Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[Hawkeye-X]

1. He's no draft dodger

The problem with that percievement is that he did go to his scheduled appointment with the Army, armed with X-rays and provided information on his fused veterbrae on his back. As a result of this, he got a Y-1 deferment, which means Dean must serve in case of national emergency. Nothing more is needed. Republicans has no ammo on this one. We have ammo on Chimpy though. Where was he in all of that one missing year, hmm?

Hawkeye-X

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[papau]

56. White House lapses led to 9/11, Clark says

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=98993

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/10/white_house_lapses_led_to_911_clark_says/

White House lapses led to 9/11, Clark says
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 12/10/2003

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark yesterday suggested that President Bush bears some responsibility for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying the administration had been warned about the threat of Osama bin Laden but did not act quickly enough to prevent the tragedy.


"Now, we know who did 9/11," Clark told a roomful of business people at a law firm in Portsmouth, saying the Bush administration should be investigated for its actions prior to the attacks. Bush, he said, is "responsible for our preparation, our defense, and that's the issue. . . . This was a president who was in charge in this country for almost nine months, and failed" to defend the country.


Clark's remarks, among his sharpest critiques of Bush, were delivered as his campaign has stepped up its rhetoric. At other points yesterday, Clark referred to Bush as "a reckless, radical, and heartless leader" and said the war in Iraq "casts doubts on his competence as a commander in chief."


Later, Clark elaborated on his 9/11 criticism, saying that President Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, had warned the Bush administration about the dangers of bin Laden but that Bush spent his first nine months in office focusing on Russia rather than the Al Qaeda leader. "What he should have done is put the priority on dealing with the threat that was facing America," Clark said. "Apparently, he didn't."<snip>


As a person on the thread said:


"So how come people buy the spin that only this administration can protect us? They didn't protect us in the first place."

[WiseMen]

43. Doctor's Letter-Dodge was Typical for the Frat Boys

You falsely describe Dean back problem. It was NOT a serioius "Fused Verterbrae" but rather a stress that is not so unusually constricting. Many men got draft and went with much more health issues than Deans -- which allowed him perform admirable in most military situations -- just as he did on the ski-slopes for a year.

Let's be real:Howard Dean heard the call to Vietnam service and produced X-rays and a letter from his Doctor. The nation gave him a bad-back deferment and 1 year vacation on the ski-slopes of Aspen.

Very much like George W. Bush’s Vietnam Draft-Dodge into the Texas Air National Guard when he was “young and irresponsible,” Dr. Dean’s youthful maneuver memorializes the most shameful aspect of class and privilege in America – that the moneyed class can avoid their responsibilities and gain special advantages, yet end-up being celebrated for their success in life.

There is no way to get around it!

[LeahMira]

59. If you choose to point a finger...

Very much like George W. Bush’s Vietnam Draft-Dodge into the Texas Air National Guard when he was “young and irresponsible,” Dr. Dean’s youthful maneuver memorializes the most shameful aspect of class and privilege in America – that the moneyed class can avoid their responsibilities and gain special advantages, yet end-up being celebrated for their success in life.

... then point a finger at the people who made and enforced the rules, and not the young men who took advantage of legal ways to avoid going to Vietnam... and did so without using Daddy's pull and influence.

Oh, and please don't focus on "class and privilege in America" when you're talking about Governor Dean. I'm sure his family was well off, but I'm also sure he didn't get into Yale on "legacy."

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the sons of rich men aren't on the front lines in any war. At the same time, there were young men who were most definitely not the sons of rich men who figured ways to avoid service in Vietnam and they didn't all go to Canada either. I, a woman, know some of the tricks they pulled.

The fact is that with a draft the government has the entire population of young men to choose from and while they may have made an example of a few "tricksters" to put the fear of the lord into the rest of them, the fact also is that they didn't need the entire population to fight in Vietnam, and so they took the gung-ho ones and the ones who would obey any "authority figure" just because they were scared not to and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

When young Howard Dean brought his X-rays to the draft board, he didn't know whether or not his condition would excuse him from service or not, for sure. He could just hope it would.

When young frat-boy Shrubbie the Chimp Bush went into the Texas Air National Guard he knew damned well that he would never see a day in Vietnam.

[WiseMen]

73. Dean is BUSH-LITE on Foreign Policy Experience. NOT GOOD

I was involved in the first IMAGINE AMERICA events which raised money for the Kucinich effort. Most of these friend are now checking out Dean.

