Did tonight's vote prove that standing up to Bush doesn't work?

[stickdog]

Just wondering what y'all think.

[Melodybe]

1. No but that is what the media is saying. They are going to beat on Dean

for a while, to try to convince the average joe it was because he talked bad about Bu$h. We are about to see our candidates stick one foot back in the box of politeness and bu$h attacks will be used spareingly. This is BTW a really bad idea!!

I actually feel like Edwards has way more fire than Kerry. I think he is a little more equipped to go the distance with W. We can not let our candidates shrink away, if any thing Dean got them out of the damn box, I do respect him for that. But I am terrified he will now be seen as a politicial fluke and his message will be completely ignored. No DEM SHOULD WANT THIS, even if you hate Dean he did bring plenty of important things to life, we can not let our candidates forget it.

[Woodstock]

6. The media will have a field day with Dean

They were overwhelmingly negative before about him vs. the other candidates, and that analysis found them out, but now they feel like they've got permission to continue. Bruce Reed was rabidly attacking Dean on Charlie Rose, as were several others. It was a feeding frenzy.

[IowaBiker]

2. You didn't see Kerry's speech?

Taunting him about the aircraft carrier? Bring 'em on? Kerry's slogan, "Fighting for America? Talking about integrity and courage?

Kerry is all about reminding Bush that he's one of the fellows who is willing to take a bullet for this country.

Makes Bush look like the spoiled rich kid that he is.

Sometimes fighting means fighting, not taking a ski trip.

We, who had notoptions won't forget how the politicians made the mistakes, then made the vets the goats. It's time to make that right, and kick tail on the boys like Bush who said they were for the war, and fought it from a coke spoon stateside.

Ski boy can't do that.

Brian

[stickdog]

3. And Kerry can't say the entire war was a tragic, avoidable mistake.

Because he's been on both sides of that issue over and over and over.

Plus, Kerry's patrician personality and unmistakable sense of entitlement is uniquely unattractive.

The only thing Kerry has going for him is Howard Dean's appropriated message without all the anti-Dean memes the media has been foisting on us since Gore endorsed Dean.

Kerry doesn't have a chance in the South, he has no money and he comes across as a politician's politician. He's everything that was bad about Al Gore and Mike Dukakis topped off with a senatorial demeanor.

[radfringe]

4. other...

the anger already existed - Dean did not create it

my 2-cents: the eventual Dem nominee will be the one that can best acknowledge that anger and offer hope

people are angry, they want hope and they want the fat lady to slam the door on bush*

the candidate they are looking for is someone who will stand up to bush*, who will offer hope for a better future and who is best able to slam the door on bush*

on edit: I have no "favorite" candidate - at the moment I'm split between Dean, Kerry and Clark as far as voting in the PA primary and I expect I won't know who I will vote for until I pull the lever.

none of the current candidates really "inspire" me, but I do know that we need a regime change - so that puts me squarely in the ABB camp

[Woodstock]

5. 18 % think we should let Bush slide?

Whoa.

Any other congress but this one, and he'd have been impeached. It's one's patriotic duty to point it out. Most of the Independents I know hate Bush & polls bear this out. Don't go after Bush, and how will they know the difference between candidates? You want them to stay home?

[leyton]

7. No, because Edwards and Kerry have been standing up to Bush.

Just with more style and less anger.

Somebody already talked about Kerry in this thread. As for Edwards - his entire campaign, he's had a positive message and the only person he's attacked is Bush. He didn't waste time on "Kerry's wishy-washy" or "Dean's mean" or "Clark's a Republican" or "Congresspeople are cockroaches." He's got proposals on every issue that clearly stand up to Bush.

I think these caucuses have proved something else:

1) Just anger won't cut it. You've got to have a positive message that will attract not only activists but voters.

2) One can stand up to Bush with style and composure and grace. That's what Edwards and Kerry did.

[blm]

8. Kerry stood up against Bush. You needed to pay attention, though,

because the media knew his blasts against Bush were SUBSTANTIVE. They had to mute him.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.

>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT