12/09/03- Al Gore Endorses Howard Dean for Democratic Pres. Nomination

[Guaranteed]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

Al Gore endorses Howard Dean

Gore: 'One candidate clearly now stands out'



(caption) Howard Dean shakes hands with Al Gore, who endorsed Dean as "the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war."

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Posted: 10:21 PM EST (0321 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on Tuesday, substantially deepening Dean's fast-developing drive for dominance in the nine-candidate field of would-be challengers to President Bush.

"I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean to be the next president of the United States of America," Gore said.

<snip>

"In a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean president of the United States," Gore said.

<snip>

Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.

<MUCH, MUCH MORE- looks like video, as well>
-----------------------------

Gore knew.

[tritsofme]

1. Democratic primary voters knew better. nt

[Guaranteed]

2. Apparently, they didn't. nt

[Clarkie1]

3. That was awful.

He had the right to do it of course, but I didn't think it was his proper role, or the time, or the place...

As an admirer of Gore, I have to say he should a lack of respect for the primary process.

Sure, candidates get endorsements all the time, but this one (and I like Dean, too) was poor judgment.

[Guaranteed]

5. Of course it was his role.

And he was right.

It's not *that* he did it...it's who he endorsed, and why. I think that's a testament to Gore's understanding of politics today.

[Clarkie1]

27. That endorsement will be used against him.

If he runs in 08'.

It won't help widen the base.

[Guaranteed]

28. I think Dean's integrity is pretty well intact, and he's been vindicated,

as has been Gore.

If people want to bring up Gore's endorsement of Dean- as I have here- I have no problem with that.

Actually, I think it just strengthens Gore's character and decision-making capability. by perception.

[Clarkie1]

33. It will hurt him tremendously with swing voters in the general election.

Dean is the Chairman of the Democratic Party, read: ATTACK DOG!

That's Dean's job, and every statement he makes will be hung on Gore because Gore endorsed him. We don't want every statement our party chairman (whose job it is to energize the base) being hung on our presidential nominee (whose job it is to widen the base!)

[madfloridian]

41. And why is Clinton getting off scott free here.

.

[Guaranteed]

43. No, I strongly disagree with that. A Dean-Gore alliance will be read

as simple strength of character, conviction, and decision-making skills.

Dean was right. Gore was right.

You're saying this is a BAD thing? You'd rather have the yellow-bellies in there?

You know why Kerry lost, right? Even some Democratic voters- who I met personally, in Florida, while canvassing- didn't trust him, although I plead with them.

Besides, this connection that you're suggesting is awfully weak. I invite it, personally, but the simple fact that Gore endorsed Dean in December of 2003 doesn't mean that he agrees with everything that Dean has said since then, up until 2008.

AND- what's wrong with what Dean has said, up until now? Everything he has said has been brutally honest, and calculated to be politically advantageous.

Yes, the GOP is a white, Christian party. And *cough cough*, what's wrong with that?

The point is that their leadership skills are entertwined. They both see that we need to take an aggressive approach. They both see that we need to define OURSELVES. They both see that we need a 50-state approach. They both see that we won't get anywhere unless we show that we have the courage to stand up to our countrymen who disagree with us- otherwise, how can we stand up to those who would terrorize us?

[FreedomAngel82]

50. How so?

Majority in the country now are against Iraq and Dean was. What are they going to do? Use the scream? :eyes: How lame.

[madfloridian]

37. Then Clinton should not have worked behind scenes for Clark.

If one is bad the other is as well. At least Gore was out in the open about it.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. I didn't know that about Clinton and Clark

I agree. I would rather have them be in the open personally.

[madfloridian]

70. Well, I would have left it alone, but some keep pushing.

I think it is best to get it out in the open.

[FrenchieCat]

81. If you didn't know about it....it's because it wasn't

done in a way to influence voters prior to the primary.

Why would you have preferred that Clinton endorse Clark and state that the voters should just get behind him on this. Clinton's position was always that primaries are to have voters decide who the best candidate is...and after that, that's when we needed to get in line.

The fact that it was whispered that Clinton made some fundraising phonecalls (reported by Novak and Dean in his book) was not publicly attempting to influence voters.

Why would screaming an endorsement from the rooftop from a top democratic leader be better than a democratic leader having respect for the process.....even as he might have tried to do what he could in smaller ways.

Remember, you didn't know about it...so whatever Clinton was doing for Clark didn't influence you one way or another.

That's what we are talking about here.

[madfloridian]

88. No, that is really not what we are talking about.

Clinton made calls to get Clark support. Clark admits in the transcript below that party insiders got him to run, though he had no experience.

[dogman]

4. Sure, remind me of another political miscalculation on his part.

I believe it hurt them both in the long run, but that is just IMO.

[greenman3610]

6. how did it hurt Gore?

he can always point to this as evidence of prescience
on the war.

[dogman]

13. Dean was not the only anti-war candidate for one thing.

Others feel like post #3 above. It normally only helps to back the winner, although Dean is doing well now. It was seen by some at the time as an effort by Gore to capture the supporters of Dean for 2008, well, maybe that worked.

[Guaranteed]

15. I don't think that in December of 2003, Gore was trying to capture

Dean's supporters in 2008 by giving Dean his endorsement.

After all, if Dean had won, with the help of Gore's endorsement, Dean would have been running again.

More likely, I think Gore just understood exactly what our party needed to be doing- he understood the leadership that we needed to show (read the article). And, thus, he gave his endorsement to Dean.

I see what Gore did as what was best for the party, the best for Dean, the best for Gore, and the best for the country. He showed integrity and courage.

[dogman]

23. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But there were comments at the time that political insiders felt he was playing it as a no-lose proposition. If Dean were elected he could have had his pick of jobs, if Dean lost he could have his supporters if he were to run in '08. Talk about prescience.

[Guaranteed]

26. I don't remember anything like that. Links?

Some, in fact, are saying that it weakened Gore.

Gore did the right thing, though. You want to hold that against him?

[Guaranteed]

7. No- not in the long run.

:)

In the long run, it helped them both- greatly.

[dogman]

14. So it was a calculated move to capture Dean supporters for 2008?

Many thought that at the time.

[Guaranteed]

17. No. Actually, what he was doing is usually called "protecting one's

integrity," or, alternatively, "doing the right thing," and is usually associated with long-term thinking.