But, please, please, lets make some sober judgements regarding the general election. Fundamentals of his record, and lack of national security experience, make him very vulnerable. No analysis I have seen shows how Dean will be able survive the Republican attacks. Here is a recent and thoughful analysis that appeared in the Philidelphia Daily News:

http://www.opednews.com/atkins_1203_kerry.htm

I campaigned for Jerry Brown against "slick willie" to the bitter end in 1992. Dean is no Jerry Brown in terms of liberal record or visionary ideas. Dean has an abominable "politics as usual" record of supporting the NRA, death penalty lobby, and whatever special interest position that could get him re-elected.

Vermont voter say of their former governor “he never saw a welfare program he did not want to cut.” As governor Dean made major cuts in aid to education, retirement funds for teachers and state employees, health care, Medicaid benefits, and welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled, all under the cloak of “fiscal responsibility”.

The REAL DEAN was supporting Bush's Irac policy before his campaign manager hit him over the head and led him over to the anti-war position. The REAL DEAN is not worth loosing another election over.

[grytpype]

2. 1. Point out that Bush has made us less safe...

... by getting our forces bogged down and overextended in Iraq.

2. Pledge to internationalize Iraq as soon as possible, to free up our troops.

3. Pick Clark to be his running mate.

4. Pledge to fire Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Feith.

5. Pledge that Halliburton is not going to run our foreign policy.

6. Have a plan to increase homeland security by securing ports of entry and vital infrastructure.

[Silverhair]

9. Number 6 is impossible. America is simply too large.

You can't guard everywhere at once, even if every single person of any age in the USA were to magically become a trained armed guard. There would still be huge gaps.

[grytpype]

I just said "have a plan," I didn't say it was possible.

[LeahMira]

45. It's more possible than what's happening now...

You can't guard everywhere at once, even if every single person of any age in the USA were to magically become a trained armed guard. There would still be huge gaps.

I think we have to admit to ourselves that we aren't going to get them all. Even in little Israel, they don't get them all. But the Israeli people are aware of their surroundings and observe things that Americans just don't. For instance if you see a large purse or a backpack apparently left somewhere, you don't touch it let alone look inside to see if there's identification or a billfold or whatever. You have the policeman to do that. Thepeople aren't paranoid, but they are very aware.

With all the conversation about Homeland Security, the average person still has no idea what to be aware about or how to respond to a potential crisis. I'm sorry to say that our politicians are great at making it look like they're solving problems when they really aren't.

[Hep]

3. Anyone who denies...is in denial

Get one thing straight. I don't spend my time wondering what the enemy is going to do. I spend my time fighting the good fight.

If the attack comes, we'll deal with it. The power of this campaign has not yet been fully realized. You don't believe it, but I don't expect you to.


BTW, how many achilles heels can one person have?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

10. Wrong

Plain wrong. And there's no evidence to support it.

[paulk]

18. Open any history book and you will find

that wars are won by the General who picks the time, place, and circumstance of the battles.

To deny this is not a strategy.

[Hep]

23. Strategy is strategy

but we have a game plan that has worked well against constant attacks from up to five challengers simultaneously. IOW, YOUR guys haven't been able to stop us, no reason to conclude that anyone else can by default.

Either way, no you're still wrong. This isn't a ground war. It's a metaphor, and your argument doesn't work. We'll counter Bush when we need to, but NOTHING will distract us from our game plan.

Well meaning democrats do NOT listen to the right wing. Get that straight.

[SadEagle]

29. One counter-argument

I think that negative attacks in primaries are quite a bit more risky than in a general election. There is at least some sense of "we're all in this together" among the more politically involved primary voters, and many feel that attacks can undermine the eventual party nominee.

Now, that could certainly happen in the general, too --- any attempts to attack Dean from Bushists can make him look a lot less 'presidential' and afraid; but if attack ads didn't work, people would not be using them.

[Hep]

33. Attack ads are part of it

and it's important for there to be a somewhat level playing field, and only Dean has that chance.

But attack ads can be trumped by shoeleather. That's where this fight is really going to take place.

[Blue_Roses]

38. Gee who annointed

you as the "know all" of all Democrats. And as far as "YOUR guys" that is a blatent attack. We are all in this together and we are grasping to find the right candidate to get our country back on track. I don't think Dean would like you excluding ANYONE by saying "your guys."

And another thing, competition REQUIRES strategy. How do you think superbowls are won. They don't just "show up" for game day and run out on the field.

[Hep]

40. We're not all in this together

I want us to be, but we're not.

And I'm not the one who made it this way. I defend my guy, I don't attack. The funny thing is, you look at me defending MY guy and act like I'm the one causing the rift. HILARIOUS.

And thanks for the sports analogy. I agree. But you know what you never see? You never see one team looking at the other teams huddle when they need to be finding out what play is being called on their side. That's my point, precisely. I'm focusing on MY teams' gameplan, not what the other team is saying in its huddle.

