I'm sorry, Howard, but I can't go on past Wednesday.

[Padraig18]

I don't think anyone here would disagree with my self-characterization as an avid Dean supporter, or if they would, they've not been here long or haven't been paying attention (*grin*). I believed and still believe in Howard Dean, and will be eternally grateful to him for having revitalized a demoralized party and having inspired me personally to become a front-line soldier in the war against *. My admiration of and respect for him will never change, and my affection for him will remain undimished. God bless you, Howard Dean, I will love you always! :loveya:

That said, I am not a fan of glorious but hopeless crusades, because those sorts of quests are, by definition, doomed to failure. I want to see a Democratic victory in November as badly as a starving man wants even a morsel of food, and if Howard cannot win or produce a CREDIBLE second-place showing in Wisconsin on Tuesday, I can no longer continue to believe that he is capable of leading us to victory against * in November. It breaks my heart to say this, but I cannot deny what I believe to be the truth of those words.

I will, therefore, support the candidacy of Sen. John Edwards starting Wednesday, subject to the above conditions. Sen. Edwards has a moderate, populist agenda, and will be the sole remaining candidate with a credible chance of challenging Sen. Kerry for the nomination in Boston.

Let the flames begin.

Edit: typos

[Paulie]

1. You know your heart is calling you

Don't get lost in the "credible" meme. Just throw off the yoke and join your heart! :) :) :)

[mike1963]

2. No flames from here, I agree 100%

:-)

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. No flames here,

tough decisions all around. I think that it makes it easier on the supporters if the candidate steps down, as Clark did, because it takes that unbelievably difficult decision out of our hands.

edited to add that I may force you to repent for some of your posts from last night, however! :hi:

[ludwigb]

4. It looks as though Dean is dropping out , anyway...

I also believe Edwards deserves the chance to go 1-1 with Kerry. The media will probably help him, so it's not a hopeless cause at all. I also want more exposure for Kucinich as the field narrows.

If Dean cannot soundly defeat Edwards Tuesday then he should drop out. And he will.

[Renew Deal]

10. I was saying that it might end up being Kerry vs. Kucinich.

I wonder if Kucinich will demand debates.

[bobthedrummer]

79. Dennis Kucinich is in this until the end

as he's stated-no dropping out from that loyal Democrat, no flirting with third party stuff, and best of all--he comes with "no strings attached".

It would be good for the Democratic Party to hold a Kerry-Kucinich debate IMHO.

Because Dennis is all about the issues.
And the truth.

[mountainvue]

133. I watched

Dennis Kucinich on CSPAN last night and was very impressed with his speech. I want to see him stay in as well and hope he does. I was also very impressed with John Edwards.
I say good for you Padraig. While I know that it must be very difficult for you to make your decision, I applaud it. I'm not a fan of your candidate but if he had been the nominee, I would have voted for him in November for the greater good of our country. Bush must go!

[Kahuna]

153. Best of all, Dennis doesn't bash his opponents..

Dennis is a class act.

[mountainvue]

157. I noticed.

He stays with the point of needing to get rid of Bush.

[dionysus]

18. he should wait until after super teusday.

I haven't had my chance to vote yet!

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. I take it

the Iraq war is not an issue for you? Edwards STILL believes we did the right thing by going into Iraq...illegally and pre-emptivley and all based on LIES. That doesn't bother you? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

6. It's not a deal breaker.

the bottom line is this: we WILL have a pro-IWR candidate as our nominee, and the only remaining decision is WHICH ONE. I prefer Sen. Edwards--- a no-brainer, when faced with Sen. Kerry as the other choice.

[AP]

7. The IWR was only ever a Bush strategy to get reelected in Nov.

The only question about it is which way you're going to let it divide you.

[Egnever]

8. LOL yea had nothing to do with Iraq

Uh huh

[AP]

29. It had to do with winning elections and making money for friends.

That's all it ever had to do.

After eight years of Clinton, the Republicans were facing the problem that voters were starting to think the strong suits for the Republicans party -- frgn policy/national security -- were not longer the most important issues when you went to the voting booth.

Bush is just trying to bring them back to the forefront of people's minds.

And the IWR vote was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't trick that they were going to use to burn you on the left if you voted for it, or burn you on the right if you didn't.

This one is WAY too obvious.

[HFishbine]

40. If the war was about winning elections and money for friends

why did Edwards vote for it and why does he stand by it to this day? Either it really wasn't about those things afterall, or Edwards supports those things.

[AP]

43. Because he understood what the vote was about. It was a question:

do you believe that we should protect Americans, yes or no?

He says today that he believes that he was voting for a better, safer world without SH in power.

I really don't see what's so difficult about that. That was how Bush meant it, and that's how he responded.

The Invasion itself is about one thing. That vote was about another. Don't confuse them.

[HFishbine]

47. Oh, I see

So it was a war about winning elections and money for freinds when we want to critisize Bush for it, but it was a war about protecting Americans when we want to defend John Edwards. Got it.

[AP]

58. The war was one thing. That vote was another. Why is this so complicated?

Do you really think that vote caused the war?

Why don't we hold Bush personally responsible for his actions?

You are enabling the narrative that got Bush as far as he has gotten. When something goes wrong, it's everyone elses fault.

[HFishbine]

61. Forget the vote then

(Although some of us rightfully look at voting records as an indication of a candidates principles). Edwards stil says the war was the right thing. So does Bush. You say it was wrong when seeking to critisize Bush because it was for political purposes and money. But it was right for Edwards because it was about keeping America safe. So does that mean that Bush wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but Edwards wanted to do the same thing but for the right reasons? Is that what I'm hearing? That the war was right but we are now going to attempt to draw a distinction based on motives?

[AP]

70. Edwards says:

Carring about the saftey of American citizens was the right thing. He has consistently criticized the invasion and the way it has been carried out.

The senate vote didn't FORCE Bush to invade Iraq. Bush is still responsible for his own actions and his execution of the invasion, which have been, as Edwards says, reprehensible.

[HFishbine]

78. Oh please

There is nothing to be accomplished by misrepresenting Edwards' position. Far from critisizing the way the invasion was carried out, quite the opposite is true. He says we were right to go. Right to go without our European allies. Right to go without the sanction of the UN. Far from calling the invasion reprehensible, he has defended it. In his own words:
-----

MATTHEWS: <snip> Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.
--------

So tell me, where is the distinction between Bush and Edwards on the war? There isn't any. And further more, why does Edwards feel that a war was necessary for the safety of the American people?

[AP]

81. I believe in that very interview he crticizes Bush's execution of the...

...invasion.

The party you quoted is about WHETHER, not HOW.

He says that it's right to have taken a strong postion against SH, but he has consistently criticized HOW bush did it.

The question he is answering is whether, when the UN and Europe tells the US it shouldn't look after its interests, do we do what they tell us. Few Americans would say that the US should do what the rest of the world tells us. (This was actually a major issue which prevented the LoN from coming to fruition, and which FDR had to step lightly around to get us a UN.)

That's why Matthews says "go to" this thing. He's talking about the lead up. And that's why Edwards says the SC can't hold the US hostage.

It's a fact that some day the rest of the world might not be looking after America's best interests, and that's why the US can't be held hostage ever to what the rest of the world thinks. With Iraq, the rest of the world WAS inteterested in something which was more or less best for America, and Bush wasn't. Nonetheless, the best thing you can do is have a president who leads America properly, and who creates a landscape within which the whole world wants to work with the US to make everyone better.

Clearly, Edwards is the president to do that. But he's not going to get elected by saying that Americann frgn policy should be held hostage by the UN Security Council. FDR already negotiated this difficult terrain, and Edwards is merely following in his footsteps.

[HFishbine]

87. Amazing

See what you want to see. It's really quite clear that Edwards was defending not only going to war but also the way it was done. It was right, he says, to go without Europe, without the UN. That's Bush's position and Edwards defends it.

What's worse, it that further in that interview, Edwards claims he wasn't mislead by the intelligence. So, Edwards' standard for pre-emptive war is even lower than Bush's. Edwards didn't even base his decision on the threat of WMD, he wanted to go because Saddam was a bad guy. Terrible.

[AP]

98. I think this is to clear to everyone except those with an axe to grind

MR. RUSSERT: ...an issue very much on the minds of the American people, and I want to refer you to something you said in September of this year, Senator, and get your reaction to it: “We have young men and women in a shooting gallery over right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what’s necessary to support them. ...I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops that are on the ground.”
The president asked for $87 billion to support those troops, money for body armor, armed Humvees, and you voted against it. Why?

SEN. EDWARDS: Because, Tim, I said from the very beginning that in order for this operation to be successful—and remember, I supported the resolution. I did think Saddam was a serious threat, one that needed to be dealt with. But I said over a year ago that for this to be successful, it needed to be an international effort, and there needed to be a clear plan. The president came to the Congress without either of those things, without a clear long-term plan for success, still just an American occupation. And my view was we needed to send a clear message to the president that we had to change course. I do support, I stand by what I said there. I do support money for the troops. I support us playing a significant role in the reconstruction. What I won’t do is give this president a blank check to continue with a policy that I think has failed.

[HFishbine]

108. Thanks for posting that

It simply points out Edwards' hypocricy and the degree to which he will go to score political points. He voted for the war. Says we were right to go. Right to go without UN sanction. Right to go without European allies. Right to go even with bad intell on WMDs, in short, a mirror image of Bush's position. Yet, when it comes time to fund what he has supported, in the heat of a presidential campaign, Edwards claims that the Bush approach, which he backed every step of the way, has failed. Just who is trying to skirt responsibility here?

[AP]

115. Obviously I'm not trying to stop you from spinning this any way you like.

Are you saying Edwards made Bush invade Iraq?

[HuskerDem]

159. That's an obvious misrepresentation of HFishbines statements

I don't recall anyone saying Edwards MADE bush invade but he enabled him, and continues to promote the Bush doctrine. Edwards seems very comfortable with this from what I have seen, more so than many of his supporters at any rate.

[AP]

173. Everyone seems to want to shift blame off bush and on to Democrats.

[goobergunch]

188. There's plenty of blame for everyone

:P

[jadesfire]

172. Kerry has the same arguement

so why the problem?

[For PaisAn]

113. Nonsense!

The vote condoned, facilitated and sanctioned the invasion. They are inextricably connected. Don't isolate them as unrelated.

[AP]

116. Yeah. Let's not blame Bush. The Democrats tied his hands.

[For PaisAn]

127. No, actually the Democrats "untied" Bush's hands

I blame Bush but those who voted in favor must bear some responsibility also.

[AP]

135. Bush's hands were tied? By what? The whore media? The corporatocracy?

De facto control of the entire government?

I didn't know he was such of victim.

[For PaisAn]

152. Please read my post again

I said that Congress UNTIED Bush's hands. Bush was not a victim and neither were those Senators. They voted in favor of IWR and that vote sanctioned Bush's actions.

[AP]

174. To untie hands, they have to be tied. Not sure how Bush's hands were tied

I know someone said there was a law contricting Bush, however, I don't see that he's had much respect for the law, so I'm sure he could have gotten around that problem if he wanted to. I presume he thought it'd be more fun to put the Democrats between a rock and a hard place instead.

[For PaisAn]

182. True

"To untie hands, they have to be tied. Not sure how Bush's hands were tied".
Bush's hands might not actually originally have been tied, I'm not sure about the War Powers Resolution - it's complicated. I only responded to the hands tied term that you proferred. Yes Bush could have gotten around it. And yes the Senators sanctioned his actions by voting in favor. These are not mutually exclusive.

[Tinoire]

AP. Even accepting that argument. How does that explain Edward's

non-repentance? His non-repentance about it is something that bothers me greatly. As I examine my pledge from last year NOT to give any support to any candidate who supported this war, Edwards is the only one I could possibly, maybe make an exception for because of his anti-NAFTA stance but I am still examining that and him. Can you address this for me though? It really, really bothers me because he doesn't sound as if he was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't mode.

A kid friend sent this to me at my request and I am looking for more as well as explanations. As always, I appreciate your lack of spin.

===

MATTHEWS: <snip> Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[AP]

56. Because W didn't pick a war which was clearly wrong. He picked one with

an asshole whom even Clinton and Gore wanted to take out.

This whole thing is custom-designed to be a damned-if-you-do/don't situation.

[goobergunch]

93. So the Iraq War wasn't clearly wrong?

:eyes:

[AP]

103. Bill Clinton said that SH was a serious threat and that Al Gore was the

person in his administration who wanted to take out SH the most.