[dogman]

21. Calculated move-long term thinking?

Seem like the same thing to me. Funny how many people felt a Dem leader of his stature inserting himself into a primary showed a lack of integrity. It didn't bother me because it was a definite dump on Lieberman. Although that brings up the question of judgment by picking Lieberman as his running mate. Loyalty isn't that important either, even though it is a measure of character. Hmm, loyalty-judgment, are they really unimportant?

[Guaranteed]

25. It's hard to believe that Gore speaking up for what is right...

and what clearly was right...could be interpreted as a "lack of integrity."

Gore took great political risk- OBVIOUSLY- by endorsing Dean, the anti-establishment candidate.

Lieberman? Again, you're going back to 2000. Our entire political landscape has changed. You can't characterize what Gore did in 2000 as a "lack of loyalty." That election was a run to the center. However, it's no longer a run to the center, and, *again,* Gore was the first to realize this.

Gore has done everything right (except for distancing himself from Clinton in 2000), politically, for as long as I can remember. He even DID fight, for over a month, for the Florida vote in 2000. Then he ran out of options.

Since then, he's has moved and adapted, and grown stronger, with the times. You may not want to recognize this, but it's true, and clear, to those who have listened to him.

Gore is our strongest candidate for 2008, and I hope that Clark runs with him. Dream ticket.

That's all.

[KaryninMiami]

8. Well, maybe this time, Dean will repay the favor and endorce Gore.

Ok, so maybe I'm being unrealistic - but one can hope, right?

[Guaranteed]

10. I don't think he can, because of his DNC Chairmanship.

But, I think he would.

Either Gore, or Clark, most likely.

[KaryninMiami]

9. Well, maybe this time, Dean will repay the favor and endorce Gore.

Ok, so maybe I'm being unrealistic - but one can hope, right?

[nickshepDEM]

11. He should have backed Edwards...

John and Elizabeth would be sitting in the White House right now sipping cognac watching Sunday Night Football and we'd all be much happier.

[AlGore-08.com]

20. Lemme get this straight, Gore endorsed Dean, who didn't win the nomination

But the only reason Edwards didn't win the nomination or the general is because Gore didn't endorse Edwards?

Um... even if that made sense... it would mean that you think Edwards can't win an election by himself. On his own merits.

Maybe you missed it, but Gore endorsed Kerry later. (You remember Kerry, right? The guy who beat Edwards in the 2004 primary, directly keeping Edwards from the nomination?) If Al Gore's endorsement is all that's required to win an election, why isn't John Kerry sitting in the White House right now? (Here's a hint: it takes more than an endorsement to win an election.)

[nickshepDEM]

24. Yeah, I worded that awfully.

What I meant was had Gore endorsed Edwards it may have given Edwards the bounce he needed to leap to the top of Iowa in 2004.

Its just my opinion had Edwards gotten to the General Election... He would have won.

By the way, endorsements do play a pretty big role in elections. It could be argued that key endorsements (Governor Vilsack) in Iowa are what helped to put Kerry over the top.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Both right then...

...and both right now.

On the war.

On the environment.

On the uselessness of the institutional Democratic party.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. Yes he did know, and once again hindsight proves him correct

Al Gore personally received the wooden stake through the heart from the media - he was "wooden", he claimed to invent the internet, he was wrong about the specifics about flying over some disaster area, he got wardrobe advice,. . .blah blah blah.

While that same media ignored the checkered and sordid past of W - ie insider trading, missed TANG service, cocaine, alcohol,scrubbed drivers licenses,actual record as Texas Governor (remember "Well in Texas we got a Patient Bill of Rights - only he didn't mentioned he tried to veto it!!!) etc.etc.etc.

Howard Dean got the next media wooden stake through the heart when they audio enhanced the "SCREAM" and played it every 10 seconds for the next five days to prove Howard Dean was some kind of deranged nutcase. Howard Dean - medical doctor, Governor of Vermont, the FIRST person to say War in Iraq misguided (except for maybe Dennis Kucinich) plain speaker of truth (unlike Bush -plain mispeaker of lies)

No more wooden stakes driven by the media!!! I wish Howard Dean had replayed the "Scream" his ownself as his campaign mantra.

[Guaranteed]

18. I don't think there will be any more wooden stakes from the media,

at this point. At least for the Democrats- if we nominate the right person.

Maybe third time's a charm, or maybe, and more likely, in my mind, they'll be quite grateful for someone with the integrity of an Al Gore (personally, or otherwise) or a Howard Dean, after dealing with the Bush administration for EIGHT YEARS.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. If there aren't, it won't be because they have stopped whittling them

It will be because we, the public will be more knowlegable about recognizing them. I think the media has been very happy with the mutual blowjobs under the covers with the Bush adminstration. I love most of your posts that I read, but I see no unfulfilled desire for "Integrity " on the part of the media.

[shance]

22. No better duo than Al Gore and Howard Dean for 2008.

Simply the best.

(in my humble opinion)

;)

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Yeah, kind of brings back memories...

of why I voted for Nader in 2000.

[zulchzulu]

30. And look how much it helped Dean in the Primaries....

Is this a "going down memory lane" thread or a point that Gore's influence with Democrats doesn't really matter...

I think Gore was thinking more about himself with the endorsement than Howard Dean. I also think it turned off a lot of people to Dean because of it. It thrusted Dean suddenly in the spotlight where he then made a series of gaffes that the media focused on. It made him peak too early from a strategic standpoint.

As we have learned, a month in politics is an eternity.

[montana500]

31. Bullshit. Dean flunked the primaries because the media

....overblew his scream. That's it.

[zulchzulu]

32. Here we go again...

Gore endorsed Dean.

Dean lost Iowa with a third place showing after leading in some polls by 20 points a month before the caucus. So how did Gore help Dean again in Iowa? Why did Dean get a third place showing in Iowa?

The Scream happened that night. If Dean was such a strong candidate at the time and had the Scream happen, do you think it would not have been the focus in the Election?

Whatever....this stuff is WAY bygones to me.

No need to reply...really...it's over...old news...bologna without the mayo...

Can we talk about 2006...that's what should be focused on. I'm a great fan of Howard Dean and his work now and do work for DFA.

