Should DNC Exclude Dean from Convention For His Shameless Attacks on Dems

[Raya]

For almost a year, the Dean Campaign has engaged the most vicious attacks in NH and IOWA against his fellow Democrats as well at the Party Leadership at large.

Now he is taking the show on the road. Today, I watched news clips with Dean casually talking about John Kerry as if the was talking about George Bush. He used worlds like “corrupt,” “in the pocket of,” “can’t trust.” He was calling on Kerry to “apologize to the American people” for his “deception.”

It is simply fanciful to imagine that a year of onslaught on the “Washington Democrats” magnified as they have been by the Media, has not resulted in the denigration of Dean’s more progressive competitors in the arena of public opinion. Dean is basically serving as as tool of the Republicans at this point.

From back in April, USA Today reported “his attacks on fellow Democrats have been so cutting that sometimes the Republican National Committee e-mails them to party members.” And “Dean has reserved his sharpest thrusts for Kerry, repeatedly accusing him of selling out Democratic principles” (April, 28). With his star rising with the Media, Dean cranked up his rhetoric on even further, saying that if he won, members of Congress were ''going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches” (NYT, Oct. 14).

Now after loosing a couple contests, Dean says he won’t be competing in the next seven States but still continues personal attacks against Kerry, attacks more vicious that anything the Republicans have dared do openly.

Question: Assuming Dean does not succeed in destroying John Kerry and winning the nominations despite his money and army of supporters, should the DNC allow Dean to speak at the convention, or should he be shunned because of the damage he has personally inflicted on the party.

Dean has done about everything he can to destroy Kerry and has thrown some nasty jabs at Clinton as well. This is a serious question.

[youngred]

1. No

No one should be barred from the debates

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

8. read my sig line..

..and then ask the question again. dean is right in his comments. time to rise and fight.

[youngred]

12. No He's not

his attacks are stupid, worthless and potentially harmful...but he shouldn't be barred from the debates

[Raya]

13. Talking about Convention Speeches. Kucinich Deserves more than Dean

[RetroLounge]

2. No it's not

a serious question.

Try again...

[Raya]

9. It is. Failed Abusive Candidates are usually barred from speaking

at the convention. Why would Kerry or Clark want Dean on the stage
after the things he has said for a year.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. depends on Dean

and his attitude going into the convention.

[59millionmorons]

4. Yes

Dean needs to make an appointment with his psychiatrist. I hope he drops out even before Lieberman. This guy has totally lost it. He reminds me of a kid who knows he's not going to win so he now wants to take his ball home. Good bye Dean, I am glad that we are seeing the real you.

[MAlibdem]

5. He has to be allowed to speak

We cannot risk having him break away with his fanatic crowd of adorers.

This is why this little cult of personality is hurting our party more than any new voters he is bringing in.

He need to accept his fate, he will NOT be the next POTUS.

[bluestateguy]

6. No

But they should exclude Zell Miller.

[LuminousX]

7. LOL... uh, yeah, let them try, he has delegates, it would be nasty

[Raya]

11. Having Delegates Does not give you a Speech. It gives you delegates

[Tinoire]

10. If Dean gets excluded. If any Dem gets excluded, I go third party

The Democratic party will have gone tooooo far if they dare do that.

And I'm not even a Dean supporter. I'm not enamoured of the guy but he has a right to speak out and to represent his supporters and anybody else who feels the way he does.

Look around DU- Dean isn't just speaking for himself. Establishment Dems, take heed. These Gestapo-like tactics are not endearing you to already pissed-off voters.

If they keep this up, they better hope Nader runs so that they can blame him again for a 2004 defeat instead of facing the truth.


On edit: What's with the sudden Clinton worship? Is he running for President again? Or does he think he's some holy cow and that his preferences for 2004 need to catered to?

[Moderator]

14. locked

inflamatory content.