Do you think this is a black and white issue?

This isn't like invading Switzerland or Venezuela or even Cuba. Bush picked a strategy which is supposed to divide the left in a way that would make most Americans think "what the fuck is your problem?"

[goobergunch]

114. I think voting for a blank check is a relatively clear-cut issue

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114:

[AP]

118. You're right. Bush had no choice. The Democrats made him invade Iraq.

None of these Democrats deserve to be elected President.

Bush is a victim of their war lust.

I feel sorry for Bush.

[HFishbine]

122. And Edwards?.....

Okay, so Bush had a choice and chose to go to war anyway -- AND EDWARDS SUPPORTED IT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. When you point out that the war was one of choice, it just makes Edwards' complete support of it even more egregious.

[goobergunch]

126. The Dems didn't *make* him invade Iraq

But did Edwards do anything to oppose him on Iraq?

[AP]

132. But they helped him right? He couldn't have done it without them?

Psst. Edwards is running the campaign most likely to get Bush out of office, so I'd say that's an example of Edwards doing something to oppose Bush.

[goobergunch]

143. Yes, Edwards helped enable Bush* to go to war in Iraq. (n/t)

[AP]

145. Bush is such a victim. He can't fuck up the world without the help of

Democrats. Those stupid Democrats. Why do we even vote?

[goobergunch]

147. So WHY did we give him any help? (n/t)

[AP]

151. We didn't help him. He was going to do it anyway. If more than half of

the congress didn't give him the IWR, I guarantee you there would have been a terrorist attack, and every congressperson who voted against it would have been labled Terroist appeasers, and the Republicans would have taken a supermajority in the Congress, and it would have been the end of democracy as we know it.

Or Bush would have gone in in some other form, and they would have found WMD, with the same results.

Or something like that.

[HuskerDem]

160. Voting to enable bush helps bush - can't spin that.

You keep trying to make it into "making" W do something but that doesn't fly.

We understand the difference between making somebody do something and giving them a helping hand. One Edwards is still quite happy to have provided.

[AP]

175. Please exlpain how Bush wasn't ABLE to do what he wanted to do before the

vote.

The only reason for the vote was to give him amunition to attack Dems from the right or left in November 2004.

[HuskerDem]

184. So you're saying Edwards condoned W's war out of cowardice?

That's not a ringing endorsement of his judgment.

And to answer your query; there is a difference between an enabler and a facilitator. If you have any addicts in your family you should probably be familiar with the term but in case you don't.......

An enabler is someone who promotes poor behavior by making excuses and covering up for a misbehaver. Does it mean the misbehaver is incapable of continuing their poor behavior without the actions of the enabler? Of course not. But the actions of the enabler promote continued and often escalating poor behavior on the part of the misbehaver. See the enabler is not directly responsible for the misbehaver's actions, but if you're not part of the solution...... you are part of the problem.

This is what both Edwards and Kerry did in the case of the IWR. It's why I was initially a Clark supporter. I will give Kerry some credit for not continuing to support IWR as a good idea, because it wasn't. Not the way it was written.

[AP]

187. I'm saying the IWR vote was nothing more than a vote over whether you felt

we should keep Americans safe. It didn't untie Bush's hands, because they weren't tied in the first place. It didn't force Bush's hands, because Bush was going to force them anyway.

It was a trap. It was heads you lose, tails you lose. Some senators invited that crticism by voting no, but they were given the luxury of standing up on some other principle thanks to their Democratic colleagues who voted for it. If each Democratic senator had had the deciding vote, I guarantee you that not a single one would have cast a no vote.

[HuskerDem]

190. I just don't subscribe to the Borg collective view of the IWR vote

I hold each person accountable for their own vote, and their stand on it now. If it was a lose/lose vote why not stand on the side of right and principle instead of political expediency?

And it was not a resolution on "feelings". It was a permission slip to get george out of a class he was going to skip anyway. Everybody knew he was going to skip anyway, but instead of standing up and giving him a demerit we patted him on the head and gave him lunch money.

[polpilot]

23. Ahhh. Fantasyland...but that I could be there.

Dean '04...The Anti-Iraqi War...Anti-DLC...Anti-Establishment candidate.

[salin]

26. and its timing - was to help the 2002 midterms for the GOP

pushed all economic issues off the table - and let the GOP conjour up images of OsamabinHussein to use against democrats - regardless of how they voted on the IWR (see Ga senate race as object lesson.)

It was about a war in Iraq - but the timing - and hard push was about election politics both in 02 and 04.

[AP]

32. Thank you.

Like I said, this one is WAY TOO OBVIOUS.

It's about figuring out what your electoral strengths are first, and then creating an environment within which those strengths become the big issue in people's minds.

It used to be racial anxiety+crime which the republicans also used. Clinton took crime off the table, and made it more apparent when race was being manipulated. I think that Republicans have a more subtle plan to exploit race for 2004, but seem to be laying off crime (although, because of their policies, crime is creeping up).

Republicans also thrive when people think family values are the most important issue, thus sterrhoids and gay marriage will be big issues in 2004.

And you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats doing anything to put their strong suits on the table? Those being, middle class opportunity, equality of opportunity, level playing fields, working together for a better tomorrow? Are the primaries allowing those themes to evolve?

[HFishbine]

72. And so, by supporting it, democrats assured they wouldn't me marginalized

Oh, wait. That didn't work, did it.

[AP]

75. Why are we letting Bush blame Democrats for the invasion? How does

that make sense? Isn't that how Bush has made his way through life?

[HFishbine]

95. No

"We" are not. Some of us are blaming ALL who are responsible.

[AP]

99. I see more people here arguing that Demcorats forced Bush to invade Iraq

than I see people arguing that Bush is responsible for his actions.

[HFishbine]

109. Strawman

No body is talking about dems forcing Bush to go to war. Some are talking about holding dems accountable for enabling and even, in Edwards case, fully supporting the war. Let's not dissemble here.

[AP]

119. I think it's the Dems fault. Bush had no choice. They gave him a resolutio

that made Bush go to war.

I can't stand these Democrats.

[goobergunch]

129. Bush* had a choice whether to go to war or not

Edwards, like the others that voted for IWR, enabled him to be able to make that choice, which we all knew would be to go to war.

[AP]

137. How did the Democrtats enable a man with total control, all the money, and

the power of the media on his side?

[goobergunch]

140. By voting for a resolution allowing him to go to war. (n/t)

[AP]

148. Bush needs permission to do everything? I didn't realize that.

[goobergunch]

149. I did

The War Powers Resolution passed in the 1970s limits the deployment of troops overseas without Congressional authorization - which Edwards voted to grant.

[HuskerDem]

161. Bush made the decision to go to war, Edwards made the decision to support

Bush, the Bush doctrine and condone Bush's actions with his vote.

A decision he still stands behind today.

[Tinoire]

111. Bush is responsible for his actions but the enabling Dems are responsible

for theirs also. We ALL knew Bush would unleash this war. We all knew he didn't assemble a cabinet full of war-hawks just to chat about Daddy's plans (which Clinton also pursued).

I do hold the Dems who enabled him as responsible as I hold Bush. It was like giving a junkie the unrestricted access to the pharmacy & not expecting him to rush to the Demerol.

At least from Bush, I expected this. I frankly didn't expect the Dems to roll over so easily. I can't remember AP but were you here already at DU when the votes took place? Do you remember the drama, the campaign to stop it and the protests? We handed our cell phones to total strangers to get them to plead along with us yet they still went along and sent us very dismissive KMA letters.

I was disgusted with them all at that time- all the ones who enabled him and refused to be swayed by Senator Byrd's eloquent and passionate pleas that they not toss the constitution out the window and enable Bush to pursue his mad course.


They betrayed our constitution! And they KNEW it! ((Now I am getting angry again remembering Byrd pleading with them))

When you betray the US constitution, you have betrayed the entire American people.

Edwards. Except for that issue, every fiber in my body wants to like Edwards except for the fibers of reason that warn me not to fall for another slick car dealer who works a room like magic.

You keep selling him AP. Keep selling him for people who are going to have to make some hard decisions later on but back to your additional point, the one who knowingly provides the get-away car is just as guilty as the perpetrator of the crime.

What we're going to have to decide is how many crimes we can excuse under this system of going for the lesser of evils.

Thanks

[AP]

121. I'm just as proud of Democrats who figured out how NOT to let this issue

become an election winner for Bush as those who stood up to him.

This was so clearly a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't decision.

Bush has got a plan to win with this both ways, and Edwards is addressing this issue in a way that makes sense to me, and which can potentially get him elected.

JFK campaigned as a bigger hawk than Nixon to remove the Republican national security/foreign policy advantage, and once he got elected he got shot, very likely for going to far to the left in terms of spreading power down and out, and removing fear from the American landscape (which was threat to the ability of the right to get elected). Make sense of that.

The place to elect super liberals is not in a nationwide election in which everyone, dems and republicans vote. That is the time to elect surface-moderates/core-liberals.

I have campaigned for some of the most liberal congresspeople and mayors who have ever run for local offices in communties which support liberals, and I am a campaigning hard for Edwards. The common theme: I've always supported the most liberal candidates with a real chance to win.

[goobergunch]

130. Wellstone went up in the polls after voting against the IWR

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2002/MNPollOld.htm

[AP]

131. Unfortunately, Dems aren't running for President of Minnesota

and none have the incredibly well-formed persona of Paul Wellstone. Notice Paul Wellstone died in a small plane accident too.

[goobergunch]

139. You miss my point

This is evidence that voing on principle AGAINST the IWR actually helped a candidate who did it.

And Minnesota is actually not so far off of the nation: in 2000, it voted for Gore by 2.4%, while the nation voted for Gore by .3%.

[Tinoire]

142. Not to change the subject (really)

but Cheney had threatened Wellstone about that vote. Wellstone mentioned the clear threat at one of his last speeches. Creepy huh?

I don't think I book-marked it but there was a sourced DU thread to that effect.

[goobergunch]

146. Doesn't suprise me

Remember that Nation story where Rove or somebody close to him said that beating Wellstone was "personal"?

[Tinoire]

150. No. Damn you AP

for making sense and reminding me that they do kill you when you rage too much against the machine.

Never, by the way, would I question your sincerity or committment to real progress.

Like I said, thanks to you, I go back and forth on Edwards. I have the luxury of being in one of the last states to caucus. If I have to make a difference between Kerry and Edwards, I am inclined to make the difference for Edwards.

Kerry. From my number 2 to non-negotiable.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

11. Surprises me

all the talk of painful decisions to drop support for a candidate and throw it to another. What is more surprising is that support will be taken from the second place candidate and thrown to the third place candidate because they are better positioned to go head to head with the frontrunner. Seems to lack logic to me.

[spooky3]

19. I think he's just saying that if his favorite candidate

Dean, chooses to pull out, and Edwards does not, he will go with Edwards. It's debatable who is in 2nd vs. 3rd at this point (e.g., without the superdelegates, who are switch allegiance, Edwards is in 2nd but with them, Dean is), but I don't really think that is the issue.

[Padraig18]

24. Correct.

Unless Howard puts in a *credible* second-place showing, or IF he decides to cease actively campaigning, I will support Sen. Edwards. Those are the 'terminal events', for me.

[drfemoe]

69. So how long are going to give Edwards to

make a *credible* second place showing? Dean is in 2nd with delegates and you say that's not good enough, you're going to support the third place candidate? Is that it?

[AP]

73. Edwards isn't the one with staffers quitting on Wed and who's cancelling

his events and his charter plane contract.

[drfemoe]

80. Edwards also isn't the only

REAL alternative to Republican politics as usual, as Howard Dean is. Dean said he is NOT quitting ...

"That is true," Dean said. "We're going to reassess -- we're going to keep going, no matter what, because I think there are a lot of people all over this country who want to rebuild the party and rebuild America in a different way."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4361299

And a bunch of us are not quitting either. He still has the second largest delegate count and charter plane or no charter plane doesn't change THAT.

[AP]

82. Dean cancelled his charter plane contract, right?

[drfemoe]

83. There is no evidence

of which I am aware that he HAD a charter plane CONTRACT. So, no, I have no information that he cancelled a charter plane contract.

I posted an article with additional details.

[AP]

100. I thought I saw Dean respond to this today.

[drfemoe]

128. Another article

DEAN: Well, you know, that — certainly, people didn't feel like that when I was the front-runner in December. So I think we do have a right to press on our campaigns. Senator Edwards and I are working very hard. And I think voters really do need a choice.

This is based on momentum. We know that people don't know any of the three of us particularly well. And what's going on now is simply a rush to anoint the front-runner.

DEAN: Well, I really hope that Wisconsin folks will take a closer look at that, because I think we really need to know something about the candidates before we decide who's going to be the strongest nominee against George Bush.

WALLACE: Governor, our chief political correspondent, Carl Cameron, is reporting that several of your top campaign aides have already told your campaign that they're going to leave Vermont after Tuesday, they're going home, that there's no point in continuing. Is that true?

DEAN: Not to my knowledge. Nobody's told me that. So, you know, news is entertainment these days, and you can believe some of it but not all of it. And I have no knowledge if that's true, but nobody's told me that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111452,00.html

[spooky3]

9. Well put, Padraig. And if it goes the other way

(i.e., Edwards finishes a distant 3rd or worse and decides to get out of the campaign) I will support Dean.

[Padraig18]

12. Thanks!

It broke my heart to reach that decision, but tough decisions rarely leave one happy; still, they must be made with an eye firmly on the purpose of the exercise.

:cry:

[WiseMen]

13. Congratulations on a hard fought race. Supported your Leader w Passion

[Paulie]

15. Hard fought race, with 20% decided?

Padrig, even though I don't think Dean is the one, atleast wait till March 16th. You owe it to yourself to vote for whom you wish.

[Padraig18]

17. I'll vote strategically 3/16.

Edwards doesn't have a full slate of delegates in my Cong. district, so I'll decide what to do then, depending on that 'lay of the land'.

[anti-NAFTA]

14. I might also switch to Edwards.

If it comes to Kerry vs. Edwards I'll pick the less NAFTA-friendly candidate thank you very much.

It also depends on whether Edwards speaks up about this issue in the debate today.

[spooky3]

16. He ran on an anti-NAFTA platform in 1998 and mentioned

his opposition last night at the JJ dinner. It will depend on what questions he gets tonight.

[anti-NAFTA]

28. He did? Wow.

I thought he recently gave lip service to the issue because of Gephardt's and Kucinich's bringing it up. If you're telling me he was anti-NAFTA all along...

[AP]

33. Dan Schorr on NPR said the DLC doesn't like Edwards b/c he's anti-NAFTA

he has been anti-NAFTA, pro-US jobs since he first ran. He's voted that way consistently (he has voted against NAFTA whenever it threatened NC jobs, according to Schorr on NPR). This is part of his core identity.

[flpoljunkie]

44. Edwards does not let out he voted for the 2000 China trade deal

This could be construed as disingenuous. Has Edwards made any attempt to explain this vote for the China trade deal and how it squares with his increasingly populist campaign rhetoric?

Link to Senate roll call vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251

[AP]

62. I believe Edwards's position is that China is cheating on that deal

and they need to be held to it.

I believe the plan was that that trade bill was supposed to channel China trade in a way that wouldn't allow them to compete unfairly.

If you know more, let us know.

Only 7 Dems voted against that bill, by the way. 8 Repubicans voted no. So I don't think this was a straight up "NO=liberal" issue.

[anti-NAFTA]

96. I don't think trade is a "no = liberal" issue to begin with.

But it is a "yes=scumbag" issue.

Anyway, I prefer Edwards infinitely over Kerry.

[Cogito]

20. NO flames

As a Clark supporter (now switched to Kerry) I respect your decision to switch to Edwards. He is a fine candidate who very well may be a better candidate than Kerry. It is a painful process to leave a candidate that one has been passionately supporting. Having just gone through it I can say that I don't feel any of the enthusiasm yet that I felt before. But I remember the process of switching from Dean to Clark back in November. Clark started out as a kind of insurance policy for me, someone who looked more electable than Dean but who shared some of the basic positions on the war. But as the primary wore on, perhaps by constantly defending Clark, I became less enthusiastic about Dean and more for Clark. By the time Clark was ready to drop out I had switched from having Dean as a strong second to preferring either Edwards or Kerry to Dean. Pretty soon, according to the Republicans, the onslaught against Kerry is going to begin. I am counting on the Repubs to remind me over and over again why this election is so important.

[Egnever]

21. Youch!

Sorry to hear it has gotten to that point for you Pad. Though I do understand the desire to head off the Kerry train at all costs.

My vote has already been cast as of yesterday. It felt good to vote my heart and even better to be able to stand in the middle of a crowd of democrats and easily defend Howard against the Kerry crowd. I don't know if I would have been nearly as effective were Edwards the one I was trying to defend my heart just wouldn't have been there.

But I totally understand your decision is being made from a practical standpoint and hope that somehow you are not forced to go that route.

Your support has been great!

Good luck in your endeavor If you tip the scales in Edwards favor over Kerry I will be sad that you had to do it.But the results will have been worth it.

I certainly don't like Edwards record but I prefer him to Kerry.

I hope that decision isn't forced on you.

[w13rd0]

22. Dean is staying in this...

...and so am I. We're only a quarter of the way there, and we live in interesting times. I don't care how he does in Wisconsin, I am supporting someone because I want someone to vote FOR, not just someone to vote against.

[John_H]

25. Just like clockwork: good ol' yankee common sense and patriotism kick in

Always happens, always will. Americans see a job that needs doing to save their country--in this case removing the most corrupt and vicious andministration in history--and do what it takes to get it done.

Dean wants to be president more than anything, yet I predict after wednesday his support drops by more than 50 percent.

[Padraig18]

27. It may well drop.

But none of us will make the decision gladly.

[Crunchy Frog]

I really respect you Padraig

I know how hard it is to let go of a dream. My candidate made it easier for me by dropping out when it became clear to him that he didn't have a realistic chance. It felt absolutely devestating to let go of him, and my dreams of having him as President.

It takes alot of courage to do what you are doing. I also respect the real dedication you put into your candidate for so long.

Good luck, and good healing.:hug:

[Padraig18]

31. Thanks!

The dream lives on! :hug:

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Lindsey]

37. I also support (ed) Dean even to the tune of donating

cash that I don't have a lot of. I've donated $75 and now am having $20 deducted from a credit card monthly. However, I agree 100% about Dean getting out. The thought of living in this country through another four years of the corrupt * regime is completely inconceivable to me. I literally will have to take any and all action necessary to move to either Canada or Cosat Rica (these are the two options that I've narrowed it down to). I adhere to the "anyone but Bush" philosophy and will until the very end. (I'm so adamant about this that I even would have voted for Lieberman). That's just where I am.

[Tinoire]

34. I am so disappointed but not in you

I am disappointed in these entire Primaries. I feel as if we've all been robbed after having waited patiently for this day for 3+ years.

For 3+ years we raged in our hearts willing to play the game by their rules and we aren't even being allowed to go through a Primary Season supporting the candidates we believe in. You know I'm no big fan of Dean and wasn't of Clark either but, in a fair system (which I would have hoped the DNC believed in) every single candidate up there would have been guaranteed fair exposure and the means to take his supporters' fight to the very end. Instead we are forced to strategically try to outmanouver the corporations and their media in a pathetic attempt to end up with the lesser of two evils.

What manner of democracy is this? And from the Democratic Party? People having to band together and "settle" in order to outmanouver the goon squads within our own party? ((Read Egnever's report & ensuing comments of his state's caucus yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=335557 )) Ex-presidents asking other Presidents not to endorse certain candidates right before a pre-arranged ceremony?

Heart-breaking Padraig. I do not know what to tell you to do.

Remember though that the race is still close. We are barely out of the starting gate.

Kerry has 555
Dean 187
Edwards 166

Whatever decision you make, as long as your heart & conscience are in it, I'm ok with it Padraig & hope you won't stress. Both Dean and Edwards should be proud of having your support.

[Padraig18]

35. I will work to change this assinine primary system.

That's where my REAL disappointment lies: IA and NH were allowed to decide it all, with the primary setup we have. I will work tirelessly to change this most un-Democratic of 'democratic' systems.

[Tinoire]

38. Remember though that you always have California right now

and we are a relcalcitrant bunch that doesn't like to be told what to think, told for whom to vote, or force-fed.

We can always swing this thing around for you near the end.

I will work too to change this absolutely dishonest system.

We should all hold our caucauses on the same day!

Either that or carve the US up into 4 regions and rotate the caucus order. The system we have now is a pathetic joke that's being ruthlessly exploited.

I was angry at some of the things Trippi did in Iowa (bussing/flying in people) but now that I see what he was up against- I am glad he did).

Damn the DLC to hell.

[texasmom]

68. Padraig

I'll be working with you. It has been a very disappointing experience, and it isn't the way the Democratic party should choose the Democratic nominee. We have to get rid of the front-loaded system and, I hope, implement rotating regional primaries.

Re: your main post:
I know how hard it was to come to this decision.

[Padraig18]

101. Thank you, texasmom.

I'm truly heartbroken to have to had to make this decision, but these calls are never easy, I suppose. *sigh*

[Leilani]

134. I started a thread on this topic yesterday

& was surprised at the response I got.

When your candidate loses fair & square, it makes it easier to accept. But when you feel the System has been stacked against you, & regardless of what you do, it was preordained, well that sucks.

There were some excerpts posted yesterday, that showed this was a done deal from the beginning, & when you realize that, you become more cynical.

We also discussed trying to exert pressure to change the primaries.
If you come up with some ideas, there are loads of Clark people who would be happy to work with you. I know I will.

Sorry about the decision you had to make. Use your anger to try to change the system. That's the only way I am dealing with the frustration.

[Cuban_Liberal]

189. I think we all need to quit badgering Dean supporters.

Tomorrow may be a difficult day for some of them, like Paddy, who will be looking at the results and deciding what to do. Whether they stay on board, or switch to another campaign, or become uncommitted, we WON'T help them at all by needlessly attacking or worrying them.

Let them reach their own decisions, and respect the decision that they make, because we may well face the same decision down the road and would like the same courtesy extended to US, I'm quite sure.

:)

[Renew Deal]

36. Didn't you expect it to go this way.

I don't know what your experience with elections is, but these things usually end by Super Tuesday. It happens pretty much every time including 2000 and '96 (Dole), and '92. Terry M. had said that he wanted 2 candidates after Feb. 3. He had 6. Now he has 5. By the end of this week we will have 1 or 2 people left not counting Edwards. I think Edwards may drop out this week too.

You have been waiting for 3 years, but I think you are waiting for the wrong thing. Yes, Kucinich has done a pretty good job representing your interests, but a lot depends on you personally. Each individual is responsible for making their opinions heard. Have you tried joining your local dem committee? Are you a delegate for Kucinich? You might get to go to the convention. You have to plug yourself in with the party if you want it to look more like you. I see a lot of bitching here from all kinds of people. But every individual is responsible for the advancement of this party.

[Tinoire]

42. Bleachers- you have no idea who you're talking to

Your concern, especially when compared to your desire to purge people from the Democratic Party is... touching.

Have no fears. My little UN-represented group is very, very busy.

====

I'm sorry and terribly fearful for this state we are in. Your vote is terribly misguided, John. Now that veterans have reorganized throughout the nation as once again an important part of the growing movement, know that we shall work hard for your defeat, whether as a Presidential candidate or for another Senate term.

from "An Open Letter to Sen. John Kerry on Iraq"
by BRIAN WILLSON

http://brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html

Proud member of Veterans for Peace
Proud member of Code Pink
Purpose in life- Defeating Militarism and the Politics of Fear

[Renew Deal]

60. Of course I have no idea who I am talking to.

But I will tell you this, if you are going out of the way to defeat the democratic nominee, you are the enemy. Would you prefer Bush stay in power? I don't understand the mindset of the self defeating democrat. Kerry (who I did not initially support) has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Kerry has the longest history in the congress and he has the most agreeable record with the ADA, even better than Kucinich.

2004 Presidential Candidates’ Lifetime ADA Voting Ratings
Sen. John Kerry 92

Former Sen. Moseley Braun 88

Rep. Dennis Kucinich 86

Sen. John Edwards 85

Sen. Joseph Lieberman 78

Rep. Richard Gephardt 74

http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/2004PR_1/2004pr_1.HTM

His war vote was a mistake, I agree. But Kerry has done everything to please the left in the past. He voted against Gulf War 1. He voted against all kinds of weapon systems. He has voted to shrink the defense department and has a stellar environmental record. According to the League of conservation voters, Kerry had a 92 rating for last year and Kucinich had a 95. That's a one vote difference. But he is the real difference. The American conservative union ratings. Kucinich has a lifetime 15 rating and Kerry has a 5.
http://acuratings.com/

So you support a candidate that has agreed with the Republicans as much or more than Kerry, but Kerry is the enemy. How does that make sense? You want to see Bush elected over Kerry, maybe you will get what you crave.