I've moved on.

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. What happenned in Iowa?

Well, let's put it this way..... the DLC rewarded Vilsack for something, didn't they? ;)

[madfloridian]

39. Indeed, that was part of it.

Clinton was doing his share as well.

[nvliberal]

64. Pure drivel.

More wishful thinking by the Dean followers.

Dean sabotaged himself because he couldn't withstand the pressure. Believe me, "The Scream," which was a fact and not a media concoction, was pretty mild compared with some of his more celebrated rants in a couple of Jefferson-Jackson Dinners which were broadcast on C-SPAN.

You know, the ones which highlighted Dean screaming red-faced in his best Jimmy Swaggart imitation, "You have the power!" and did it 14 times and 11 times in the two dinners that I have on tape.

They were astoundingly embarrassing. Add to that were the numerous gaffes he made in the primary debates, even lying on occasion.

I HAVE the tapes of the speeches, I have the tapes of almost all of the primary debates, and despite some maneuvering by the party bigwigs to undercut Dean by promoting the equally ridiculous Wesley Clark, Dean, not anybody else, screwed himself.

[madfloridian]

73. No one, no one is saying Dean did not hurt himself there as well.

None of us ever said that. By the time Iowa came, though, he was already screwed by his own party. Trippi joined in by not returning calls, turning the screws some more.

But none of us ever took blame off him....we just get damn tired of the righteousness when it took all of them to do it.

I would have been redfaced, too.

But it is ok.

[dorktv]

124. Oh yes...That is what drives me nuts about the party

leadership. They will screw over any candidate that does not fit some narrow definition of what they think a candidate should be.

Cannot be young
Cannot be a woman
Cannot speak the truth
Cannot do anything but what they say
Cannot have a grassroots no money campaign

Dean was like a breath of fresh air but that scares the shit out of Washington.

[bee]

122. agree. If the scream had never happened...

I think Dean would have gotten the nod.

[FrenchieCat]

34. That endorsement should not have happened...

Because as our last nominee, I felt that Al Gore should have better understood that VOTERS were to be the ones that should decide without his undue influence.

Considering the fact that he was very much like past Presidents Carter and Clinton, I would have preferred that he allow the people to decide within the primary process (which they did anyways, but no thanks to him)....as both Carter and Clinton did.

Our vote had already not been counted in 2000.
I felt that Al Gore added insult to injury in 2004, when he basically told us that his option should be our option prior to our even having a vote. I deeply resented this.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. Gore endorsed who he felt was the best candidate. What's wrong with that?

Of course, he happenned to be correct.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Again, I realize that Dean supporters didn't have a problem with it....

However, y'all only comprised 25% of Democrats in terms of various polling results. So "correct" is a relative word to be used.

Like I said, it is my opinion (as yours is that Gore was "correct" in endorsing Dean) that Gore should have done what he could for Howard Dean in the background, but he should have respected the primary process....and allowed voters not to be unduly influenced by his name recognition and obvious advantages. Voters were just starting to pay attention, and Al Gore could have worked it in a way that didn't appear that he was usurping the process...considering that many voters' felt that their vote had already been discounted in 2000. Al Gore chose not to run.....

[madfloridian]

55. No, I had a problem with the behind the scenes machinations.

.

[madfloridian]

38. Clinton worked behind the scenes for Clark...what's the difference.

Bill Clinton called Dean supporters, told them he was unelectable, and said Clark was an Arkansas boy...support him.

At least Gore was out in the open about it.

[FrenchieCat]

42. The difference is miles apart....

It's the difference between an endorsement and no endorsement.

Just like it was "whispered" that Carter was gonna endorse Howard Dean, he never did.

Clinton's involvement were whispers....Carter's involvement were whispers....Gore's endorsement was televised.

[madfloridian]

45. No, Clinton's involvement was proven. Carter was told to butt out.

Gore's endorsement was his choice. It was not hidden nor was it sneaky. I can transcribe what I have, but it is late.

Clinton told Dean supporters he was not electable because of the civil rights bill in Vermont. He said support Clark, he is electable, he is from Arkansas.

Fact.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Clinton never said that he he supported Clark publicly

during the primaries. Please find that quote for me. I was looking for something like that at the time....and believe you me, it wasn't to be found.

The most that you can say is that Traitor Novak publised a whispered piece about Clinton making some phone calls on behalf of Clark...i.e, fundraising via connected folks. Coming from Novak, it was not anything that drove the masses to the Clark campaign. Therefore, there was no televised footage of Clinton putting his stamp of approval on Clark during the primaries...although he did say something nice about Clark prior to Clark getting into the race. Thank you Bill Clinton....but it was not even close to an endorsement at all.....

[madfloridian]

57. It would have been far better to do it publicly. It was sneaky.

It is politics, but it was a power play pure and simple. Clinton is making another one right now....that is why Clark, his fellow Arkansan is getting so much time.

The Clintons are still in control, and still playing footsie with Daddy Bush and Jr.

It was spoken by Clark and Fabiani on TV on Charley Rose, and it was written in Dean's book. His campaign knew what Clinton was doing.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Please provide definite sources on this or

be quiet about it.

Clark doesn't get "play" from the media, even now.... if you haven't noticed.

As much as you want it....Clinton never helped Clark in the way that Al Gore helped Howard Dean.

I have mixed feelings at this point if a Clinton endorsement would have helped Wes Clark, but the fact is that Clinton didn't endorse Wes Clark, period.

[madfloridian]

65. Here is the source.

From Dean's book "You Have the Power" released in September 2004.
Page 114.

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said "I need you to be for Wes Clark." The friend demurred. Clinton said, "Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for Wes. "

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said "forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us to tip us off."END SNIP

Dean realizes it may still hurt any chances in the future...but hey..Clark is for civil unions, isn't he?

Do you want me to repost the Charley Rose interview? I have the transcript. I see no need to do it, but I get tired of being accused of making stuff up.

[FrenchieCat]

76. sure, provide a link to the Charley Rose transcripts.....

In reference to the heresey, It still was not a PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT...which is the point here. For you to think that phone calls behind the scenes could really calvanize the number of votes that Clark would have needed is not true.

The OP was about how Gore endorsed Howard Dean, and I was stating how I felt about it. The fact that you want to make Clinton possibly aiding Clark here and there in a covert manner does not equal an endorsement, which was done public, received wide media coverage, and influenced voters....especially those who aren't "into" politics.

That's what I am talking about it. It's not the same thing, no matter what...and an Endorsement does what nothing else does....it tells the masses that this person supports that person...clearly and loudly. period.

[madfloridian]

78. It would have been more honest to endorse.

I don't have a link, I bought and paid for the transcript. I guess I could post it all, but not all is about Clark.

I will find it tomorrow, it is still in my email files. Please remember that I am NOT one to post things that are not true.

I research, I plan out my posts. I get tired of being accused of making stuff up.

Clinton said there were two stars in the Democratic Party, Hillary and Wesley Clark....that tells you the future right there. When he said it, Wes was no Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Why would it have been more honest to endorse?

Because you say so?

It would have been better to respect the primary process, IMO.

Whatever Clinton did, and I don't really know what he did, obviously didn't become public to Jane and John Voter public...which is what an endorsement does, and why endorsements are so coveted.

You are defining things here to suit your scenarios...however, your definitions don't add up.

Being honest about making a phone call does not an endorsement make.

Endorsements have a value based on what they can do for the candidate. A whispered phone call ain't even close.

[madfloridian]

86. Here is the pertinent part of the transcript.....

You will probably be skeptical of it as well. But that's ok.

"CHARLIE ROSE: One of the - Mark Fabiani I think it was, one of your
advisors, said about you, "we created this campaign as an anti-Dean
campaign, and then there was no Dean."

WESLEY CLARK: Well, there was always some truth in that, because that
- I mean, John Kerry would have been the perfect qualifications that
everyone would have looked for. He had foreign policy experience, he
was an elected official. And the others had the qualifications to some
extent, but it seemed like nobody was taking off and then suddenly
Howard Dean took off. Maybe that`s what accounted for so many people
coming to me from inside the party and asking me to run.

But I felt like it was a call of duty. It wasn`t a particularly
anti-anybody. But it was a call of duty that people asked me to accept,
and I did.

CHARLIE ROSE: There is this also, that somehow your candidacy was
propelled by people who support Hillary Clinton or have supported
President Clinton, and therefore Senator Clinton and President Clinton,
and they hoped that you would be a kind of stalking horse for them...

WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don`t know about...

CHARLIE ROSE: Stopping Dean in the process so that whatever might
happen would still keep options open for them.

WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, I don`t see that. What happened actually is there
were a lot of people who looked at all the candidates, and they just
came to me and asked me to run. And they came to me and asked me to run
knowing that I had no political experience and that my views on some of
the important touchstone Democratic Party issues weren`t articulated.
But I was very grateful for their confidence. And I think we had a
good, steep learning curve. We did very well on the campaign trail.
And you know, what happened happened. But it was a tremendously
enriching experience, and I think, Charlie, that we were able to take a
lot of issues out to the voters with real credibility."

[FrenchieCat]

94. Sorry, I don't see any problems here.....

Carter asked Clark to run....as did others.

They wanted to win against Bush (although you want to equate it as them not wanting Dean to win). It's not that Clark had anything "against" Howard Dean....it was just his feeling and 75% of other democrats that thought Dean wouldn't be able to win the general election...which is what counts after all.

The great thing about this transcript is that it shows that Clark ran...not because of some maniacal wish to be President...but because he wanted to make sure that Republicans didn't continue holding power. That's commendable! Thanks!

[madfloridian]

96. Wow, can you ever make a silk purse out of sow's ears.

I have to say I commend your loyalty. Dean scared the hell out of them, they put Clark in so Kerry could run. And Kerry lost.

Heck of a job they did.

They put Clark in, he entered with long pages of issues that he knew nothing about....admitted they pushed him to run though he did not now much about it.

But all is well.

Good night.

[FrenchieCat]

101. Well "they" is not me

And I supported Clark...during the draft. So Clark didn't change my mind about neither Kerry or Dean. I didn't support either one of them before there was even a Clark. I was looking closer at Edwards, but found that he just didn't have the gravitas that I felt that we would need against the Republican machine.

Again, you can have it as a giant conspiracy.....but I see it as folks wanting to see Bush gone....and trying to find the best candidate to do this. Many didn't think it was Howard Dean, no matter how much you admired him. You ALMOST sound as though no one should have ran against Dean once he was at 25%....and in so doing, Clark committed the ultimate sin in your book by doing so.

Also remember that the Clark's campaign strategy being taylored to Howard Dean as the contender was because Howard Dean was in the lead, so that also made sense. However, once Kerry came out of Iowa, that strategy could no longer be the most effective. That's what that Rose transcript Fiabini line is referring to.

Anyways, the primaries are over.....and it's all about getting the GOP out of office once again. Some things have changed, and some things are still the same.

I hope that we see some movement in 2006. That's what I'm hoping for.

[Guaranteed]

98. Yikes! Ouch. Not articulated.

Yet, people inside the party were asking him to run.

Wow.

[madfloridian]

99. Exactly, his own words.

They should have let things play out.

[FrenchieCat]

104. Jimmie Carter asked him to run...so did 70,000 of us....

So did Charlie Rangel, james Rubin, Jim Breaux, Blanche Lincoln and others, I am sure....after all he did receive quite a few congressional endorsements.

Hell, even Michael Moore asked him to run as did George McGovern.....

[madfloridian]

105. He did not mention grassroots...he said insiders asked him..

even though he was not qualified and not knowledgeable.

His own words.

If you guys had not started blasting Dean tonight, I would not even have posted it.

Truth time, reality time.

[FrenchieCat]

107. I ain't blasting Dean

And my name ain't "you guys"....

I am not part of a tag team...so please don't treat me as such.

I was responding to OP and giving my view on Gore's endorsement.


Clark said this per your transcript...
CHARLIE ROSE: Stopping Dean in the process so that whatever might happen would still keep options open for them.

WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, I don`t see that.
What happened actually is there were a lot of people who looked at all the candidates, and they just came to me and asked me to run.

please note: Lot of people = grassroots. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

121. This part.

"CHARLIE ROSE: One of the - Mark Fabiani I think it was, one of your
advisors, said about you, "we created this campaign as an anti-Dean
campaign, and then there was no Dean."

