Azathoth]

91. Hartmann needs to do a little fact-checking

The "latte-drinking" ads weren't run by the GOP or the RNC. As I recall, they were run by the pathetic buffoons in the Club for Growth, the white-ultra-rich-uber-elitist-highschool-nerds-turned-caped-clowns-of-conservatism who thus far have managed to spend tens of millions of dollars on candidates without swaying a single election. The RNC/GOP didn't spend any serious money during the primaries to attack Dean. To the contrary, Dean was such a polarizing figure on the right that his candidacy helped the wingnuts raise even more money.

[NYCGirl]

95. According to the OP, Hartmann just said "Republicans". And the Club for

Growth are certainly Republicans.

[Mass]

102. You dont think the Club for Growth plays in the Democratic primary.

If anything, it would have helped Dean to mobilize the activists.

[NYCGirl]

104. I don't understand. Are you saying they didn't run the ad?

The activists were already mobilized.

[Mass]

105. No, they ran the ad. It did not hurt Dean in a Democratic

primary. They thought Dean had already won and were preparing to run against him in the GE.

[NYCGirl]

106. OK, I guess. But I can't understand why they'd run it so early then.

Edited to add: I don't understand how running a very nasty little ad during the primaries is supposed to help Dean.

The only thing it helped do was reinforce the dreaded "ELECTABILITY!" meme.

[janx]

136. But most of the people who saw that ad had no idea

who was responsible for it, no?

[Azathoth]

110. The Club for Growth is a way out goofball 527 that happens to have money

which sort of mitigates the fact that they're a bunch of bumbling clowns who are regarded as useful idiots by the GOP establishment. Their in-you-face "fuck the poor, I want another yacht" platform has managed to attact a couple of big names, but they are an independent group that does whatever it wants to do (hence their track record of failure). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that their laughable ad buy against Dean was more an effort to raise their own profile than to actually hurt Dean.

Hartmann said that the GOP's internal polls showed that Dean was a big threat to them, and so they organized an attack on him in the primaries. That didn't happen, and not a single poll back then showed Dean overtaking Dubya.

Dean would probably have been a better and more interesting candidate than Kerry, but that doesn't mean he had a better chance of winning.

[zulchzulu]

94. Maybe Hartmann should have read this before he dissed Kerry

Newsweek Poll: Dean vs. Bush?

One week before the nation’s first election-season test, Dean holds strong to his lead among Democratic voters

"... Dean may have a struggle on his hands when it comes to appealing to the electorate at large. Cast as an almost polar opposite to Bush, the anti-war Dean is perceived by 43 percent of all voters as too liberal to defeat the “compassionate conservative” in the White House. Almost half (44 percent) consider him too hotheaded and undiplomatic while 33 percent interpret his temperament as passion for the issues."

More:

"And if a general election were held today, Dean would grab 43 percent of the vote compared to Bush’s 51 percent."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925306/site/newsweek/

World Net Daily had Buchanan spewing these bullet points in the event of a Dean V Bush race:

"If Bush and Karl Rove, using the $170 million they plan to raise by spring, can paint Dean as pro-homosexual weddings, pro-hiking taxes and "soft on Saddam," Dean and the Democrats could face a wipeout."

I guess it's easy for Hartmann to play Two Months Later On A Friday Morning Quarterback on the race and I really wonder what the hell his point was. Was he saying that Dean would have won if he, um....had won? Did Bush operatives make Iowa caucus voters vote against Dean?

I like Hartmann, but this tinfoil horseshit makes me wonder about his viability.

As for Kerry and his vote tomorrow, how much of the money goes for armor and how much goes for yunno....KBR?

[wisteria]

114. Good information to keep handy for further use. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

116. What-E-ver! Primaries are over.....

It is all nothing but spilled milk at this point!

[Lena inRI]

157. LOL. . . touche dear Frenchie. . .

love your witty mind! That CNN poll reflects the RAPPORT people were having with Clark IN SPITE of his so-called lack of political experience that Dem politicos were repeating like a mantra in order to push their agendas.

And I don't have to remind you, Frenchie, that in spite of the rude foolish marginalizing of Clark by the Dems in 04, Clark formed WesPac immediately after the primaries and continues to speak against B* policies and to endorse Dem candidates week after week after week.

Now that's EXPERIENCE coming from CHARACTER.

For Clarksanity in 2008.:toast:

[skipos]

167. Clark is to the Dems what Guiliani is to the Repubs

They have a much broader appeal than their own parties want to believe. And the biggest challenge they face is getting nominated.

[fujiyama]

126. What amuses me (and distresses me to some extent)

is the inability of partisans of any candidate to simply admit that his or her candidate MADE MISTAKES.

Dean lost for a combination of reasons. Dean's poll numbers had been dropping for weeks prior to the IA caucus. I remember, for a couple of weeks, his numbers were falling and Kerry and Edwards were rising (in IA). This was due to a series of missteps on the Dean campaign. I remember watching several specials and reading several articles on this. In particular thhere was a good one in thheh Atlantic Monthly talking to Paul Maslin, Dean's pollster.

It seems like they had a bunch of outsiders conduct thhe campaign in IA. The orange hat kids really were not effective. I have heard the Kerry campaign made similar blunders in the GE in NV and some other states. Apparently they didn't learn from theh Dean camp's mistakes.

Dean and Gep got caught in a stupid ad war that killed both campaigns.

Dean had some problems with reporters several weeks before and then there was that old clip where Dean questioned (and it was a legitimate criticism) of the IA caucus.

The Gore endorsement never really helped. Ironically to some Dean had became the 'establishment candidate'.

Dean attacked a lot of people in the primaries and while many of his criticisms had merit, he was percieved to be angry.