[Tinoire]

84. Well fine Bleachers. Purge me. Keep labeling some Dems "the enemy"

My enemy is corporate globalization which is just another tool of the Anglo-teutonic imperialism that has brought so much misery to the world. What's your enemy? Some elusive Republican Party bogeyman that's being eaten away by the same neo-cancer that's eating away at the Democratic Party? YOU then are part of my problem! You then are MY enemy because you support the interests that are destroying this country and world peace because all it seems to take to keep you happy are a few crumbs to the little people as imperialism happily goes marching on re-arranging the geo-political borders of this world. From Rhodes to Skull and Bones. I am not surpised because their goals are the same. Is that what you grave? A strong Anglo empire?

And don't think I always had it out for Kerry either Bleachers. He started out as my number 2 because I fell for that same crap you're peddling right now and thought I could forgive him for his Bush/war-enabling votes but I came to back to reason quickly enough after Scott Ritter let the world know that Kerry KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq. And talking about his liberal voting record- does that include his informed war votes that are getting innocents killed? Does that include all the votes Kerry ducked out of? Most senators were present for more than 90 percent of the votes. Kerry? "The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes."


Aside from the war, provided I could overlook that, which I can't, there's also NAFTA (and here I'll refer you to Anti-NAFTA's great thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065#316097). There is utility privatization which is one of the stipulations in NAFTA and GATT. There are the tools of Corporate Globalization. There's Plan Colombia. There's Haiti. There's Yugoslavia. There's the Patriot Act. Did the ADA factor those? I didn't think so.

Reposting a post I made to Magistrate yesterday because while pushing the DLC's candidate you're both beating that disgusting ABB drum that's supposed to make people overlook how loathesome Kerry is.

You like Kerry so you defend him. I don't like corporate lackeys

I do not like Kerry's pandering to corporate interests over the years or his gutless pandering to the war machine. His ability to raise money from special interests is most unconvincing as an argument to vote for him.

I want an ethical man and Kerry is not that man. If we have to become like the Republicans to beat them, why bother with this troublesome charade?

From that article:
Kerry met a top Predictive executive on 25 July, 2000. A day later Kerry introduced a Senate bill that would allow internet firms to monitor what their consumers were viewing and that Predictive had been lobbying for. Yet we shouldn't be concerned? We should be happy that corporations have found a man to finance? I am not happy!

You may be willing to tolerate & pragmatically excuse that sort of thing; I simply can't. Especially not for a war mongerer. Dean, whose positions I don't all agree with, at least has the saving grace of receiving almost all of his money from the people to whom he will be beholden. Kerry has already shown us to whom he's beholden and it isn't the people.

===
So while it may be true that in that majority of cases the actual outcome of the final passage is not affected by the no vote, the fact is it will not look good in a debate when bush says “Senator Kerry, you missed 63 out of 183 votes in 2003 alone. The American public is not going to look deep enough to really see that it doesn’t matter. All they know is they have to show up for work regardless or they do not get paid.

Everyone is talking about the fact that Kerry voted for the no child left behind act but very few people also know that on 3/11/03, by a slim majority senators successfully tabled the Murry Mmendment #284 to fully fund the NCLB act and reduce debt by reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers. The motion to table succeeded by two vote’s. Guess which 2 Senators did not bother to vote. Kerry and Edwards.

The same thing happened on that day with the Murry Amendment #258 to improve the availability of contraceptives for women. It failed by 2 votes. Once again Senators Kerry and Edwards did not bother to vote their mind.

Other important legislation that Kerry did not bother to vote on were:


To prohibit the procedure know as partial birth abortion….no vote

Vote to make Tom Ridge Sec. of Homeland Security….no vote

#S.151 to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, clearing the measure for the President ….no vote

Boxer Amendment No. 684, to require a specific plan to help AIDS orphans….. No vote

Gregg Amendment No. 945, to ensure that there is competition in the pharmaceutical industry and increased access to affordable drugs. No vote

Dorgan Amendment No. 946, to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals. No vote

FCC Media Ownership bill: S.J. Res. 17, disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership. No vote

S. 877, to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. No vote

H.R. 1828, to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East. No vote

Kyl/Sessions Modified Amendment No. 288, to provide financial security to family farm and small business owners by ending the practice of taxing someone at death. No vote


http://www.uniquesnowflake.com/archives/000585.php

===============

A man beholden to the people doesn't skip out on 59% of this year's votes in the Senate where the GOP enjoys a majority. Here is a list of all the votes that Kerry missed. This list does not include the 2 votes during his 2/12-25/03 surgery and recovery.

1: Procedural Motion - Adjourn to Time Certain
2: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security
3: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security
4: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Block Grants
5: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Funding
6: FY 2003 Approp.s - Rural Antidrug Program
7: FY 2003 Approp.s - Spending Reinstatement
8: FY 2003 Approp.s - Foreign Cruise Ships
13: Ridge Nomination - Confirmation
14: FY 2003 Approp.s - Unemployment Ins.
15: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief
16: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief
17: FY 2003 Approp.s - African Famine Relief
18: FY 2003 Approp.s - US AirPension Plan
26: FY 2003 Approp.s - Prohibit Quotas for Job Priv.
31: Adams Nomination - Confirmation
32: Otero Nomination - Confirmation
33: Junell Nomination - Confirmation
36: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance
37: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance
39: Pledge of Allegiance - Adoption
44: Frost Nomination - Confirmation
45: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Emer. Contracep.s
46: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception
47: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Motion to Commit
49: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception
50: Quarles Nomination - Confirmation
51: "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban - Passage
52: Varlan Nomination - Confirmation
53: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
54: Bybee Nomination - Confirmation
55: Breen Nomination - Confirmation
60: FY 2004 Budget Res. - Education Funding
109: Coalition Member Support - Adoption
110: Military Tax Breaks - Passage
111: Selna Nomination - Confirmation
112: Springmann Nomination - Confirmation
114: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
115: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Port Security
116: FY '03 War Supp. - Nat'l. Guard & Reserves
117: FY '03 War Suppl. - Aircraft Missile Def.
118: FY '03 War Suppl. - Ind. Member Projects
119: FY '03 War Suppl. - Counterterror Funding
120: FY '03 War Suppl. - Homeland Security
121: FY 2003 War Supplemental - War Costs
122: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding
123: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding
124: FY '03 War Suppl. - Iraqi Food Assistance
125: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Passage
126: Carney Nomination - Confirmation
132: Protections for Children - Conf. Report
133: Swimmer Nomination – Confirmation
135: Sutton Nomination - Confirmation
139: Cook Nomination - Confirmation
140: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
141: Altonaga Nomination - Confirmation
145: FISA Warrants - Feinstein Substitute
146: FISA Warrants - Passage
147: Tax Reductions - On-Budget Surplus
180: Global AIDS Relief - Abstinence Programs
181: Global AIDS Relief - Drug Pricing
182: Global AIDS Relief - AIDS Orphans
183: Global AIDS Relief - Aid to Carib. Nations
184: Hicks Nomination - Confirmation
185: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Reservist Health Care
186: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
187: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
188: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
189: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Penetrator Weapons
192: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Overseas Abortions
193: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Defense Contracts
194: FY 2004 Defense Authorization - Passage
195: Callahan Nomination - Confirmation
202: Debt Limit Increase - Passage
203: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
204: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
205: FY 2004 Defense Authoriz. - Base Closures
206: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
211: Chertoff Nomination - Confirmation
216: Greer Nomination - Confirmation
217: Kravitz Nomination - Confirmation
218: Energy Policy - Energy Commodity Trading
219: Energy Policy - Indian Energy Projects
220: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage
223: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Pilot Age Requirements
224: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Foreign Repair Stations
225: FY 2004 FAA Reauthorization - Passage
226: Pate Nomination - Confirmation
227: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Within Medicare
228: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Disclosure
229: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Cap
230: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Patents
231: American History and Civics Academies - Passage
232: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Importation
233: Prescription Drug Benefit - Third-Party Coverage
234: Prescription Drug Benefit - Open Enrollment Period
235: Prescription Drug Benefit - Canadian Price Equity
236: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost Sharing Extension
237: Prescription Drug Benefit - Congressional Coverage
238: Prescription Drug Benefit - Two-Year Fallback Plan
239: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Availability
240: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Coverage
241: Prescription Drug Benefit - Employer Compensation
242: Prescription Drug Benefit - Health Centers
243: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements
244: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction
245: Prescription Drug Benefit - Durbin Substitute
246: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost-Effectiveness Studies
247: Prescription Drug Benefit - Disability Services
248: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements
249: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Care
250: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Patient Coverage
251: Prescription Drug Benefit - Asset Test
252: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alzheimer's Subsidy
253: Prescription Drug Benefit - Additional Disease Treatment
254: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction
255: Prescription Drug Benefit - Experimental Drug Coverage
256: Prescription Drug Benefit - Immigrant Coverage
257: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Coverage
258: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medigap Policies
259: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Fallback Plan
260: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alternative Plan
261: Prescription Drug Benefit - Means Test
262: Prescription Drug Benefit - Passage
263: Campbell Nomination - Confirmation
264: Medical Malpractice - Cloture
265: Wolski Nomination – Confirmation
266: Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed
267: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthorization - Mexico City Policy
269: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauth. - Unemployment Insurance
270: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthoriz. - HIV/AIDS Funding
272: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - AmeriCorps
273: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - Passage
274: FY 2004 Military Construction Appropriations - Passage
275: Der-Yeghiayan Nomination - Confirmation
276: Suko Nomination - Confirmation
277: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Troop Deployments
278: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Cost of Iraq Operations
279: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Detainees
280: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage
281: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraq War Costs
282: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Health Care
283: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraqi Reconstruction
284: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Iraqi Intel. Commission
285: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Unauthorized Approp.s
286: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Overseas Military Funding
287: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Intelligence Funding
288: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - HIV/AIDS Funding
289: Duncan Nomination - Confirmation
290: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Passage
291: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Approp.s Increase
292: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Law Enforcement Costs
293: FY '04 Hom. Sec. Appr. - Emer. Mgmt. Planning Grants
294: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Port Security
295: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Explosive Device
296: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Firefighter Grants
297: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Chemical Plant Sec.
298: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Canadian Border Sec.
299: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr - First Responder Funding
300: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Maritime Security
301: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas
302: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas
303: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Federal Advisory Boards
304: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Transit Security
305: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr.s - Lobbying Restrictions
306: FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations - Passage
307: Yeakel Nomination - Confirmation
308: Owen Nomination - Cloture
309: Energy Policy - Fuel Economy Standards
310: Energy Policy - Fuel Economy Standards
311: Energy Policy - Price Manipulation
312: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
313: Energy Policy - Utility Mergers
314: Energy Policy - Standard Market Design
315: Energy Policy - Internal Transactions
316: Pryor Nomination - Cloture
317: Energy Policy - Passage
318: U.S.-Singapore Trade - Passage
319: U.S.-Chile Trade - Passage
320: Cohn Nomination - Confirmation
321: Montalvo Nomination - Confirmation
322: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - Hispanic Edu. Prog.s
323: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Approp.s - Impact Aid
324: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - IDEA Funding
325: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Job Training
326: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Rural Edu. Grants
327: Colloton Nomination - Confirmation
328: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr..s - Bioterr. Workforce
329: 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - School Construction
330: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Title I Funding
331: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Higher Education
332: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - HIV/AIDS Funding
333: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Approp.s - Head Start
336: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - LIHEAP Assist.
339: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Fin. Aid Eligibility
340: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - After-school Progr.s
341: FY '04 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr. - Safe Child./Fam. Prom.
342: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - Education Funding
343: FY '04 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr. - Teacher Quality Progr.s
344: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr..s - After School Progr.s
345: FY '04 Lab.-HHS-Ed. App.. - W. Nile/Mosquito Control
346: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - NIH Funding
347: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations - Passage
348: Media Ownership Rule Disapproval - Passage
349: FY 2004 Energy/Water Appr.s - Adv. Nucl. Weapons 350: FY 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations - Passage
351: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - Disagree to House Amend.
352: Proctor Nomination - Confirmation
353: Feuerstein Nomination - Confirmation
354: Conrad Nomination - Confirmation
355: Floyd Nomination - Confirmation
356: FY 2004 Interior Appropriations - Indian Health Service
357: Gibson Nomination - Confirmation
358: FY 2004 Interior Approp.s - National Mall Ad Ban
359: FY 2004 Interior Appr.s - Judicial Review of Timber Sales
360: FY 2004 Int. Appr.s - Competitive Sourcing Annual Rept.
361: FY 2004 Int. Appr.s - Compet. Sourcing Rev. Prohibition
362: FY 2004 Interior Appr.s - Indian Health Service Funding
363: Burns Nomination - Confirmation
364: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Conference Report
365: Do-Not-Call Registry - Passage
366: Sabraw Nomination - Confirmation
367: Mosman Nomination - Confirmation
368: Bea Nomination - Confirmation
369: Crone Nomination - Confirmation
370: White Nomination - Confirmation
371: FY 2004 Suppl. for Iraq/Afghanistan - Iraqi Reconstruc.
376: FY 2004 Suppl. for Iraq/Afghanistan - Safety Equipment
377: Genetic Nondiscrimination - Passage
378: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Iraqi Lib. Medal
379: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Domestic Spending
380: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Reconstr. Financing
381: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Mil Res. Retire. Age
382: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Add'l Army Personnel
383: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Congressional Report
384: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Removal Of Saddam
398: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Cong. Approval