[Blue_Roses]

74. Just because one disagrees or asks questions

regarding "your guy" doesn't mean they aren't in this with you. "Your guy" may well be the "guy" that we will all be defending against Bush and you need to be aware that these questions will come up. I appreciate your passion for "your guy" and by the way, he was my first choice at one time, but it's necessary to find out where they are coming from. It's easier to get it cleared and out of the way now, instead of it becoming huge hurdle against Bush.

You act like you are the only one with a stronghold on Dean. He has many supporters and I'm sure he would appreciate you welcoming others. However, being defensive at every turn isn't the way to welcome newbies.

And as for the huddle analogy, it's good but remember WHO'S looking at the huddle from the sidelines--the ENTIRE TEAM and it's from BOTH sides!

Debate is good...it clears the sinuses.

[Bertrand]

61. Confirming The Stereotype Of Dean Supporters Being Ignorant Of Politics?

Well meaning democrats do NOT listen to the right wing. Get that straight

It is this form of child-like naivety that has helped to cause the Democratic fall from a 2-1 majority to a tie with Republicans in terms of party affiliation. Then again, this is what i expect from a member of the Howard Dukakis camp.

[Hep]

63. Same old same old

Maybe you don't know what "well meaning" means. IF the shoe doesn't fit...

[Bertrand]

66. exactly

you validate my point.

[Hep]

67. Hardly

You have no point. Just disrespect. But hey, let the right wong run your political life. They own evrey other part of it.

[KittyWampus]

37. Power Of His Campaign??? What About The Strength Of The Candidate Himself

It is past the point of absurdity- hearing about Dean's campaign- this is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY not direct democracy!

And we are electing a President... not a "campaign" nor a "staff" nor even really a "Vice President".

Why are Dean supporters and Dean himself so loathe to actual have the spotlight on Dean himself?

[Hep]

46. Put the spotlight wherever you want to

He can take it. He's done fine so far, jusging by how he's leading and all. I'm sorry it bothers you so much that the focus of our campaign is the people in the campaign. I know how it must suck that your guy didn't think of it first, whoever the hell your guy is. Hard to tell, you know, because we obviously can't base it on who you spend the most time talking about.

[bearfartinthewoods]

62. you put this sooo well

last night, hearing trippi complain about the debate questions being focused on process just about gagged me with a spoon since that's all we hear about from the dean camp. how much he's raking in, how many meetups, the status of the bat.

it's as if what he stands for and against is irrelevant to the success of his primary campaign. what scares me most is the worry that his people forget that the primary is just stage one. the real goal is for a dem to be elected president....not for dean to win the primaries.

[Hep]

71. Really? You sure?

Apples and oranges. Don't cpompare what they talk about in debates with what you read here. Two very different forums. Did they talk about the bat and the meetups in debate questions last night?

The real goal is to get Dean the nomination, at which point the real goal will become winning the general.

Funny though that antiDean people try to tell us what our goals are.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. suggestions

If they want to bring up the draft-dodging. He needs to bring up AWOL. These are two counter-balancing issues.

What I think Dean should do with the "international inexperience" thing is turn it back around. He should say "Certainly I have as much international experience as the President did when he came into office, but I believe I would be hardpressed to alienate and intimidate the entire International community in 3 short years as this President has done."

As for being soft-on-Saddam, Dean could simply say that, in the end, the International Community was right, we can find no WMD's in Iraq - so that should not have been the reason for going. If we were going to liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and that was our stated reason, we should have had a broad-based Internation Coalition identical to the coalition formed by my opponent's father when he was President."

[ferg]

6. attack Bush's weakness

Which is what Dean's been doing.

The US is weaker now than before Bush.

We're no longer respected in the world.

We've abandoned our allies.

Bush ignored the real terrorism issues (the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan) to play oil-king in Iraq.

And flight-suit boy is an AWOL chickenshit. (Okay, Dean hasn't pushed that one.)

[sfecap]

8. Couple things...

Number one. Whether you want to believe it or not, polls repeatedly show that "national defense" is not in the top five issues for voters. Having said that...

1. Where is Osama?

2. Where is Saddam?

3. What international "experience" did the chimp have? (Except of course, not knowing the names of numerous international leaders?)

4. How is America viewed in the world NOW as compared to pre chimp?

5. What fabulous international policy changes has the chimp administration put in place that have, a.) made Americans safer, b.) have enhanced our standing with our (former) allies in the world?