WESLEY CLARK: Well, there was always some truth in that, because that
- I mean, John Kerry would have been the perfect qualifications that
everyone would have looked for. He had foreign policy experience, he
was an elected official. And the others had the qualifications to some
extent, but it seemed like nobody was taking off and then suddenly
Howard Dean took off. Maybe that`s what accounted for so many people
coming to me from inside the party and asking me to run."

[Guaranteed]

110. Breaux, Rangel and Lincoln, eh? I see. nt

[FrenchieCat]

112. Is there anything wrong with Charlie Rangel?

He's pretty liberal and sensible in my book.

Breaux and Lincoln are just the other end of the sprectrum; pretty conservative.

What about Carter and McGovern? Don't they count? If a former President or former nominee was calling me asking me to run, guess that I would at least entertain the thought.

I also met Boxer at a Clark fundraiser....as well as Jerry Brown. What say you about them?

My point is it was a wide sprectrum...and let's not forget the grassroots.

[Guaranteed]

114. So, you're saying that it was appropriate for Carter to say that Clark

should run.

[nvliberal]

63. The only way Clinton "worked behind the scenes" for Clark

was to use Clark to sabotage Dean, not that he was "endorsing" Clark for president.

Any other interpretation is pure fantasy.

[madfloridian]

66. See my post above.

The one with the subject line Here is the source.

[Guaranteed]

40. Gore knew he was right, though...

And, things might have worked out pretty well for us...I'm really of the opinion that they would have....if people had listened to him.

If you watch the video of what he said- he was pleading with you, Frenchie, and the rest of us Democrats. He was saying, PLEASE. PLEASE get behind Dean, if you want to win. He saw the leadership, he knew what it was going to take.

He knew exactly what he was doing. He was doing what was best for all of us. And I wish we'd all listened.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Dean would have invited Clark to be his V.P., had he gained the nomination. But, of course, he didn't get the nomination.

[FrenchieCat]

44. You see, I find this problematic....

He was doing what was best for all of us.

That is exactly what I resent. As a grown up woman who studies the issues, and understands strategy and the political landscape as well as the next person, I don't necessarily agree that Dean was the best thing....hence, the problem.

An election on National Security (which is what it turned out to be) did not necessarily point to Howard Dean being the logical choice for many. At the time, Dean garnet about 25% of the Democratic votes via polling. That's not a majority.

I refurse to go back to the primary wars...but the point is primaries are there for voters to decide who they want....not to have someone who was look upon as one of our Democratic leaders tell us "what's best". That's patronizing at the highest political level.

That's all I'm saying.

Peace!

[madfloridian]

47. What happened in Iowa was a sham.

It was an organized sham.

[FrenchieCat]

49. What?

The fact that Howard Dean came in distant third?

[madfloridian]

53. Stop acting like that was all there was to it.

It was a sham. The media know it, we all know it. Clark was in NH doing his part in the charade. And Clinton was making phone calls. Vilsack was working with the Kerry folks. It all worked just as planned.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I'm not gonna argue with you madfloridian....

I know your feelings for Howard Dean well, and I share some of them with you.

I agree that there were some who didn't want a Dean nomination, Clark and Kerry being two of them. Considering that they were both running against him, it made sense.

If you want to wrap it up as a giant conspiracy to keep Howard Dean out of the White House, that fine. I choose to see it as folks wanting to see themselves in the White House....and thats why there was a primary. I see it as candidates who understood what the 2004 election was going to be about, and that it would be one of the most important in our lifetime. You thought Dean would have won; I think that Clark could have won. IT HAS TO BE LEFT THERE.

I have my own feelings about Dean and the Clark as VP thingie....etc., etc., etc. I don't think that I need to rehash this stuff, cause the last time I looked Clark was standing up for Howard Dean, not trying to take him down.

[madfloridian]

67. This has nothing to do with my feelings about anyone. It is about truth.

It is about reality.

[FrenchieCat]

72. It's about YOUR TRUTH...

which is not sourced....and your reality that you are welcomed to...but doesn't become mine or many others.

At this point, it becomes about the '04 primary wars, and this is where I get off the ride.

See Ya, Madfloridian! :hi:

[madfloridian]

74. I posted my source above. Please read it.

Dean is no longer involved in the 08 race. Clark will have clear sailing along with Hill and Bill.

[madfloridian]

75. In case you missed it above...here it is.

From Dean's book "You Have the Power" released in September 2004.
Page 114.

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said "I need you to be for Wes Clark." The friend demurred. Clinton said, "Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for Wes. "

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said "forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us to tip us off."END SNIP

Dean realizes it may still hurt any chances in the future...but hey..Clark is for civil unions, isn't he?

Do you want me to repost the Charley Rose interview? I have the transcript. I see no need to do it, but I get tired of being accused of making stuff up.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Dean's book about heresy is not a sourced quote

from Bill Clinton.

I have addressed that issue above.

Based on the OP, I have made my point. In the end game, Gore's endorsement for Dean is not something that I hold against either of them in "that" way. I just didn't think it helped either of them, and for me, personally, it was a disappointment that Gore chose to do it. I have a right to that opinion, and it is what it is.

[madfloridian]

79. You just don't give up.

.

[madfloridian]

80. Do you mean hearsay? Oh, come on. He told the truth.

Sometimes the truth is hard to handle.

[FrenchieCat]

113. He told the truth about what he was told =" hearsay"

[Crazy Guggenheim]

82. Clark was always put out as the Anti-Dean. Remember that.

[Guaranteed]

93. Are you saying Dean is a heretic? nt

[Guaranteed]

56. Howard Dean was the strongest voice against the Iraq War,

other than Dennis Kucinich, who was running for the presidency.

He also had EXTENSIVE qualifications, besides than that fact, including health care, his positions on taxes, international trade, the environment, etc.

Dean had been there when others weren't, as had Gore. And, thus, Gore endorsed Dean.

I'm not trying to take away from Clark, here, Frenchie. I've said over and over that I have a massive amount of respect for Wes Clark. But, you're trying to take away from Dean and Gore, here. You need to give them what's due them.

They were there when no one else was, telling us it was OKAY!!! to be against the Iraq War.

The run-up to the Iraq war. About, oh, September 2002 to, say, May, 2003. I don't know about you, but that was a FUCKING TRYING TIME in my life- to put it mildly. The courage it must have taken for them..................