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3073

I welcome you to take this list with a grain of salt since it is from a Republican Web-site (which means they are already making an issue of it as am I because it calls into question Kerry's dedication & integrity about representing the people) but it is easily verifiable by going here:
http://capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/issuesdbq/votesearch.dbq?command=member2&...
It is interesting to note that no votes affecting the Telecommunications Industry were missed.

[Renew Deal]

107. There are issues in there I can never help you with.

I couldn't find anything substantial about Kerry's votes missed through the years. I found that in 97 he missed one vote and in 2000 he missed no votes. Last year he was running for President and he missed a bunch of votes, but I don't hold that against him. He might have strategically missed votes. That's not my issue.

I always felt that Kerry votes strategically on Iraq, but I can live with his vote. He may have made a mistake, but would he make the same decision as Bush in the same situation? I think not.

You have some concerns that no one can do anything about. But what did you expect? Did you really believe that Dean could win (he couldn't, but not because of corporations, because he is shifty and combustible)? And you still haven't said what you are doing within the party to make it better. I see a lot of complaining, but no claims of action.

Remember, someone working against the democratic nominee makes them as much of a Bush enabler as any candidate might have been with a single vote. Probably more so since that person is trying to take away votes.

[goobergunch]

117. Only a single vote?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00094
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00248

Kerry voted for:

the USA PATRIOT Act
the No Child Left Behind Act
the Energy bill
the Fast Track bill
the Iraq resolution
the Homeland Security Act

[GreenArrow]

162. Edwards' votes on same issues

Yea:

Patriot Act
NCLB
Energy Bill
IWR
Homeland Security

Nay:

Fast Track

Clearly, Edwards is demonstrably better.

[Renew Deal]

166. Is that a joke?

Throw the Bankruptcy reform act in for Edwards and he isn't.

[GreenArrow]

167. it was a joke, sort of

If Kerry's gonna take crap for his votes, I fail to see where Edwards is much better... and I believe Kerry has a better chance to beat Bush. Maybe Edwards is further to the left than he presents himself; all I can base him on his voting record. I'm not encouraged.

[Renew Deal]

169. I was arguing this stuff for a while.

It sucks if these are the guys that win the nomineation over some of the others, but it appears that's where we're at.

[Renew Deal]

165. That's correct

But the context was different.

[Tinoire]

120. Will you please quit with the DLC crap that Kerry is the nominee?

Also, I'm not a Dean supporter but he is currently palatable to me because he is the people's choice. The break-down of the donations is all the proof you need of that. Kerry, Clinton & the DLC can hire all the goons they want to show up at the caucuses and that will still never make him the people's choice nor will their intense pressure rush us to yet another early coronation.

To hear you talk, one would think we were much further than 1/4 of the way through the Primaries. The DLC must be terrified.

Since you are so concerned about what I'm doing with the party, it's unfortunate you didn't start posting at DU until the politically expedient pre-Primary season when that is what we were working on in order to "Beat Bush & his machinery"- a fight that is being eroded by the pushers of the tepid "ABB" designed to lull us into accepting yet another candidate from the PNAC-loving, PNAC-enabling, and PNAC-up to its neck DLC. Maybe you could rummage through the archives to satisfy your concerns :shrug:

http://oldamericancentury.org/bushco.htm

[Renew Deal]

168. When did I ever say Kerry was the nominee.

You see what you want to see in what I write. I never said Kerry was the nominee. I never said you support Dean. I also never said I supported Kerry. All I have said is that I will support Kerry if he is the nominee. I would support any one of them.

You have any proof that that someone hired goons to commit election fraud or did you just make that up? Even the most paranoid people here aren't saying that.

I don't know how the DLC feels and I don't care. I piled them into the purge list as part of that discussion.

So all you have done to fix everything that has bothered you so much about the party is hang out at DU and shown up at anti-war rallies. There are a million things you can do within the party structure. I keep suggesting that. And now you assume the extent of my experience is the amount of time I have been to DU? Sorry, but I don't know about every website out there. You know how I found out about DU. From some DUer who referred me to a post. I haven't left since. Yes, I am here to make you like the DLC. I have been running a DLC PR campaign at DU. I was a Clark supporter. He was not in the DLC and had nothing to do with PNAC.

You had a candidate in Clark who before he ran for president testified against the war. He wrote 2 books before he ran about the horrors of war including one that said we shouldn't be going into Iraq, but that's not enough. Now you have Kerry, a guy with a voting record more liberal than the one you support (Kucinich), and he isn't good enough? What are you willing to do about it other than wave your ams in the air and post at DU, it's still not clear. If you want to make changes and make things happen, you can. Get on the committees. Run for office. I have no elected experience, but I have asked to possibly run for a house seat because I am passionate for what I believe in. I am sure to you I am a DLC, PNAC hack. But I am not. I am considering doing this because I can make a change. Even if I don;t win, I can put my point of view across. It's unlikely that I will do it for financial reasons, but it's not out of the question.

The idea of my purge post was that if you are just going to complain and do nothing about it (like many committee people do) and not vote for the nominee, what are you really there for anyway.

[Tinoire]

181. Go read DUers' caucus reports. Varied DUers. Varied States.

The Kerry Krew then get up there, or as I like to call them at this cozy town hall meeting, "The Suits" A lifer and his trainee. This guy's dropping names and showing he's a real good "Smiler" The whole "I'm one of you" They play on fears, they praise their boy. They let everyone know, "Hey, This election is over. So, we're going to pass a paper around, everyone write your name down, and get on board the Kerry train."

Well Killingworth, CT didn't buy into it. They had a mind of their own. They started asking questions. "The Suits" started dancing around the topics, getting fuzzy. Saying things that weren't true. When people started disagreeing with them, they tried to get the people to listen but not speak, at their own town meeting. "The Suits" started acting like they were running the show, and not invited. They started saying the information wasn't in on the war yet, not true. They started saying raising lots of money from special interest was a good thing, now is it? When Killingworth showed they had a mind of its own, that liked many different candidates, "The Suits" put on their coats and got out of there. All the other reps stayed to shake hands and talk.

I'm not saying we won Killingworth over to Kucinich, because we didn't (Though we did good in Washington and Maine) I'm saying Killingworth could think for it's self, and was tired of being told what to do, and I really think that great group of people won't make up their mind until March 2nd. I hope all of America is starting to get like Killingworth. If Kerry wins, Kerry wins, but let our party be heard, let it run to the Convention. No more tricks or suits. Real people, real issues, for a real candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=295891#296406

==

Hoppin_Mad Mon Feb-09-04 12:30 AM

23. Not if they're true - Here is one first-hand account from WA


"Here is what happened in my precinct. We won 4 delegates for DEAN because none of the other candidates were viable. In our precinct Dean had over 71% of the votes...

BUT

When I went to the 36th district HQ's to find out what the caucus numbers were for the whole district and I looked on the computer that AMY HAGPOLAIN was entering data on - I discovered she had completely reallocated the delegate allocation for my precinct! She had entered only 1 DELEGATE FOR DEAN (instead of 4) and gave 1 delegate to Clark (note - we did not have a single Clark supporter at our precinct caucus), 1 to Edwards, and 1 to Kerry in my precinct - The precinct that went 71.1% for DEAN with no other candidate being viable or receiving a delegate. That single error affected Dean's delegate count by 1% at the Congressional District level. Looking further into the available paperwork, I found another error in another precinct that was next to mine at the caucus. Of the twelve precincts I had time to look at, I found two errors that gave delegates to Kerry that were not his. I also noticed that the head count in our district said we had 13 people signed in, when it was actually 21!!! That effects the percentage for viability and the delegate allocation!

This woman (AMY) got unbelievably angry (defensive) with me as soon as I pointed out the mistake. She immediately started berating me and started a big argument. We had quite an unpleasant shouting match. Then, she and another 36th District Official named PETE started a viscious passive aggressive game, blaming me for keeping them there to late, calling me a jack-ass, on and on and on. Eventually, they won the battle with the District Chair to stop the recount that we had in progress. I made them all stay as long as I could and we started recounting precincts to make sure that the sign-in (head count) numbers were accurate. We found that the majority of the precinct head counts (from the sign-in sheets) were under counted by one or two people and in some cases by as much as 5 to 10 people!!! A couple of the precincts were over counted.

Then PETE (last name unknown) told the Chair that no copies of the minutes needed to be made and he would keep them at his house. He started loading the Caucus Minutes into his car to take to his house and AMY was taking out tons of paperwork (I don't know what, exactly) while we were discussing when to start the recount again... the few people on my side who were trying to get the re-count done gave up as Pete and Amy talked the Chair into counting tomorrow and then she let them take all the minutes and delegates papers out the door... UNBELIEVABLE… I could not have made this up if I had tried my best! Truth IS stranger than fiction.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE F&^%ED in this District and, quite possibly, this state! I was treated so horribly for finding that first mistake and only wanted to look for more problems. Based on my intial findings this woman named AMY was either (1) inept or lazy and didn't care that she entered the data wrong or (2) she was stealing delegates from DEAN. Either way, it was wrong. When she was asked to correct her error and to look for others - she lost it and BLEW UP! She and her cohort Pete had absolutely no interest in accuracy... they kept repeating to me - "The election is over... Kerry won". They weren't accountable to anyone! This is not about who won - at least not now, anyway. This is about all of the votes at the caucus getting accurately counted so that the delegate allocation is correct. People like AMY and PETE need to be banned from doing this kind political work. I felt like I was a REPUBLICAN 'hanging chad' Party in Florida - or at least what I imagined it to have been like..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=295375#295472

==

IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-09-04 08:54 AM

94. How about the DoveTurnedHawk post about the Kerry supporter he caught

Edited on Mon Feb-09-04 08:55 AM by IndianaGreen
at his Clark meeting. DTH posted a thread about that in this forum last week. The Kerry supporter was ID'ed by someone else. When DTH confronted him, the man confessed that he wanted to be a delegate so bad that he would have gone in as a Clark delegate.

DTH (in rightful indignation IMHO) got the Kerry supporter to leave.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=295375#296385

===

KaraokeKarlton (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-09-04 12:18 AM

13. Well, I find it offensive that when people report inconsistencies they see


in the primary elections (and there are plenty to report) that people try to censor them by trying to make them feel guilty for asking questions when they believe there are valid questions to ask. I don't think anyone is implying that Kerry is messing with the votes, but rather that perhaps the party leadership (or individuals within the leadership) might be up to no good. Caucus sites are being moved at the last minute leaving Dean supporters unaware while Kerry supporters mysteriously know where to go. Changed polling places are being closed after voters who complained about the relocation were promised extra time to get there to vote. And right now, I've personally read many reports from Maine caucus goers who reported Dean won their caucuses or it was a dead heat between Dean and Kerry (Dean was faring VERY well in the largest population centers, by the way), yet the returns we're seeing are implying Kerry is way ahead.