6. Where was bush during his TANG years, and why was he AWOL?

7. Why won't the chimp allow his TANG records to be released?

8. What did the chimp know BEFORE 9/11? After?

9. WHERE IS OSAMA?

10. WHERE IS SADDAM?

11. "Bring it on". How many have died since then? Say it again...HOW MANY?

12. Does mature, intelligent foriegn policy include statements like "bring 'em on"?

13. HOW MANY FUNERALS HAS the chimp GONE TO?

14. How much money has the chimp administration cut out of the Veterans budget?

15. Interview a few soldiers who have come back from Iraq. (bring 'em on)

Have a few families that have lost loved ones in Iraq tell their story while the "bring 'em on" video plays.



Be careful rethugs...do you really want to go there?

[grannylib]

11. Good list

[realFedUp]

12. Dean didn't dodge the draft, travelled to 50 countries

and governed for 12 years, meeting with all the
Dem governors and some governors of other countries.
He wasn't "soft" on Saddam. He believed it was an
enormous waste of money and human life to pre-emptively
invade Iraq, not on the "terrorist" list save one
savage dictator that had been contained and even
courted by the US for years.

I don't like your phrasing PeteCA of how Rove will
describe Dean...it makes his work so much easier quoting
Dems.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[realFedUp]

41. Bush had a far weaker resume

than any of our candidates running.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

42. You are 100% correct

This issue IS Dean's Achilles Heel. I'm a supporter as you can see by my avatar, but we need to take an unflinching look at this and figure out different angles from which to approach it, or we're fucked.

I don't have any answers myself. PeteNYC is completely right to bring this up, so that if Dean becomes the nominee we're prepared to deal with the onslaught of bullshit that will surely be there.

[radwriter0555]

13. LOL who on earth is going to AGAIN be allowed to attack the USA?

Come on, get real. The 9.11 attack could easily have been thwarted and was simply allowed to happen ala reichstag.

National Security is FINE when allowed to operate in the manner it's supposed to. The bush regime let 9.11 happen.

National Security is a moot point and not worth bothering yourself about unless bush stays in office. Even then, his regime really can't allow a replay of 9.11... In spite of themselves, there are men with consciences that simply won't let such a thing happen again. It was their one shot.

[paulk]

14. The only thing Dean can do

is go on the offensive and hope the media goes along with him. He can try to make this election a referendum on Bush - he has to hope that the economy gets worse, so that the focus of the campaign will be on domestic policy. He has to hope that the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan gets worse to the point were his lack of foreign policy experience gets seen as less important than Bush's total fuck up.


ed for spelling

[BeFree]

15. Easy... just keep saying 9/11 and

Remind people that * is a draft-dodging, internationally inexperienced, can't find Osama or Saddam, pissing off the rest of the world rich kid who has never earned an honest dollar his whole life.

9/11 is proof that * didn't protect America from attack. Dean needs to say what he, Dean, would have done that day. Dean needs to make sure the People know he wouldn't have sat there in the classroom, and he damn sure wouldn't have gone running for his life afterwards. Of course the timing for the nitty gritty 9/11 stuff needs to be brought out in October, 04.

[mrgorth]

16. I think Clark needs to be his VP

bottom line. Without Clark or someone else for the testosterone crowd he'll have problems.

[Blue_Roses]

39. You can't "prop" a candidate--

--whether it be Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, etc "up" with a running mate. The candidate--whomever it will be--will have to be strong in their own response on the issues. George Bush didn't even know the President of Pakistan's name while running in 2000 and look what happened when he "propped Up" Cheney to be his VP. It doesn't work that way.

And anyway, from what I've heard Clark isn't in this to be the VP.

[bobthedrummer]

54. That would be the 2004 winning ticket-Dean/Clark

wouldn't it?!

[Armstead]

19. Ideally what I'd like to see is a Super Ticket

If and when Dean's nimination becomes inevitable, I think Dean's biggest Secret Weapon is his opponents in the primaries.Kerry and Clark, in different ways, do have a lot of grivitas in national security.

Imagine if Dean, Kerry, Clark were a united front instead of sniping at each other. Sure they disasgree on the fundamental questionb of Iraq. But if they could "move on" beyond what happened in the Iraq build-up to emphasizee their common agreement that Bush has f'd up, and focus on the larger area of agreement they have. They all basically agree on the need for strong defense, moving away from Bush/PNAC docturne and other basics opf foreign policy and defense.


What woulkd be even better is President Dean, Sec. of State Kerry and Sec. of Defense, with Kucinich as head of a new Office of Non-Violent Conflict Resolution (Dept, of Peace).

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

26. And here's what you don't get.

Dean is only part of this. The rest of it is ME, and YOU (well, not you). All I have to do is tell everyone I know about Bush's policy failures. And all I have to do is support moveon and organizations like it. And that's all anyone has to do.