I can't even imagine.

But I certainly give them the credit that is due them.

[FrenchieCat]

68. I understand what you are saying.....

and certainly Dean and Kucinich were strongly against this war. In my book that is a lot....but in my book it wasn't enough....as I was looking at it from a difference perspective, that not only was Wes Clark also against the War, and advised against going into Iraq in September of 2002 to both Houses of congress in different sessions, but I also felt that his gravitas and his persona would give Democrats actual credentials in being able to do convince more voters during a General election of our proficientcy on the matters of war and terrorism.

So I give credit to all of them, but FOR ME, Clark was a more logical choice in an election in where not only the ideology of the rightness of the war would be battled, but also the ability to convince voters that Democrats could actually deliver and execute and alternative better solution and a way of getting that solution achieved. In other words, for me, it boiled down to the credibility of actions that would have to be taken, not just the fact that one opposed to what was happening.

I don't quarrel with your support of Howard Dean, as he is a great man...but again, Dean only had 25% of Democrats convinced...hence, there were other prevailing views out there about who could do the best job in standing up to Bush with an realistic alternate plan to get the job done needed to win the General election.

[Guaranteed]

89. Well, it seemed like the bases, though, for Dean's and Gore's oppositions

to the war were mildly different than that of Clark's. Their opposition seemed more "convicted," and they seemed to be more willing to speak directly about the mistake that the Bush Administration was making- before the war. More specifically, they seemed much more willing to attack the Bush Administration, both before and after the invasion.

As far as credentials- and I realize that you enjoy going to this well- remember that Al Gore was Vice President of the United States for 8 years, under Bill Clinton. Al Gore was there when Clark was there, Frenchie- as the Vice President. His foreign policy experience is quite extensive- to say the LEAST. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He's met with quite a few foreign leaders.

And, yes, he went to Vietnam, too. :)

Gore's credibility hardly has a (legitimate, i.e. "I invented the Internet") scrape on it. He was speaking out before anyone in the party was, except for perhaps Dean. He's been entirely consistent. I don't know what anyone could possibly charge against him, as far as that is concerned.

And, I could go on and speak about the effect that domestic issues have on foreign policy, but I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, here. I love Wes Clark, and have consistently said so. I just think that Al Gore, as Vice President of our country for eight of the best years it has ever seen, and considering what he has done over the past 3+ years, ought to be given his due, by you and all Clark supporters. It would just be the right thing to do.

That's all.

[FrenchieCat]

97. We're doing good, you and I....

It's a calm, reasonable and rational debate, and I like those. ;)

But, I only said that I was disappointed in Gore in (how he battled 2000--but that was in another thread) the fact that he endorsed Dean....

I never questioned Gore's possible presidential credentials.

But Dean, who was the person running in 2004, didn't have Gore's credentials.

I think that foreign policy effects Domestic policy more than the other way round.

Are we getting it all confused? This is the endorsement thread, right?

Anyhow, there is plenty of time for all of this.
Three years+ to be exact.

Of course, I am counting the days when Bush is gone, and when a Democrat is running the show. I think that I can say that about the both of us.

[Guaranteed]

106. Well, I can only repeat what I've said before...

And, again, that was your post that you posted on the 2000 election, right?

As far as Gore's endorsement, as a man of principle, he did what he felt was right. He felt Dean exhibited the principles closest to his when he made that endorsement.

Have you seen the article that was posted on one of these threads about Gore from 09/25/02? Brilliant. It makes sense that he would have endorsed Dean. The party insiders weren't getting the job done, in Gore's mind, and so he endorsed the appropriate candidate. None of the other candidates, except for Kucinich, could say that they hadn't been influenced by the weakness of the Democratic party leadership of 2002.

As far as Dean himself, he had something very much like Gore's credentials, at least domestically. The things that Dean had done for Vermont over five terms were outstanding. If you noticed, Vermont is now one of the strongest Democratic states in the nation, as well, thanks to Dean, judging by Bush's approval numbers. :) Dean had, and has, executive, elected experience, and it was some excellent experience, moreover.

I have to disagree with you, though, as far as the causality between domestic and foreign policy. It seems to me that the Bush Administration was more concerned with bringing oil into the United States than with actually keeping our country safe from terrorists (which could be called domestic policy) when they invaded Iraq. They wanted to make money for their buddies. And, because they wanted to fight their oil war on the cheap, they didn't equip our troops well enough. Clark commented on this, but Gore and Dean got down closer to the root, it seems.

And, yes, I too, am enjoying this quite civil debate. It's a good thing to build these kinds of bridges within our party, and I'm thinking that we'll be able to come to an acceptable understanding of both Gore's and Dean's contributions to our party and country through this rational discussion, since we've already recognized Clark's.

[FrenchieCat]

111. I understand your view of it.....

As far as Gore's endorsement, as a man of principle, he did what he felt was right.

so yes he did.

But I didn't agree with it.

It's not the end of the world.....it's just that this OP made me remember about it....and so I expressed my opinion on this.

I respect Al Gore in many ways, and I wished that he would been our President instead of Bush. If that would have happened, I wouldn't be a political activist, of that I am sure of!

So I have a lot of respect for Al Gore.

I like Howard Dean. He's got a lot of redeeming qualities regardless of whether he was my chosen candidate or not.

We have time.....and none of us are going away anytime soon. So yes, I enjoy these talks....

[Guaranteed]

115. I think it just comes down to those who sided with the party insiders

in 2002 and those who felt that the party insiders weren't doing enough to help the party.

Gore was one of those who felt that the party insiders weren't doing enough to help the party in the run-up to the Iraq War. Because of that, he endorsed Dean. Gore felt we needed change, and strength.

I understand that you might feel otherwise, though, that the party was doing its job in the run-up to the Iraq War. We can just agree to disagree there, though.

[Crunchy Frog]

119. I certainly hope that you're not trying to suggest

that I was on the side of the party insiders, and thought the party was doing its job during the runup to the Iraq War, just because I supported someone other than Dean. That characterization certainly doesn't apply to me, and I doubt very much that it applies to Frenchie, to whom your post is addressed.