If you were in our shoes you'd be asking questions and raising your eyebrows as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=295375#295426

===

Egnever (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-04 10:04 PM

My Vote went to Dean!

What a strange day it was today here in Nevada.

Today we had our caucus and I was fortunate to be able to cast my vote for the candidate I believe in. Not because the party wanted me to but because I stood my ground.

Strange things that happened today,

Kerry showed up outside the caucus. Apparently thats his right but I found it extremely strange that a candidate should be standing outside on the steps while the people are making their decision. It wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much that he showed perhaps if he hadn't been an hour and a half late and they hadn't held up the vote till after he had time to make his appearance.

Yup thats right Voting was supposed to begin at 9:30 but it didn't begin till 12:30

Rules were changed throughout the process which is something I also thought was strange.

Originally we were supposed to gather in the football field of the a local high school where we would wait till our precincts were called to go into a room that was filled conspicuously with only Kerry posters to cast our votes and elect our delegates. How Kerry was the only one allowed to have posters in the original voting room is beyond me but hey thats politics I suppose.

The Dean camp made arrangements for one of our representatives to stay in the football field and make us aware of when our precincts were called so we could show our support outside the room since we were unrepresented inside of it.

This lasted all of 15 minns before the fire marshals decided that it was unsafe to have people waiting in the courtyard outside the classroom ???? so we were all told that the caucus would be held entirely on the football field.

So off we marched to the football field our Dean contingent gathered on the field and we held our signs high in support of our candidate, There much tongue wagging ensued from the "democratic party leaders" on how we remembered Vietnam and how proud we were to be patriots willing to stand up against this war and asking how many veterans were in the crowd!

I wanted to puke. Our caucus had obviously become a Kerry rally from the top down from holding the voting till after he made his appearance to the speakers pushing the whole Vietnam veteran thing and thanking all the other candidates supporters for participation in their caucus.

The last thing to happen before we were sent to our corners for our precincts was a group of Kerry supporters came and stood in front of us as Kerry signs were passed out to them. Whole football field to stand in and they choose to come line up directly in front of us and then get their signs handed to them I was appalled at the gall but thats politics I guess.

The one thing I heard repeated over and over by the Kerry folks when asked why they made their choice for Kerry was.....

He seems like he is going to be the winer.....

WTF?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=335557

===

lastknowngood Sat Feb-14-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message

12. You got away a lot easier than some have at the caucuses

their have been some arrests and physical violence and much much intimidation from what I have heard on the Dean blogs. Glad you held your ground and it went peacefully. The DNC/DLC has been pushing their preordained Candidate and most people are just falling in line without any idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=335557#335624

===
GodHelpUsAll2 Sat Feb-14-04 10:44 PM

24. Thank you Thank you

For standing your ground and voting your heart. These primaries/causus's have sucked. I was at an actual caucus in Iowa. And have been to a few other states primaries volunteering for Dean. I was a driver for an elderly woman who called campaign headquarters for a ride to caucus in Iowa. It was sickening. Brutal intimidation and near threats was the words used by a young first time caucus goer as he was outside smoking a cigarette with me after the caucus was done. (And for the record, I stayed outside or in the hallway outside the room of the actual caucus but couls see through the door way and hear some of what was going on inside) The so called volunteers present for 2 other candidates whose names I will leave unsaid but will probably be obvious were swarming the place and pushing their candidate before people could even get all the way in the door. It was shameless. Especially since said candidates were the very one's whining about "out of state volunteers flooding the Iowa caucus". I had conversation with these "volunteers" in the halls as the caucus was going on as they would come out and conference with each other on what was going on inside. They were paid out of state people brought in just for caucus night. Funny, I always thought volunteer meant you didn't get paid.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=335557#335729

===
JulieRB (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-08-04 12:24 AM

The view from a Washington caucus


We had quite a day. As you can see, we've been a little busy today, so this was the first chance I had to post on DU. Since I am a Dean supporter, we're bloodied but unbroken. We live in a small town with a supposedly overwhelming Republican population.

Our caucus was packed. Those who are typically at the Duvall caucus said that the turnout was overwhelming. It took the first half hour of the caucus time to get the line registered and in the door. While I was out in the hallway with my Dean brochures and stickers, the Kerry contingent arrived in matching T-shirts ("The Real Deal",) and gosh, how shocked was I? A nice anti-Dean hit piece.

Yes, you read that right.

They passed it out to everyone in line. It was purportedly a "comparison" between Kerry's positions and Dean's positions. I found three different inaccuracies in the first two issues that were being discussed. The Kerry supporters were also very contentious. ("Why waste your vote? Vote for Kerry.") Even Kerry supporters were a bit embarrassed by the antics of the Kerry campaign volunteers, and other Dem candidate supporters were just plain angry. Being the sassy, outspoken person I am, I wasn't going to let this one go. I asked the female Kerry supporter why she thought it was acceptable for Kerry to vote for IWR, the Patriot Act, and the Omnibus bill, and miss upwards of 50% of other votes. She responded with "Well, it was going to pass anyway, and the Patriot Act has a sunset clause." I asked her how people damaged by the loss of their civil rights were ever going to get them back. She didn't want a lot of discussion with me after that.

This is interesting to me. The Kerry people are going out of their way to be nasty, to hit-piece and smear Howard Dean, then they think that we're just supposed to go to the voters' booth and vote for their guy, with no repercussions? I might vote ABB, but I won't support Kerry.

Our precinct split between Dean and Clark. I am a delegate to the next level. I plan to raise hell there, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=290718

For the future, maybe you should consider spending less time on the ra-ra threads and try to listen to what your fellow Democrats here are saying. It would help some of your far flung accusatory statements sound less ridiculous.

The rest of your post doesn't merit much of an answer. It's as personally offensive as your purge post. You might consider watching that. Once again, you have no idea who you're talking to but my psurpose in life is not to justify my existence in the Democratic Party to you.

[Renew Deal]

183. Tinoire, you are a class act,

I don't spend my time in the "ra-ra" threads and this certainly isn't one. I didn't see most of this stuff. I am not on here all the time so I don't read everything that comes up. You should repost this minus the personal message for me. It is an amazing compilation.

I don't understand where these goon squaders are coming from. Have the democrats always been this aggressive? Why aren't we winning more elections? It's obvious the Kerry crowd is very aggressive. I wonder if it is just GOTV or if something larger is going on. Bringing staffers to Iowa to caucus is no biggie, but the intimidation and the threats are disturbing. This is the organized crime type shit you expect from the pukes. I am wondering if Clark never had a chance. I believe Dean never had a chance for a lot of reasons, but I always thought it would be left to the people.

I hope I haven't offended you with anything I have written. I feel like I am taking a shot at the title when I respond to you. It's nothing personal.

As far as the corporatist stuff, I feel like we are beyond the point of no return. I do not see how it will ever change for the better. I think we will slowly boil to a point where everything will be corporations and there is nothing we can do about it. I expect you and others to support the nominee because I feel that person will be better than the alternative (Bush). I feel it is a compromise. It's not what you want, but it's not as bad as it could be. A lot of smart people say never compromise on your principles, but I feel that in this case we don't have a choice. How do you feel about that?

[Tinoire]

185. Thanks Bleachers. So are you because mine was a snitty post

and I have been extremely angry today at what we've lived this last week and what I am seeing as an orchestrated undermining of democracy within our own party. I was wrong to attribute your non-exposure to those posts as a bad faith on your part and I apologize.

I can't answer your question re have Democrats always been this aggressive from personal knowledge but I would guess so. When you read what Trippi did to Cranston when he was working for Mondale, it was very dirty. ((For months I was very angry about Dean hiring a dog like Trippi but then as I understood what he was up against, I realized he'd been right.)) I think, based on things my mom told me and understanding of human nature, that we've always been this aggressive but I am not certain that we've always been so ruthless. There are high, high stakes involved in the next phase of this game and the corporations pushing corporate globalization & other interested parties are not going to give up very easily which is why it's so ruthless. The ruthlessness has nothing to do with beating Bush; it has to do with making sure the Democratic Party gets a corporate/interest-friendly candidate up there. The sheer desperation with which Kerry is trying to get in right now gives me the same sick gut feeling I had when Baker was pushing so hard for Bush to get in. The whole thing leaves me very queasy. I don't know how old you are. I'm 43 and this is the first election I've watched this closely (thanks to the internet) but I'm no Spring chicken when it comes to the evil that men do or then lengths they will go do hide that evil. I've seen, with my own eyes, countless people die- some from starvation in a country the US wanted for cheap labor; others from being gunned down in the streets for merely being thinking people who were an inconvenience to the advance of US imperialism; others for being poor Americans fighting this government's 'undeclared' squirmishes in undiscussed locations all over the world- well, poor Americans and their victims.

This madness has got to end.

Back to your questions though... Why aren't we winning more elections? Please don't shoot me over this answer but after 3 years of watching this all close up, I am believing that Nader was right after all. We're not offering a clear enough alternative to the Republicans and the reason is because both parties are being eaten away by the same cancer and neither caters to the people anymore. We threw larger crumbs but even those get smaller and smaller and people are beginning to see through the charades and becoming either totally apathetic or going third party. Both of those reactions are A-ok with the establishment. As long as nobody rocks their boat, they're happy. This election promised to be different. Some progressives went out and deliberately shopped for a Centrist, fiscally conservative candidate who was not part of the establishment but would appeal to "average" voters. Those were the Dean supporters. And they got one of the most low-down dirty campaign managers available to help them in their anti-establishment fight. They emptied their bank accounts and pushed that man to national spot-light only to watch, not Rove, but the DLC & the DNC destroy the man. They watched Clinton convince Carter, hours before a ceremony where Carter was going to endorse Dean, not to do it. They watched Clinton manouver Clark into the race to slow down Dean and Edwards. Then Clark was unceremoniously jerked out in an extremely tacky manner leaving his supporters stunned. They divided and conquered to get everything prepared for their establishment Dem (who will be either Kerry or Hillary) because they'd been caught so off guard by the furor of Democratic activists, voters, who had sworn not to sit by passively as the DLC (our part of the cancer) led us onto the next stage of the PNAC plan which is more wars, occupation, & corporate globalization. We are in a fight to save the soul of the Democratic Party right now. What good to win the battle if we lose the war and our soul?

Clark never had a chance Bleachers. They knew that from the start. They knew there was no way in hell that Clark would appeal to enough people on the Left to carry this off. Clark supporters had enough faith but Clark was never supposed to win. Those people are such goons they couldn't even let your man decide when he was going to drop out & make the announcement himself. They did the same thing to Clark that they're trying to do to Dean right now. They had his "aides" announce the fait-accompli, that he was dropping out, to the media and would be giving his support to Kerry. Dean's campaign manager announced today that Dean is going to drop out and give his support to Kerry. Notice that Clark refused to make the announcement of his withdrawal the night it happened. I think he was too stunned at their tackiness. Dean was supposed to drop out a couple of weeks ago. He said he wouldn't. So now they have his campaign manager making the announcement for him. Will Dean go as gracefully as Clark? I'm not so sure. Will he endorse Kerry? Even if he does, I think the string-pullers are underestimating the determination of the people fighting the establishment. This is why the frenzied cry of ABB and the mad rush to a coronation. They don't need anyone regrouping behind Dean or God forbid Kucinich. Not even behind Edwards who has committed the cardinal sin of being anti-NAFTA. And those that don't want to regroup as herded need to shut up, quietly fade away, and most of all not vote. Those who talk of voting otherwise (or endorsing in the case of politicians) otherwise need to be purged. This is why that call to purge hurt so much you know- it wasn't the first call, or even the first one that week, but it was the first one by someone who's fighting for the same thing we are. They're not leaving anything to us because our ideas aren't corporate and MIC enough. That's their great fear of Dean. They know full well he's no whacko Leftist but he's got real people behind him, real little people who have broken away from the establishment and its machinery.

You haven't offended me. Made me see red on what has been my worst day ever at DU (culmination of the news this week and the very recent tone) but certainly not offended me. I am particulary sensitive to the pre-mature coronation jubilee (and the tactics) right now and feeling like a snapping turtle.

Well you're right about the corporations but I don't see that stopping with Kerry. Clinton and Gore were horrible when it came to enabling the corporate rape/plunder of the rest of the world. I will be supporting the nominee as much as I can bend my principles. Believe me when I tell you that I am going to have to bend them immensely for Dean and even more for Edwards. With Edwards, it's even going back on a pledge many of us made that we would never, ever vote for an IWR candidate. But Edwards at least has an important saving grace (provable with a track record) and is not insulting our intelligence by telling us he was misled on the war.