You really don't grasp the scope of our campaign.

[Bertrand]

65. You dont get it (yet again)

Humans are not Vulcans, so when you "tell people about Bushs policy failures" (which im sure in your arrogant tone that it would be pursasive) and if they dont have a comeback for it, they dont conform but compartmentalize the "information" you provide and filter it into how they percieve reality, which is dictated by emotion. "Your" campaign is based on marginalizing people that dont hold your opinions by making them ideological (which is ironic considering the ignorance of the cult to that of their messiahs past, but im sure that is filtered out since it doesnt conform to the identity the cult has from their support, that of being apart of a fictitious "revoultion") and political outsiders, which is pragmatically idiotic. The Borg collective requires assimilation or extermination, and i for one hope that the party doesnt succumb to its suicidal tendencies.

[Hep]

72. How out of touch can one person be?

Humans are not Vulcans, so when you "tell people about Bushs policy failures" (which im sure in your arrogant tone that it would be pursasive) and if they dont have a comeback for it, they dont conform but compartmentalize the "information" you provide and filter it into how they percieve reality, which is dictated by emotion.

Who are these people you're presuming to talk about? You know, most people I talk to don't need to be told about Bush's policy failures. You seem to be under the ignorant impression that our job in this election is to convince war supporters and republicans to vote for our guy. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Let's backtrack through the threadlet, shall we. The point I was making is that not everything is DEAN'S responsibility. It's going to be up to US to make the media irrelevant. I only used the example offered by PeteNYC.

Youre presumption about my tone is typical. Some people don't grasp the difference between face to face interaction and message board interaction. I don't hold it against you. I just laugh.

"Your" campaign is based on marginalizing people that dont hold your opinions by making them ideological (which is ironic considering the ignorance of the cult to that of their messiahs past, but im sure that is filtered out since it doesnt conform to the identity the cult has from their support, that of being apart of a fictitious "revoultion") and political outsiders, which is pragmatically idiotic.

There you go again. Always hilarious when people outside our campaign tell us what our campaign is about. Talk about arrogance! But you couldn't be more wrong, as we're proving day in and day out. Believe what you'd like to believe, though. I'm sure you will anyway.

The Borg collective requires assimilation or extermination, and i for one hope that the party doesnt succumb to its suicidal tendencies.

Well, are you going to vote for Dean if he wins? Nice analogy though. Trekkies always come across as being level headed and intelligent.

[Bertrand]

75. Re: How out of touch can one person be?

Who are these people you're presuming to talk about? You know, most people I talk to don't need to be told about Bush's policy failures.

If most people you talk to dont need to be told about Bush's policy failures, why is that you just said "All I have to do is tell everyone I know about Bush's policy failures" in terms of your cults slogan: "You have the power" ? It seems you've falied your own argument.

You seem to be under the ignorant impression that our job in this election is to convince war supporters and republicans to vote for our guy. That couldn't be further from the truth

Your insight into my argument is almost as flawed as that of the Dean Cults rationalization of a General victory. As anyone that doesnt support Dean knows, the General election is fought over mobilizing the base while appealing to the center 40% that is indifferent and not ideological. Dean mobilizes the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (which incidentally shows how sad the progressive wing has become) while alienating the center and right through his rhetoric, and repulses the center of the general population because he's an idealogue against a president with a rising approval (not only for the war, which Dean doesnt back for political expediency, but the economy with Dean on the losing side of the "tax and spend" argument.) The Cult thinks that if Dean wins, the Party will fall in line with him against Bush, but that ignorance of reality is partially the reason for the continued downfall of the progressivism as a viable mainstream ideology. Only the hard partisans subscribe to the ABB mantra, not the General public. The Right wing of the Party would probably vote for Bush over Dean, and the center would not be mobilized because of indifference between the candidates. What this leads me to conclude is that if he should win the nomination, he would have to make a hard run to the center (and by center i mean if Joe Lieberman ran on "you got the power") to remain even a viable candidate, which would defeat the purpose of why many support him.

There you go again. Always hilarious when people outside our campaign tell us what our campaign is about. Talk about arrogance! But you couldn't be more wrong, as we're proving day in and day out. Believe what you'd like to believe, though. I'm sure you will anyway.

The presumption of your argument though is that you have to be a supporter to understand the campaign. Provide an argument as to how that is the case.

[sfecap]

31. Face it, Pete...

We're doomed.

The chimp is the greatest pResident America has had.

We can't beat him.

I feel much safer with him in the WH.

Our economy is booming. Really. No kidding. It's true.