[Crunchy Frog]

118. Obviously, we simply need to do away with primaries

and let those who "know best what's good for us" make the decisions for us that we are not capable of making for ourselves. I've seen the light and now realize that I'm too stupid to decide for myself who I support in a primary. It's such a relief that there are all wise and all knowing people out there who I can trust to choose for me.

[killbotfactory]

46. Yep

That was a moment of great hope.

Unfortunatly, the media fucked him.

[madfloridian]

51. This was the turning point. The party said no to them.

They organized, and they beat him down. Gore and Dean were upstarts. They did not have the power to beat the DLC types like Clinton who still control the party establishment.

We are trying to change that.

[Guaranteed]

61. We got 'em, this time.

This time....I'm afraid that things are going to be a little more difficult for the DLC whores.

Unless, of course, we should just stop talking about 2008 until after 11/06.

[nvliberal]

59. I was absolutely furious at Gore

for endorsing Howard Dean because I felt he was trying to influence the campaign improperly.

Well, he influenced it, all right, for it was the kiss of death for the Dean campaign, thank God.

So I take back all of my criticisms of Gore that I made at the time.

[Guaranteed]

62. Yeah. Thank God Dean didn't win the nomination.

We might have been cursed with another 4 years of the Bush Administration.

PHEW!!! :P

[nvliberal]

69. You're forgetting.

The Republicans wouldn't have needed to rig the elections because Dean wouldn't have been able to win a single state save perhaps Massachusetts and possibly Vermont.

They wouldn't have had to make up a thing; Dean was his own worst enemy.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

71. According to who?

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Seeing as Dean couldn't even hack it in the primaries

Why on earth anyone would be so deluded to think he could hack it in the general election is beyond me. The Gephardt campaign ran a hard hitting critical ad - NOTHING compared to what Rove would've slung at him - and Dean cried foul and accused the other candidates of picking on him and ganging up on him. WTF kind of serious candidate whines about being picked on? And does ANYONE think he wouldn't have completely lost it against Rove? People thought he was loony enough after the scream - Rove would've made him looked like he belonged in an asylum.

Basically Dean's early success lay in Joe Trippi's marketing abilities - with Trippi's help, Dean convinced lots and lots of people that a he had undergone a radical transformation from conservative DLC poster boy governor to radical anti-war populist. It was a brilliant marketing ploy, and you can see how well it worked on DU - but up close and personal, Iowa and New Hampshire voters weren't sold.

[madfloridian]

85. Kerry did not do so well either.

He was groomed for it for years. Dean was a novice. We supported Kerry, and I make it a habit not to go around insulting him.

But he did not do very well as a candidate. None of them did.

[WildEyedLiberal]

87. Explain to me what Kerry has to do with anything

Why would you even bring him up? What has that got to do with anything? You still haven't acknowledged that Rove would've destroyed Dean. Of course, you can't, since he wasn't the nominee, and neither you nor I know exactly what would've happened. But honestly, given Dean's meltdown in the primary and the fact that his campaign depended entirely upon a carefully crafted image, I don't think Diebold would've had to get involved in stealing election 2004.

Did Kerry's campaign managers underestimate how nasty Rove would be? Yes. Would Dean's have done better? You can go on thinking so, but let's face it, someone who can't deal with criticism from his own party is not going to do well against a ruthless opponent like Rove.

[madfloridian]

91. I will if you tell me why your insults to Dean right now are pertinent.

You tell me, I will tell you.

[Guaranteed]

95. He doesn't understand the difference between a primary and a GE,

as far as the dynamic.

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. Oh, I see, I'm not allowed to join a discussion about Dean's merits

As a presidential candidate. Which is what I thought this thread was.

I posted my opinion based on the facts that I know. You don't have to like it. I entered this thread and it was already a heated discussion on Dean's qualifications as a candidate. I chimed in, and I stand by what I said. What you call insults, I call perfectly pertinent criticisms. It's late, I'm not going to play your game tonight. You love Dean, I don't. He's fine as chairman, though I certainly don't approve of 100% that comes from his mouth. He's not and never will be my choice for any other office. I have a different opinion than you. Ain't America grand like that?

[madfloridian]

103. I love my husband, I respect Dean.

And I don't understand why all the insults are being hurled at Dean tonight. Something in the air?

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. No, it's criticism. Not insults.

Please learn the difference. I am allowed to post a different opinion of Dean than you without being accused of "insulting" him. And as to why, well, look no further than the OP, who mysteriously posts something designed to bring up the primary wars, and then jumps all over people for daring to suggest that Dean was not the ideal Democratic candidate in 2004. I certainly didn't start a thread intending to bash Dean, nor have I bashed him. Actually, this thread serves no point other than to attract polarizing opinions about Dean, which is a surefire way to start a flamewar on DU. It's 2:30 and I'm too tired for a flamewar. I stand by what I said and wish you didn't view differing opinions as attacks. I'm out of here, good night.

[Guaranteed]

92. WHAT? You mean, all of the other candidates shouldn't have been

bitching about Dean when he was attacking them for supporting the Iraq War? They even had the temerity to imply he was unpatriotic. What kind of crap is THAT??

Dean got 25% of the vote in the primaries. Kerry only got the votes that he did because the media determined- SOMEHOW (shit, you tell me where they got this)- that he was the most "electable." They didn't look at leadership ability- no. They consistently and constantly associated the word "electable" with Kerry, and "unelectable" with Dean. Look at any of Bill "PNAC" Schneider's reports on CNN, if you don't believe that.

FURTHER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY- you're equating a primary with a general election. You're equating an election in which people are voting for the candidate that they THINK will win, with an election in which people are voting for the candidate that they think SHOULD win.

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, my friend. Big, big difference. Especially when the media goes about convincing Democratic voters- deliberately- that Dean is unelectable. Giving no reasoning.

It wasn't that the Democratic voters didn't WANT Dean to win. In fact, it seemed pretty clear that they did. But, somehow, they got convinced that he wouldn't win the GE, which cost him the nomination.

How about this: Can you tell me WHY Dean wasn't electable?

Because, and this is for damned sure: I can tell you EXACTLY why Kerry wasn't electable.

If you can tell me why Dean wasn't electable, convincingly, I'll give you $100. LOL

Good luck.

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. Oh, cut the "media" argument crap.