More than Edwards, I can't bend. That's as much as my conscience can give when I think of those bodies littering the streets, starving people whose eyes I looked into, or the Iraqi, the Afghan, and the Palestinian people.

I hope you can understand that. That's as far as I can bend because it's already beyond compromise. Anything more than that and I will consider myself unfit to exercise the right to vote. That's just me. I don't judge anyone for supporting Kerry (talking about REAL voters here) or even Bush ((hell, if we're expected to accept that smart politicians were misled on the war, why not accept that smart voters can be misled by Bush?) but I can't do it.

This post is painful because 3, 2 even 1 year ago I was the biggest Clinton junkie-pusher out there and never ever thought I would feel this way. Some of us are very, very jealous of people who are still capable of pulling the lever for anyone with a D after their name.

We've all been robbed. & it hurts deeply. The betrayal is deeper than Bush.

Good-night Bleachers. Hope that makes some sense.

[trogdor]

180. How many of these votes mattered?

I mean, if all 51 GOoPers vote the same way (baaaaaaaa), does it really matter which way you vote?

Edit: Some of that crap the Republicans bring to a vote isn't worthy of acknowledgement.

[Tinoire]

186. Every single one matters. Every single one.

That's what we're paying these people for. And more than the vote, there's also the discussions and the negociations that go into those votes.

Medicare for example mattered a great deal to a great deal of people.

And when you consider that that list doesn't even include the "bad" votes of 2003, it matters even more.

[Desertrose]

85. you really don't know who you are talking to....

and how it sounds...
Your last words are so twisted it makes no sense. ...like adding 1+1 and ending up with 5
"So you support a candidate that has agreed with the Republicans as much or more than Kerry, but Kerry is the enemy. How does that make sense? You want to see Bush elected over Kerry, maybe you will get what you crave."


You are making a lot of assumptions about people on this board and it comes out very condescending and obnoxious.

WE are NOT the enemy...get over it. We have every right to support a candidate and to be disappointed in the Dem party...as a matter of fact, I would lay odds that most DK supporters here on this board are doing a lot more for and in the Dem party than you have a tiny clue about.

You dissing Tinoire has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. You obviously haven't been paying attention...T is one of the smartest,well read most experienced people here....seeing your attitude makes me even more fearful of what we are turning into.

DR

[Renew Deal]

88. Now you are making assumptions

What did I say in that post that wasn't true? Kucinich has a more agreeable voting record with the republicans. I didn't make that up. The Demcrats (ADA) and the pukes (ACU) agree on that. Are you saying that's not true?

I did not say Kucinich supporters are the enemy. She posted a letter from a person that says they will do everything they can to defeat Kerry and said she is doing more than I know. If you are working to defeat the democratic nominee, you are the enemy. You stand with the republicans and anyone else that wants to keep Bush in power. It is a 2 person race. No third party candidate is going to win. So if you are working against the nominee, you are doing the same thing as the pukes.

I agree, you have every right to support Kucinich or anyone. I have never said that someone should not stand by their democratic candidate. But working agianst a democratic candidate bothers me.

I said that I didn't know what she was up to with the party. I also said that if people want change in the party, they should work within it to change it. Do you disagree with that?

Tinoire is a great person and a first class DUer, but is it OK to challenge her? I think so.

[Padraig18]

89. The distinction: Kerry is NOT the nominee.

Until he has the 2161st delegate, their is nothing disloyal about fighting to deny him the nomination.

[Renew Deal]

94. I agree.

But if he becomes the nominee, there is something disloyal in trying to deny him the presidency.

[Padraig18]

97. That I will not do.

I see the peril this nation is in, and I see the even greater peril that 4 more years of * places us in, so I will work vigorously to assure Kerry's election, should he be our nominee. Until then, however, the fight is on.

:hi:

[Mairead]

136. "there is something disloyal in trying to deny him the presidency"

Disloyal? Disloyal to whom? Why isn't HE the disloyal one, for selling us out? What makes him the benchmark against which everyone else must submit to being measured?

[Renew Deal]

171. I guess I should clear it up.

I wrote what I wrote and it assumes he is the nominee. He isn't and I get that. Your questions are fair idealistically. Kerry would be the benchmark if he was the nominee. The benchmark now is probably Clinton. A lot of people aren't going to like that, but Clinton was the last successful well known democrat. You can be either better or worse than Clinton. I wonder if anyone else here has an answer to that.

[Tinoire]

105. Bleachers, you can challenge me anytime but stop please stop

making me see red. Kerry is not the Democratic nominee. And with every breath in my body, I will work to make sure he is not. IF he becomes the Democratic nominee, I will probably leave this web-site in accordance with the rules that will take effect then.

You're only bothered because people are working against your candidate. Are you so bothered when people call for Kucinich to drop out? Are you so bothered when people are working against Dean? Are you so bothered that Clinton and Clark torpedoed Edwards? I hope you are consistently bothered. (( If so, maybe you would be kind enough to express your concern on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=337609 ?))

Blocking Back
Clark stops Edwards from stopping Kerry.
By William Saletan


1. Oklahoma. When Wes Clark entered the presidential race five months ago, I said it was a rebuke to John Kerry for failing to catch on as "the candidate with the war record, the candidate who was supposed to keep the party in the center and fend off the standard-bearer of the left." I still think it was a rebuke. But Kerry reclaimed his role, and now Clark is clearing his path to the end zone by blocking the only candidate who could stop Kerry: John Edwards.

First Clark squashed Edwards's official campaign kickoff in September, leaking word that very day that he would get into the race. Then, a week ago, Clark beat out Edwards for third in New Hampshire by a fraction of a percentage point. That cost Edwards the ability to claim plausibly that he had continued his momentum from Iowa. Tuesday night, it happened again: Clark eked out a margin over Edwards in Oklahoma so narrow that the state election board will have to review the ballots before declaring an official winner. Edwards argued that he had "exceeded my expectations" and that his finish in Oklahoma, combined with his win in South Carolina, was "a continuation of the surge we've seen in other caucuses and primaries."

More: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094915/#ContinueArticle

==

FRIENDLY PERSUASION

Former Vermont Gov. Howie Dean traveled to Georgia on Sunday thinking he was getting an endorsement from Jimmy Carter. Instead, Dean got a lesson in humility from a man not known for possessing much of it. Late last week Dean's staff had been spinning the press in Iowa that a trip to Georgia one day before the caucuses was worth it, especially if it meant getting support from a former Democratic president.

Dean arrived to a warm welcome, some kind words from Carter, and news that the former president had told reporters that he had never extended an invitation to Dean and that the northerner had simply invited himself.

"Governor Dean shows up and everything we thought was planned was now off," says a Dean adviser in New Hampshire. "No endorsement, nothing. It was like we got shivved in the back."

It got worse. Carter also told reporters that he had extended an invitation to Dean's competitor Wesley Clark to come down to spend time with him. It is unclear when Dean's planned coronation by the peanut farmer got crushed, but a Clark staffer in Washington claimed that on Thursday, when word was leaking out about the Dean visit, both Clark and "a very senior friend to the general" made calls to Carter.

Who was the "friend"?

"Let's just say he held the same job as Carter did, but was more successful," says the Clark staffer. "The calls were made to the former president to encourage him not to jump the gun on any endorsements at such a critical time in the campaign. Apparently, President Carter agreed with that assessment."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6040

===

Now as far as working within it. If Kerry wins, it may mean to me that the entire house is so rotten that no amount of paint or new shingling will save it. Sometimes you have to decide if the house is worth saving or if it's better to move on and start building a new house. Winter's coming & I'd like to keep democracy warm again.

[AP]

144. I'll add to this: were you bothered by the lie, "Edwards said Bush's tax

cuts were the engine of economic growth"?

[Renew Deal]

177. No

That's Edwards position. You should bring it up with him.

[Renew Deal]

176. I am trying out my defenses.

You have every right to try to deny Kerry the nomination. I looked back and I don't think I have been totally clear that I understand that there are still elections to be had. But I think you know what I am saying if he is the nominee. I lost my candidate this week, so I am uncommitted. You have not seen any posts from me saying I was from anyone. I am still voting for Clark in NY unless it gets really close. I am trying to defend Kerry because I want to see if I can do it. I need to know about him if he is going to be the nominee. I know some of the candidates well and others not so well. I don't like Edwards. I am don't like Dean much. Forget Sharpton. The only other one I might vote for is Kucinich. I just don't know if it will matter.

I had called for Kucinich to drop out at one point. But I backed off from that for 2 reasons. 1 is that it was a momentary brain fart. The other was seeing how disappointed when Clark left. Clark represented me well and I wished he was out there doing that. I have defended Dean against the pukes, but not here. He has plenty of defenders here. I don't think Clark torpedoed Edwards. Edwards isn't losing because Clark announced he was running a day after Edwards. Edwards was running for 2 years before Clark was. Why didn't he take off? Why did Dean take off?

I was for Clark because I was for Clark. Clark ran because thousands of people wanted him, not Edwards or Dean or Kucinich or whoever. You think Clark is just some tool of Clinton out to destroy candidacies? Not only is that absurd, it's insulting. Clark beat Edwards in those places because more people voted for him to be president than the other guy. Clark is gone now and Edwards is still not winning elections. Lets see if that changes, but so far, he has no prospects to win anything.

You have a problem with Clark and possibly his campaign stopping an endorsement from Carter? I don't. That's politics. You don't now if that writer is accurate or just spouting off. But good for Clark campaign to stop that. And good for Dean's to get the endorsements it did.

I think you personally have an opportunity within this party to make a change. Your example should be Kucinich and Wellstone. These people ran in 50-50 states, they ran as progressives and they won. Why can't you do just as well? Get plugged in and go do it. And I promise you this. If you run for office some day, I will fly out to California for a few days and help you out.

[texasmom]

66. I feel the same way, Tinoire...

3 1/2 years of waiting, believing we were going to have a say and it was over almost as soon as it started. Undemocratic and disillusioning.

[Tinoire]

90. The thing is to not give in. We can get the bastards!

I am so sorry & disgusted that we are going through this but in a way, maybe it's good because our eyes are being opened and we can see what we're up against and how hard it will be. We can also prepare to watch them like hawks, hold their feet to the fire, expose them and force the system to change.

I'm disigusted but not giving up. People wonder why we are getting out in the streets again in March to protest to war. It's more than the war- it's all of this. It's all of the things that those people who smeared ANSWER are fearful of us fighting against.

Hope to be marching with you in the streets! We must make our voice heard.


MARCH 20, 2004
GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION
on the FIRST ANNIVERSARY
of the U.S. BOMBING and INVASION of IRAQ

Bring the troops home now!

End colonial occupation
from Iraq to Palestine and everywhere!

Money for jobs, education, healthcare
and housing - Not war!
Stop the attacks on civil rights and civil liberties!
Times Square in New York City, Dolores Park in San Francisco,
Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles, Michigan & Pearson in Chicago,
and in cities across the U.S.

Downloadable flyers

New York City

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Chicago

Washington DC

Boston

We will demonstrate on March 20 to support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination without condition. Since the invasion began, tens of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed. Thousands of U.S. and British soldiers have been killed or wounded. The Iraqi people are resisting the occupation - they want the foreign soldiers occupying their country to leave, not tomorrow but today. Growing numbers of U.S. soldiers and their families are calling for the troops to be brought home NOW. These soldiers are being sent to kill and be killed for a war that was based on lies and fraud perpetrated by the Bush government. There is only one solution: to end the occupation now! We believe, in the words of the National Council of Arab Americans, that "internationalizing the occupation gives colonialism a new marketable cover and should not be accepted as a viable option for the global popular movement."

We will also demonstrate on March 20 in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, including the right to return to their homes and land. The March 20 demonstration comes only ten days before the anniversary of the historic March 30, 1976, Land Day in Palestine. Calling for liberty, right to return, and self-determination for the Palestinian people on March 20 is an essential political necessity, without which the end to colonial occupations cannot be fully realized. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is part and parcel of the administration's larger colonial project targeting the people of the Middle East. While the Bush administration spends $2 billion per week to occupy Iraq, it spends $15 million each day to support Israel's war against the Palestinian people.

We will demonstrate on March 20 to overturn the "USA Patriot" Act, and to end the repression directed at Arab American, South Asian, Muslim and immigrant communities. We will defend the right to free speech and oppose Bush's and Ashcroft's war on the Bill of Rights.