Let's pack it in now. The glorious pResident Bush will have 4 more years.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

36. Every minute you spend fretting over what the right is going to do

is a minute you don't spend advocating your guy. Let the Dean campaign worry about strategy. You do your job.

[ferg]

50. Every Democrat will have the same problem

The media will attack the Democratic nominee. It doesn't matter who he is.

Dean's campaign is the only one I see trying to address that problem.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. I congratulate you on starting this thread

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be discussed.

First of all, I think that some of the criticism of Dean will be blunted if he chooses his running mate wisely. Like many, I feel that a Dean/Clark ticket would be great.

If Clark is not the nominee, it will be harder for Dean.

1. Draft dodging: Dean had a medical deferment. We can say this over and over, but it will hardly register on the Faux News crowd, many of whom say it was perfectly ok for Shrub to go AWOL, because at least he was in the military. Luckily, other people have brains, and will maybe listen to reason. After all, Dean DID show up for his physical and, I believe, was willing to serve if he had been declared fit.

2. International inexperience: Well,how much experience did Bush have before he became President? I heard he couldn't even find France on a map! If Dean is savvy and has people with foreign service experience on his team, this can counter concerns of all but the FAUX crowd, who won't vote any way but Shrub anyway.

3. Soft on Saddam: This can easily be turned around by saying he wants to preserve American troops, which are overextended in Iraq. Reminding people about the masterful coalition Bush 1 made for Gulf War I can be used, contrasting the cost in lives and money. I doubt if any GOP would say GHW Bush was soft on Saddam. Dean could then say how important it is for our national interest to work things out multi-laterally, because it saves US lives and US dollars.

Mind you, I don't think Dean will ever convince the Bush-Is-Second-Coming group, but these arguments would be a start for those who wish to persuade independents and disillusioned Republicans to vote Democrat.

[LeahMira]

60. International inexperience...

2. International inexperience: Well,how much experience did Bush have before he became President? I heard he couldn't even find France on a map! If Dean is savvy and has people with foreign service experience on his team, this can counter concerns of all but the FAUX crowd, who won't vote any way but Shrub anyway.

And then there's the issue of how well the U.S. is perceived internationally as a direct consequence of the Chimp's "foreign policy." For Howard Dean, or for any Democratic presidential candidate, the only possible direction to go is up.

[CWebster]

22. All the Democrats have to do is rip apart the Republican's

dismal failure on every front. In every endeavor the Democrats have the advantage.

What National security? Bush ran and hid after 911 and now he won't release the records on what did they know and when did they know it. Afghanistan is still a mess, the US is still bombing children, we have pretty much abandoned it again, the mistake we vowed we wouldn't make again. Then Iraq, banging that war drum around the clock for months on end. No time for the UN inspectors, there is an imminent threat, and in they go and no WMD's. American soldiers dying everyday, a country flattened and robbed of it's treasure, for nothing. For nothing, God only knows how many thousands of Iraqis have been killed or made orphans. It is above all things, a crime against humanity if not a legitimate war crime that Bush and his band war plundering thugs should be tried at the Hague for. Yet, you ask how Dean, or any Democrat can overcome the Republican's portrayal of Democrats as weak?

The reality totters on the absurd.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

30. Oh, and I didn't even start about the I\P nightmare

that Bush simply CAN. NOT. HANDLE. Not to mention his sabre rattling at other sensitine and delicate security concerns--Iran, N.Korea. Not to fucking mention that the whole damn world hates us and we can't even allow our athletes to identify themselves at the Olympics.

All of this and we are actually frightened that the Republicans have the upper hand?

What are we supposed to do, Pete? Lay down and accept it? Let them---and their touting security credentials disconnected from the reality rule the day? Offer up a response catering to their twisted interpretation?

I think we are handicapped by the Clintons and their own complicity and susceptiblity to some of these same military hawks who have been skulking around in official capacities for far too long. Now they are a drag on the party and it's ability to take a forceful stand--just to cover their own arses. So we have Clinton's point man, Wesley.

Think I am angry? Damn right. Aren't you?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

35. LOL

yes, and...;-)

[dave29]

25. President Dean's Foreign Policy

Dean will be able to do the following things - the primary gist of which shouldn't be about his previous experience... but what he WILL DO as President.

1) Point to his judgment and patience. The Iraq War has played out very much the way he predicted it would, despite polls and conventional wisdom. Use this to assert the fact that he is a forward thinker and balanced in his decision making, as opposed to the rash, unilateral actions of the current administration, or those that supported the administrations actions.

2) Point to the fact that he has an excellent team advising him on foreign policy. We know he has had discussions with Al Gore (who we all know would have done a better job of handling the War on Terror), Madeline Albright, Bill Richardson, and even General Wesley Clark. For all we know he has had discussions with Bill Clinton. And on Clinton...