The "media" declared Kerry's campaign DOA. Who was getting all the press and the magazine covers and shit? That'd be Dean. I distinctly remember lots of press about Dean, and some about Clark, and not so much about the others. So nice myth, but that's exactly what it is. A myth.

Dean did Rove's work for him by accusing other Democrats of supporting Bush's war, when, if you go BACK to late 2002-early 2003 and read the statments made by each future Democratic candidate, lo and behold, Dean's are every bit as hawkish - often more so - than the others, excepting perhaps Lieberman or Gephardt. Every piece of "proof" you cited is absolutely flimsy - and believe me, I've seen enough rabid Deaniacs to know that those who genuinely preferred him in the primary voted for him; they didn't change their mind at the last minute and vote for Kerry. Guess what: more people in Iowa thought Kerry and Edwards came across as more Presidential than Dean. If you don't like their decision, tough titties.

[Guaranteed]

108. There are a lot of lies in that post.

This one in particular:

"if you go BACK to late 2002-early 2003 and read the statments made by each future Democratic candidate, lo and behold, Dean's are every bit as hawkish - often more so - than the others, excepting perhaps Lieberman or Gephardt."

It doesn't get much more false than that. That is a solid lie.

Again, though, since you missed the point of my post, you have to understand the difference between a primary and a general election.

You get that people vote in the primary for the person that they think has the best CHANCE of winning, weighed with who they WANT to win, right?

As opposed to a general election, in which they're simply voting on who they WANT to win?

So, you can see how Democratic voters might be manipulated by the media by constantly conjoining the phrases "questions about electability" with "Howard Dean" and "electable" with Kerry, right? And you can see, as a solid Democratic voter, how the media is actually influenced by longtime, political insiders, as well- or even the political opposition (as in the case of Bill "PNAC" Schneider, the best example of this).

That's your problem. You're equating the primaries with who people WANTED to win. I'm afraid that's just not true, and you're going to have to accept it. YOU CAN'T EQUATE THE PRIMARIES WITH THE G.E. If you do, you're making an opportunistic, yet blatantly, logically false, connection.

Our voters were manipulated, from Day One. It's amazing that Dean got the support (25%) that he did.

Oh- and, he would have won. Almost forgot that part. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. You have such an elaborate fantasy constructed

That nothing I say makes a bit of difference. In your world, Dean would have won the general election, and would have won the primary if the media had just butted out. That's a big lie right there - claiming that the media paid Kerry one iota of attention and didn't fawn adoringly over Dean is, to put it kindly, a re-imagining of the facts.

And you're a lost cause, but to back up my claim about Dean's war rhetoric: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

Some choice quotes:

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
- Howard Dean, Feb. 2003

"I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given." - Howard Dean, Feb. 2003

Wow, he's saying the same thing Kerry and Edwards were saying. Joe Trippi sure did work some magic with those statements, managing to turn Dean from the man who said those statements above to an anti-war hero to convince the disaffected anti-Democratic party leftists to get on board. Well, he did a brilliant job, as is plain to see in this sad little thread.

[Guaranteed]

117. Holy shit. If I hadn't seen those two particular statements passed around

in support of the same ridiculous idea that Dean wasn't against the Iraq war from the beginning for the past two years, I might be shocked. Really shocked. Just blown right out of my socks.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you're propping up *your* opinion, *your* fantasy, with two continuously recycled 02/03 statements from Dean. 02/03, in the face of imminent war. Yup. That's what your opinion is based on. If I had a nickel, for those two statements and the Dean-bashers....

You further seem to have totally avoided the amazingly blatant logical fallacy that you committed in comparing the primary elections to the general elections. I guess you don't care to comment on that. Makes sense. Your best bet probably is to just avoid it.

Of course, I would suggest you stop using that one, because you're going to be wrong every time. That won't change. Yes, I'm afraid that the votes that Dean received in the primaries are totally unrelated to those he would have received in the general election. And that is a FACT. Tasty, eh? Mmmmmmm......



As far as the media and the primaries....wow...Kerry just came out of nowhere, didn't he? To win, what, 36% of the caucus in Iowa? He must have met at least 36% of the caucusers, since the media blacked him out.

Do you have any explanation for Kerry's sudden surge? (Other than Bill "PNAC" Schneider spending four weeks on CNN saying, on a daily basis, that there were "serious questions about Dean's electability"- with no explanation for that assertion- coming from Democratic Party leaders, while Kerry seemed quite strong in that regard. This was the general idea of his report EVERY SINGLE DAY leading up to Iowa).

On edit: Sorry, forgot to finish the story: Then, after Kerry blew everyone away in the primaries, he lost.

[Guaranteed]

90. Pardon my French, but that's a pile of bullshit.

It's fucking laughable.

[Larkspur]

120. The Gore endoresemnt of Dean will give Gore unprecedented access

to Dean's Internet fundraising machine and an instant loyal base. Many Dean-ocrats, like myself, will donate and work our tails off for Gore. Many of us won't do that for any of the other candidates, especially the pro-war Dems and for faux-Dems, like Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

125. Name calling doesn't help your case.....

Clark is a Faux Dem like Gore is a pro-war Dem. Both statements are incorrect.

Just because you don't like Clark, doesn't mean he is what you say.

That's the problem with posters who post in absolute as though they have been hit with a divine inspiration. That's what the opposition does. Why don't you just stop it.

[Larkspur]

126. Speaking at a Republican fundraiser in 2001 and 2 years later

trying to win the Dem Prez nomination is the sign of a faux-Dem.

Clark will always be a faux Dem to me because his actions and lack of actions indicate that is what he really is.

[FrenchieCat]

127. You don't even know what a real Democrat is......

you only think you know.

And in anycase, if you think that I am impressed with Democrats that are doing our work now....think again.

Clark talked about what during this fundraiser and the Democratic one he had attended a week later? He discussed the importance of our relations to NATO....as he was less than a year from having retired.....from service to our country for the past 34 years.

I'd rather have a real patriot, regardless of party affiliation, who cares more about this country than with politics and with himself.

So Faux Dem or no, I don't give a shit!

[second edition]

123. Gore didn't know, he was being a politician and mistakenly

going for the man he thought would be the front runner. if he would have put some effort and thought into his decision, he would have gone for Kerry.

[Moderator]

128. Locking

let's not refight the primary wars shall we?