Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I am not a Novak fan, but I have to agree with a lot of what he says. The level of anger and the ardent support for a candidate to take Bush on face-to-face is a great part of the support for Dean.

I truly believe that any party leader who is against Dean does not understand where the party faithful are and how much we are willing to get out the vote if it votes Bush out.

Does the left hate Bush more than the right hated Clinton? Hard to tell. At least the left has reason to dislike Bush.

Robbie

It’s necessary for Dean to handle Bush the way he is doing so if he even wants to have a chance at beating him. Regardless of what us “political gurus” think, Bush is doing an okay job to the majority of the population…the street polls have proven that. Dean needs to bash Bush and bash him hard to sway the popular vote. If not, the people will simply think “Hey, Bush is alright, why not another term”? Henceforth, if Dean wants a shot, he needs to expose Bush to the people, and thats exactly what he’s doing.

It’s not just about the message, which is that we deserve a choice, not an echo. It’s not just about the messenger, although Dean is a fine speaker and was a sound governor.

It’s also about the medium. If 1 million people give $100 million, we can take on a President who gets $1 million each from 1,000 people.

Message, medium, messenger. It’s all three. Novak gets points for figuring out one.

No other candidate has the medium wired the way Dean does. No other candidate can — the DLC can’t say “thanks, now we’ll take over” because the thousands supporting Dean won’t buy it.

So Dean will be the nominee. Take that to the bank. And then we will see what happens from there.

The reason Dean is getting slammed is this:
He publicly dissed Terry Mcauliffe and the DLC. You don’t get away with bashing Mcauliffe’s henchmen. That is just bad business. That one mistake is what will bring him down and instead Kerry will be the candidate. Already Kerry is “investigating” Dean and that is very dangerous for him. If I am wrong about Dean and he does get the nomination, I will personally mail him a shiny, crisp dollar bill. You read it here first folks.

Are we ever going to get a Vietnam Veteran in the WH? I’m beginning to think we’re doomed to have a bunch of rich-boy dodgers until the next generation of politicians.

What about John Kerry? He is a rich boy Nam vet.

Also Powell was in Vietnam. They both actually saw combat unlike Al Gore the Stars and Stripes reporter.

What does it matter, there have been a lot of great Presidents who were never in combat. I think that what is most important is thier character and ability to lead. Clinton was a strong leader and even though I disagree with his character issues, (not the blowjob thing) I have to admit that he was a leader with a strong ability to drive the focus of foriegn policy and the direction of his party. Although I think that direction was wrong it is an unavoidable fact.

What the Democratic party base is really mad about, imo, is that our party has been losing for a long time now. What attracted me, at least, to Howard Dean was the impression of a strong centrist candidate with a good record, a good platform, smart tactics so far, and a winning style.

As for the Kerry opposition research, well, may the best record win. If there’s anything team Kerry can find, team Bush would have found it too, and it’s better to have it out early than late.

Showing up for your draft board and being medically deferred, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t being a “dodger”.

I think that previous military experience is a plus to have in a president but it is not a requirement. Counting back Bush Sr, Carter, Kennedy and Eisenhower served in uniform. The commander in chief is the most important commander of the most powerful military on the planet. I think that it is important that a president know what he is doing when he asks our military to fight and die for our freedoms. I have to wonder how the 9/11 and the Iraq war would have played out of a Veteran like Mc Cain or Powell were on the GOP ticket in 2000? My Step Father emailed me that he plans on breaking from his past and voting for John Kerry if he gets the ticket. My stepdad is a retired naval officer and a vet of the Cold War.Kerry’s time and honors in Vietnam earns a lot of respect for him. Kerry has an impressive resume and that is just one part of it. I would not be surprised if Kerry start campaigning with the same fire and aggression that we are seeing with Howard Dean. I don’t know which one I am going to support but I know that I am going to support one of them who gets the ticket.

Novak recognizes that Dean is the flavor of the moment, and he has good reason to be excited. Dean is incapable of energizing moderates. He got the anti-Bush money and support early, and the longer he stays in the media, the longer the other, more electable candidates go ignored. Dean may in fact win the nomination, but a democratic canidate from New England hasnt won the WH in 40 years. Theres a reason Dean and disaster are appearing in the same headlines, he might be able to buy himself the nomination, but it will be Dukakis all over again if he does. The best chances of winning for the Democratic party are still to be found in the south. John Edwards is said to be charismatic, but Bob Graham would almost certainly carry FL, and thats the most improtant swing state by far. He also opposed the war, and unlike the other candidates, voted agianst it when he had the chance. (He said Iraq was not part of the war on terror, and our forces were needed in Afganistan). The more Dean is treated like big news, the more he will be, and all due to his money. (polls show him ahead, but they also show over 60% of democrates cant name a sinlge candidate) I hope this election doesnt come down to money, if thats the case Bush has already won.