3) Point to the fact that upon election, one of his first actions would be to send Bill Clinton (who is seen as an honest broker) to the Middle East to start the process of rebuilding a peace process there.

4) Point to the fact that upon election he would immediately begin restoring the faith of our allies (quite possibly just by NOT being George W. Bush), and incorporating them into a unified effort to make Iraq into a safe place for the first time in thousands of years. In so doing it reduces the risk to America, and the world. Dean will prove to be a true "uniter not a divider" except in a global sense.

5) Point to the fact that upon election he will begin the process of actually working towards solutions in the Korean Peninsula - using allies and other interests in the region to prevent North Korea from becoming an even more catastrophic problem than Iraq.

6) Point to the fact that he will pursue Saudi Arabia, home of a majority of the Sept. 11th hijackers - forcing them to SERIOUSLY confront their internal problems, including the teaching of hatred towards America.

7) Point to the fact that he will build an international coalition not only for the purposes of Iraq, but for the purposes of stopping global terrorism. We have to do this united with our allies if we want to win. This should be his mantra.

[seaglass]

27. Unfortunately he has no foreign policy experience,

I could name 100 travel agents who have travelled to 50 countries, that point is not going to cut it.

If he gets the nomination and doesn't pick someone with strong foreign policy experience as his VP, then he's got to get and announce early his Sec. of State appointment - someone widely respected and experienced.

In fact, I would suggest he get his Cabinet lined up as early as possible.

[BurtWorm]

28. Who is going to be most concerned with those charges? Bush people.

Rove and Bush know how to rile up their base, but do they know how to rile up anyone outside it? I'm not convinced they do. So chances are that anyone who is moved by any of those charges is probably going to vote for Bush anyway.

There is a chance that negative campaigning by Rove will succeed in alienating some Dean- or Dem-leaning voters from the election process entirely. In fact, that is probably Rove's strategy, as it was in the last election: stifle the vote. Demoralize the electorate.

Dean would have to focus on energizing those leaners and keeping them energized. He needs to speak around the media to those voters.

Notice that I'm not mentioning a word about Dean's draft history or foreign policy inexperience. I honestly don't believe any of that matters. Voters will respond to someone they believe.

[rucky]

44. Why can't he name a defacto national security team now?

or something like that - just for the campaign. He's currently getting advice from folks like General McPeak (frmr Republican. Former USAF Joint Chief of Staff under Bush I & Clinton) & other military heavies. I only know this because McPeak happened to show up at the Dean meetup I was at. Dean needs to ceremoniously bring this information forward while he still has the media's ear.

Kerry's done the same thing, but the media's ignoring that. Maybe they won't ignore it w/ Dean.

[killbotfactory]

47. Go on the attack, and stop being defensive.

The fact is that Bush is horrible for our national security.

We invaded a country we didn't need to invade, without adequate support, or even a competent post war plan, for shifting reasons and no way to pay for the damn thing. Now our troops are stuck their as targets for any idiot who can pick up a gun or make a crude bomb. Gore is right, this war is one of the worst blunders in our nations history. The only reason more people don't realize this is because our leaders rolled and played dead while Bush went and screwed the country. Someone needs to stand up to these dangerous idiots.

[FrenchieCat]

48. What is so amazing

Is that Dean is not the best candidate to run against Bush, precisely because of Dean's lack of qualification in this realm. However, somehow we are supposed to just accept that he will be the nominee. So we handicapp ourselves for the most important election ever. Wow, it is just amazing how folks will take the rope handed to them, and just hang themselves!

A better strategy to beat Bush (as I am hoping that's what it's all about) is to support a candidate such as Clark or Kerry that are just more naturally qualified to take this issue off the table!

It's like using buckets to fill up a swimming pool, when you just can just turn on the hose instead.

I am utterly amazed at the lack of strategic pragmatism that is becoming the Democratic party's mantra. Cut your leg off and then try to compete in the olympics.

I will give credit to Dean and say that he sure has some loyal supporters. It appears that it doesn't matter how many boats pass offering them life jackets, they will stay in the one that sinking. Only problem is that when the boat sinks, we all go down with it.

[BurtWorm]

57. It's just makes sense to decline life lines from sunken or sinking boats.

I would get excited about Clark or Kerry if they would get excited themselves and get some momentum going. The reason Dean is ahead is he seems to know how to fight to win. Surprising that the military guys seem so baffled by him.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I wouldn't have minded a competitive election season myself. I can't blame Dean for the lack of competition. I just have to wonder why the other guys seem to be having trouble keeping themselves afloat? Why are they letting Dean scoop up the major endorsements? Why can't they keep pace with his fundraising?

