Remember that Al Gore supported Howard Dean last time....

[kentuck]

When many thought he would jump on the Kerry bandwagon, he publically supported Howard Dean. There is no proof that his endorsement helped or hurt Governor Dean but he suppported the person whose ideas he most agreed with. Just something to consider.

[bryant69]

1. That's a positive in my mind

I suppored Kerry over Dean, I'll admit. But I like a man who backs whom he most believes in.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[benburch]

2. And we should do the same. nt

[MercutioATC]

4. If he was the candidate, I would.

[benburch]

8. Thats why we need to DRAFT him.

He was elected once, and can be elected again.

[MercutioATC]

10. I disagree.

He's said repeatedly that he doesn't want the job. I don't intend to spend time and energy trying to convince somebody who doesn't want the job to run.

[MoJoWorkin]

3. Agreed! I love them both !

Too bad there aren't more Democrats like them. :kick:

[AlGore-08.com]

5. There's no question it helped - - because it got Dean a ton of press

Almost all of it speculating that "Dean is now the front runner" and "Dean is now the one to beat" and talking about Dean's anti-war position and grassroots campaigns as the reason that Gore endorsed him.

Getting free press is every politician's goal.

Gore helped Dean, just as he helped Kerry/Edwards later by stumping for them in swing areas like Florida, Missouri and Hawaii.

[sasha031]

6. my feeling why people jumped shipped from Dean

it could be my own personal projection at the time....

with the knowledge of how evil and corrupt the thugs in command were and are, perhaps people fled to someone on the inside, that would be aware intricacies of the system. There was so much to lose that people went for the perceived strongest candidate.
Nothing against Kerry or Dean, they are both good men. The right wing pundits were smacking their lips with a Dean candidacy, they seemed to fear Kerry.

just my 2cents :shrug:

[EST]

7. Correct!

[sojourner]

9. my own take on that is the the RW pundits don't have much to fear

from anyone. any and everything they say is calculated to have an effect. if they intimate that they are afraid...i don't buy into it. i figure its the "oh, i'm so scared of THAT choice. DON'T choose it!" scam through which they try to manipulate us. and manipulate us they do! they are bullies, thugs and conniving thieves determined to help the RW agenda along - so long as it promises to enrich them.


with kerry i thought we chose the guy who had the right formula (presidential-looking, statesman, verteran and war hero (boy did that do a lot of good), foreign affairs experience, money). he wasn't the one i liked best though when he was put up as candidate i did all i could to support him. like you, i have no more to go on than what i've observed and how it makes sense to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. IOW, you bought their spin.

The RW pundits were SCARED of Dean, and they pulled a briar patch on us.

Two things to remember: 1)the republicans always lie. When they have a choice between a half-lie and a bald-faced lie, they'll go for the bald-faced lie every time. So when they say they wanted to run against Dean, they were trying to scare the Dem base away from Dean.

2) They never admit to fear. If they say they are afraid, they are lying. If they really are afraid, they say nothing at all, because fear = doubt, and doubt = being wrong, and they will never admit to being wrong. So when they said they were worried about Kerry, they were lying.

Don't get me wrong - though I supported Dean in the primary, Kerry got all my support in the election. He's a good man with all the qualifications necessary, except for passion. I think Dean could have generated more grassroots energies, been more of a bulldog in the clinches (to mix metaphors).

Not that it would have made any difference, because neither acknowledged that they were running against Diebold.