Kerry had some advantages of course. He got the endorsement of Vilsack's wife. Kerry's military buddies also helped. The DLC had made it clear thhey weren't thrilled by Dean. Kerry's decision to take out a mortgage and focus on IA also proved smart. He ran a good campaign there.

Once IA fell, Dean had other problems. There was of course theh scream, which arguably was unfairly played up (though the moment I saw it I knew it didn't help). Then He fired Trippi, who had been vying for power throughout before IA. There were a lot of power struggles inside the campaign between Trippi and O'Conner - heree's a good article on thtah (warning though it's by Howard Kurtz though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15741-2004Feb28?language=printer )

Theh media's role was simply to play up whomever was leading the polls. When Clark entered he got great press. Unfortunately, Clark entered late and didn't compete in IA, dooming his campaign. Kerry's campaign was virtually written off and the mortgage was seen as a last ditch effort (and it was to some extent).

Unfortunately, the Kerry team didn't realize that it was a completely different animal in the GE (eventually having even his military service criticized) and didn't realize what dirty tactics Rove was capable. Of course he made hhis own blunders, especially in not clearly articulating hhis stance on Iraq. But I don't want to get into that on this thread.

[second edition]

128. The part of your post concerning the GOP and Kerry is just false

and in regards to the other portion of your post concerning an upcoming vote in the senate for more $$$ for Iraq- I think you need to stop demanding that every Dem vote your way or you'll make trouble for them. I am certain they are more aware of the overall failings, progress and needs in Iraq and have been briefed and provided more accurate information then what you are able to access-therefore, I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm not happy about pouring more money into this mess,but perhaps this time the administration will have to be more accountable for it dispersing of the funds.

[rodeodance]

133. $50 BILLION--yeah GAWDS!!

[rodeodance]

135. Getting back to the issue--CALL your Senators NOW and let them know

your thoughts on this this issue.

[rodeodance]

138. kick

[npincus]

139. I believe it. I always thought Rove's strategy was to put it out

there that the GOP "wanted Dean" because he was the "weakest" candidate... that Rove propagated the idea that Dean would be soundly defeated against B*sh...which frightened jelly-ass Democrats ate up and the media echoed in their usual manner of assisting WH with their propaganda. Dean has a charisma and has always told it like it is, particularly on the subject of Bush's war and competence, which people recognize, appreciate and many agree with.

Dean WOULD HAVE whipped B*sh's ass, but not for the Dem establishment and media working against him... CNN played "the Dean Scream" more than 600 TIMES the week it happened. COME ON.

My then-72 year-old mother who is a moderate Dem really liked Dean the first time she heard him speak on issues. Had Dean been embraced by the media and treated well by his own party establishment he would probably be our president, and we would be on our way OUT of Iraq. Instead, the media planted the seed that Dean was unelectable, unstable, and picked on his wife, who chose to continue with her career instead of campaign, and had a different last name.

Yes, B*sh stole Ohio, but the margin of victory should have been overwhelming in our favor so one state should have not made the difference.

I think Rove was the architect of Dean's downfall, working from behind the scenes, leaking statements to the press about how happy he is to have Dean as front-runner.

My opinion.

[Cha]

143. The media didn't want

anyone who would beat the bushwa. And when it was Kerry who turned out to be the candidate it was his turn to be smeared and jeered.

I'm so bored with the media choosing who we want for our leaders..they need to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up.

[kerrygoddess]

156. Oh please...

Can we stop with the grasping of straws?

[RaulGroom]

172. People who understand politics knew this at the time

People who don't understand politics will never grasp it. Give it up.

[nvliberal]

178. What in the hell is Hartmann smoking?

The Republicans wanted DEAN of all of the candidates running because his big mouth and his inconsistent stand on issues made him a very easy target.

He wouldn't have carried a single state if he had been nominated, save for Massachusetts and perhaps Vermont. He was that much of a loser.

The bigwigs in the Democratic Party knew that, and that's why Clark was put in there late in the game, to take the air out of the Dean campaign.

It worked to a large extent, but Dean's big mouth and the mismanagement of his campaign by Trippi and others guaranteed his political demise.

The ONLY candidate the Republicans truly feared was John Edwards, and for good reason. His message, which cut to the quick of what the Republicans were about; his record as one of the top trial attorneys in the country, which sent corporate America into a panic; his Clinton-like charisma, which was appealing to voters; and the fact he was from the South, which promised to wreck much of the Republican base.

And they worked like hell, through the media, to make sure Edwards was buried. Even when Kerry got the nomination and Edwards was the running mate, the national media at first went apeshit trashing him and then deliberately ignoring him, claiming Kerry was forcing Edwards into the rural areas of the country like New York, Chicago, Birmingham, Atlanta, Portland, Reno, Los Angeles, and other tiny towns instead of the larger urban areas.

Hartmann is full of shit.

[GetTheRightVote]

179. Dean is one of us out here in the ditches working against the Refugs

He would have won hands down.

:kick:

[Conscious Confucius]

182. Just like they are doing with Hillary.

Where is all this "support" for Hillary coming from exactly? They want Hillary, because that is their only hope for winning the presidency in 2008. The Republican party is so far behind right now there is no logical way that they would win... unless Hillary was the opponent. I guarantee you that it is improbable and impossible for Hillary to win the South and thus carry the election. With all the talk about morals and anti-gay rhetoric during the last election, do you honestly believe that the folks in the Deep South would vote for a woman president? No chance, kiddies!

[wisteria]

183. I agree, and I think Hillary might even have some problems in

Blue states like Pa.

[wakemewhenitsover]

184. Please explain Canuck and drugs in Muskie's coffee comment.

[welshTerrier2]

186. here ya go ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm

[wakemewhenitsover]

187. Thanks. "La plus que change..."