[Schmendrick54]

68. It does not seem that amazing to me.

Hello Frenchie,

I agree that some candidates (especially Clark) have an advantage over Howard dean on this particular issue. I think there are other issues where Dean has an advantage over Clark. After weighing all of these factors, I believe Dean is our bset choice, but I certainly recognise that this is just my opinion (and for what it's worth, Clark was a very close second for me). I certainly do not think that you (or anyone else) should just accept that Dean wil be the nominee. It seems to me that the point of this topic was to discuss the best way to counter an expected GOP talking point in the event that Dean is nominated. It seems like a worthwhile topic to me.

There are other issues which only affect other candidates. For example, General Clark has no experience in elected office. I think there are many good arguments why this should not disqualify him, and I believe he would be an excellent President. If someone wishes to start a topic to elucidate these reasons, I think that would be a good idea. Of course, we could just choose not to nominate someone who has never won an election but point that out would miss the point of the thread, just like pointing out that General Clark has strong security credentials misses the point of this thread.

I think that your comment about Dean having loyal supporters is an important one. I know General Clark has many, too. I met some of them outside the debate in Baltimore a few months ago, before Genearl Clark was a candidate. In fact, I think there were more Clark supporter there (at least outside) than Dean supporters. I was happy to see all of them, because every one of them looked like a person who was highly motivated to defeat Bush. As one of the "loyal" Dean supporters (who is not a good swimmer) I would like to assure you that if you can convince me that General Clark has a significantly better chance of beating Bush, I will eagerly jump in your boat. But you will not convince me just by only focusing on one issue. The head-to-head poll results are certainly a good argument, but are far from persuasive at this point.

In the meantime, I think this type of thread is a good idea. If you want another thread about why Clark is more electable, I certainly have no problem with that.

I look forward to the day when we are paddling in the same boat (whichever Captain is selected).

Regards,
Schmendrick

[MIMStigator]

49. Rove plans to make election about foreign policy

and they will rip Dean apart

[adriennel]

55. well, this might backfire

on them. Georgie and his Admin have a pathetic foreign relations track record and it doesn't take a liberal to see that.

[HFishbine]

58. Therefore

We should acknowledge or own complete incompetence when it comes to framing the debate. We must capitulate to Rove as the great definer of what will or will not be discussed. What wimps!

[BurtWorm]

64. Correction: They will make it about "terrorism"

which is the single issue Bush polls well on. If that doesn't work, it will be about whatever Rove can dream up to throw at Dean, or whatever Dean and Trippi (or whoever wins the nomination) have the power to make it about.

[LoneStarLiberal]

51. The Options Are Few

If Dean is the nominee, Rove and Company will hammer on their base and the entire nation with the "Dean will get you killed/Dean will let gays and lesbians marry/Federally subsidize gay and lesbian adoption programs/pick you next scare message and insert here."

This will, as other posters here have pointed out, be very effective with the Republican base. Then again, Bush just looking dumb and drooling on himself would also be effective with those lost souls.

For the wider undecided audience, either those Republicans who are sitting on the fence or those independents who are thinking of voting Democratic instead of their usual vote, I have to disagree with other posters here. National security is going to be a core issue. There is no way to refute the impending charge from the Republicans (if Dean is the nominee) that Dean will make America less safe because he doesn't have any background in national security.

What will need to be done if this scenario occurs are two things: First Dean will need to speak with authority and PRECISION on issues of national security. Simply getting up and saying "I'll bring the troops home" won't get it done. He'd have to say "I'll bring the troops home, here's when it will happen if we start by date x, and here is why this will work." Second, he will need to have a solid core of advisor(s) and Cabinet-level people in Defense, State, and National Security Advisor.

It isn't going to be good enough for us to say "Uh, we're not Bush and we'll do things differently." Due to the selfishness and simplicity of the conservative message THEY can get away with appealing to base instincts because of their message. We can't.

[sistersofmercy]

52. Pure speculation but...

I believe the VP choice will take care of the issue, if Dean's as cunning as I think he is. There is one other Dem candidate that if Dean partners with would, well, seal the ticket IMO. I personally expect announcement in the not to distant future wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there's already an arrangement.

[Terwilliger]

53. Well, George Bush had less experience than Dean

and he got (s)elected

OnEdit: (s)elected

[FrenchieCat]

70. BAD timing analogy

Bush was selected without qualifications on foreign policy PRE 9/11.

Please don't deny that this FACT matters. Otherwise, we will be beaten! to a pulp!

[PVnRT]

69. Pick Clark as his running mate

Game, set, match.