We will demonstrate on March 20 to call for money for jobs, housing, health care and education, not for war and occupation.

We will demonstrate on March 20 to demand an end to the Bush administration's "Endless War" plans for global domination. We stand for an end to U.S. intervention, occupation and threats against Korea, Colombia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, the Philippines, Haiti and everywhere.

Only the people's movement offers hope that an effective challenge can be mounted to the Bush administration's war drive. While the Democratic Party offers candidates to contend with Bush for the presidency, it agrees with Bush about maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq and supports continued aid to Israel as it wages war against the Palestinian people. On April 20, 2002, 100,000 people marched in an historic demonstration in Washington DC under the banner "Free Palestine." Six months later, on October 26, 2002, hundreds of thousands demonstrated against the pending war of aggression against Iraq. On January 18, February 15-16, March 15, March 22, April 12 and most recently October 25, 2003, tens of millions of people went into the streets around the world to say no to the Bush administration's war drive. This is a monumental struggle waged by the people of the world who seek self-determination, justice and peace. Global solidarity is the centerpiece of the new mass movement that has emerged to counter the forces of militarism and colonialism. The outcome of this struggle will impact on generations to come.

All Out for March 20, 2004!

List of endorsers

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/index.html

Peace

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. I Sympathize

I know how hard it is to watch your chosen candidate do worse than you'd expected or hoped.

I wish you well.

DTH

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Move from 2nd to 3rd place candidate?

I don't get it.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

46. I was thinking the very same thing?

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: ;)

[hellhathnofury]

48. Well he is "an avid Dean supporter."

[Padraig18]

49. That was uncalled for!

:grr:

[hellhathnofury]

52. I think it's quite accurate,

the game isn't over and your leaving at halftime.

[Padraig18]

54. I'm leaving while there's a chance to win!

I stated my reasons clearly, and if you don't like them, TOUGH!

[hellhathnofury]

55. Gary Hart?

[Padraig18]

57. Look!

I haven't flamed, criticized or denigrated your decision to stay on, so please accord ME the same level of respect and LET IT GO!

[hellhathnofury]

59. Gotchya.

[Padraig18]

64. Thanks!

Believe me when I say that I still wish you well, it's simply that I've reached the 'make or break' point. :hi:

[Padraig18]

67. And one more thing:

I will not work against Howard. I will not criticize him, I will not ridicule his decision to stay in, should he so decide, etc. . I truly bear him no ill will of any kind. :)

[Tinoire]

63. Give him a break. We may all soon have to make this choice!

The corporations have our balls in a vise and the principle of banding together for the lesser of 2 evils applies in the Primaries as well as the General election.

I'm angry about this & so is Padraig but we're at the point where we're going to have to gracefully allow people to go with their conscience on this one. That includes people who decide to go Third Party, those who decide to stick with "losing" candidates (but winning causes), those who decide to be pragmatic, and those who decide to support candidates we can't stand.

Our balls are in a vise thanks to the DLC and their Republican love of corporations.

==
Now Kerry must face up to those tough questions

<snip>

Kerry - like Bush - has recruited an army of 'bundlers' who skip around strict campaign finance laws by gathering $2,000 cheques from friends and employees into bundles of $50,000 or $100,000. Kerry has 32 $100,000 bundlers and 87 $50,000 bundlers. They come mainly from powerful law firms, real estate companies, financiers and lobbyists.

Kerry has received more money from lobbyists over the past 15 years than any other serving senator. Some of Kerry's close links with lobbyists have raised eyebrows among supporters used to his campaign slogan: 'From the moment I take up office, I will stand up to special interests.'

Kerry has strong ties to lobbyists for the telecommunications industry. Michael Whouley, a top Kerry political aide, is a registered lobbyist for telecoms giant AT&T. Kerry has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Boston lobbying firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky. Kerry's brother Cameron is a lawyer for the company which represents communications firms and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

Between 1999 and 2002 Kerry sponsored two law bills and co-sponsored six more that were seen as advantageous to CTIA's interests. One of Kerry's main bundlers, Chris Putala, is employed as a lobbyist by the CTIA. 'We are beyond the point of whether he takes money from special interests, but rather what, if anything, has been done in response to the funds,' said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the Centre for Responsive Politics watchdog.

<snip>

But Paul Davis, co-founder of internet firm Predictive Networks, has seen the process of how fundraising and legislation mix. Kerry met a top Predictive executive on 25 July, 2000. A day later Kerry introduced a Senate bill that would allow internet firms to monitor what their consumers were viewing and that Predictive had been lobbying for. In February 2002 Predictive chief executive Devin Hosea threw a fundraiser for Kerry in Boston. Kerry was given a lift back to Washington DC in a private jet. Hosea threw a second fundraising party that summer. In the end Hosea become one of Kerry's $100,000 'bundlers'.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1148524,00.html

[candy331]

53. So sorry you have made that decision

but change is not an easy thing to accomplish. People resist the unfamiliar and tend to want to stay in the comfort zone. Perhaps you could concentrate a little more on that getting Bush out of office is not going to settle systemic issues that have to be changed from the core. I have noted so much switching here on DU and see it as indicative of our society where people want everything instantaneously with no fight/confrontation at all. I hope you can see the long term goals rather than the short sighted plans which I believe will fail anyway. I believe Dean should stay in until the end
because to me this is what shows strength and character... MLK got many death threats but he wouldn't quit being assailed on every side and many even in his own race castigated him and didn't join the cause but his eyes were on the bigger picture. I like to look at King because he was a man with a mission and would not be deterred and I want to hope that Dean/movement has the same determination for the long haul.

[Padraig18]

71. To stop Bush, we must first stop Kerry.

I believe that to the marrow of my bones, and my decision to switch (if I do--remeber my base conditions) is based upon supporting a candidate who has a credible chance of being the 'non-Kerry'. I believe that a Kerry nomination will spell defeat for our party in November, so that is my first priority.

[DancingBear]

45. The heartbreaking choices are sometimes the wisest

I wish I did not know of where I speak, but having just gone through such as experience I wish you well. You represented your man with dignity and grace, and I commend you for it.

As for Dr. Dean, he pushed hard against the hereto for immovable object, and while he didn't knock it off its moorings altogether, he at least got it swaying in the breeze. In these times, that is quite an accomplishment.

Thanks, Governor.

[progressivebydesign]

50. No flames from me...

I'm a Dean supporter. If you feel that you can't go on, and he does continue, then I'm glad you'll be going for Edwards. Funny, though, Dean has more delegates than Edwards, yet he is the one people are urging to leave the race.

If and when Dean leaves the race, I hope he throws his support to Edwards... though, as I said, why in the world someone in second place would leave....

Kerry's problem this week shows the utter stupidity of the marketing vehicle, "electabilty". It was a catch phrase designed to push Kerry forward. Electability only lasts as long as it takes for rumor, facts, or world events, to change. If people had voted with their heart, and not tried to second guess the November election.. if they had voted their FIRST choice, rather than trying to play it safe with Kerry, then the Dean story would have a vastly different ending. Perhaps he and Kerry would have duked it out at the convention, and Kerry may have been victorious, but as it stands now. We are left with an "electable" candidate with a sex scandal. See what happens when we ignore our instincts??

If you must go.. then, as I suspect Dean would do, please do support Edwards. As I will do if and when the time comes.

[Tinoire]

51. Padraig- In case you go to Edwards, Here's some useful info on NAFTA

It works for Kucinich, Edwards & Dean (who changed his mind about it)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065#316097

Very informative thread started by Anti-NAFTA who is very committed to and informed about the issue.

[AP]

76. Anti-Nafta says about the candidates (in post 85 in that thread):

If Kerry calls Dean a "protectionist" then imagine how pro-free-trade would Kerry be. Remember the steel tariffs? I would bet that Kerry would have been adamantly opposed to those tariffs from day one. He is bought by multinationals just like the pukes!

I'm hoping Edwards or Kucinich knocks Kerry out of the race, but I'd take Dean over Kerry.

[anti-NAFTA]

102. You make me feel so important.

:loveya:

[AP]

104. Credibility is something you earn, even in anonymous forums.

And it looks like the highly credible Tinoire has deemed you credible.

We'll all be paying attention now.

[Tinoire]

123. You are lol... Immensely important

NAFTA is one of the most important issues on the table today. If we don't get an anti-NAFTA candidate in office its importance is going to become painfully obvious to a great deal of unemployed people very soon as more jobs get out-sourced and Americans are forced to work on the 2004 equivalent of Clinton's chicken-farms that won't allow their honest labor to put enough bread on the table.

Lots of us think we're safe because we're lawyers or doctors or whatnot but in this technological age where so much can be done by remote, we won't be safe until we stop corporate greed. Thanks for all your hard work and informative posts!

[AP]

141. It's going to create misery for people who work for a living everywhere

in the US and abroad.

NAFTA and WTO are about shifting profits up to the top of the pyramid by exploiting labor abroad and by devaluing labor at home.

[Oreegone]

65. Hello Earth to Voters

Howard Dean is the only candidate who even comes close to Kerry and by a long shot in delegates above all the other candidates....

It ain't over till its over and Dean is second in delegates, Edwards isn't even on the radar. Why is it important to jump ship now?

Only 25% of the delegates are in and a lot can happen. If Kerry is going to win anyhow, show your thanks and support for Dean in the primaries who was the only candidate to roust out the public and make them care again about voting in this country.

[edzontar]

74. Et tu, Padraig? Why switch to another, even lower delegate count...

Candidate?

It makes no sense at all to me.

Are you feling some that much discussed "pressure" from outside?

[Padraig18]

77. No, I've felt no pressure at all.

I've stepped back and looked at the 'lay of the land', and I see this as the truly right thing to do. Kerry MUST be stopped, and I just don't see Howard doing it without a strong second-place finish in WI.

[edzontar]

158. And yet, by discouraging us all with this post BEFORE the primary

You contribute to the pile-on that is ONLY being aimed at DEAN on this board and in the DP, while other also-rans like Edwards and Kucinich are getting a pass.

Gee, I wonder if this is because Dean is the only candidate who is still actually criticizing Kerry to any effect?

For this and so much more, I shall never really support Kerry.

I shall have to vote for him, surely, but not a dime of money sdhall I send, and not a day of work shall I do.

Why?

Because I am getting sick of this Dean bashing and this premature death-watch stuff, and will be forced to hit back in the only way I can--by not significantly supporting the DP nominee, for the first time in 30 years.

[Padraig18]

170. I've not bashed Howard and I've urged no one not to support him.

I've laid out MY reasons, ed, that's all. I want to stop Sen. Kerry too, but my rational appraisal of the situation tells me that if Howard does not have a STRONG second-place finish in WI, he is unlikely to be the candidate who will do so.

I'm hurting too, ed, so please don't lump me in with the folks who are agenda-driven in urging Howard to drop out, because I'm not one of them.

Peace.

[dansolo]

86. I agree, but am not supporting anyone else

In a world where the people getting screwed by Bush the most are some of his most avid supporters, I'm not at all suprised at how this primary has turned out. Throwing my support to Edwards would be a futile effort, since Kerry has already been crowned by those who matter. My vote is not important. When the Illinois primary comes around, I'll still vote for Dean. Dean should drop out after Wisconsin. I almost am hoping that he will have a withdrawal speech prepared, if only to head off the cries for him to withdraw. However, I think that the effort to quiet Dean has done more harm to the Democratic Party than letting him continue to speak would.

[pezcore64]

91. hah

HOORAY FOR PRO-WAR EDWARDS!


I dont care if he doesnt have a snow balls chance in hell, im sticking to my guy like glue.


GO DEAN!!!

[Padraig18]

92. That's fine.

I've urged no one to leave Howard's campaign; I've merely articulated my reasons for doing so.

:hi:

[sleipnir]

106. Edwards????!!!! That's silly

He's finished, he's even more "finished" than Dean. Here's why. Dean actually stands a chance of beating Kerry, Edwards is done. When is the next expected win for Edwards, oh yeah, March 9, well after Super Tuesday and Kerry's lock on the nomination. Remember 8 out 9 states on ST are Northern and a lock for Kerry, only Dean could challege him. Edwards has to wait until the southern states a week later, by which time it won't matter as Kerry will all but have gotten the nomination.

Looking at the facts, Edwards is in a much worse place to challenge Kerry than Dean. It's a long shot, but at least Dean has a shot.

[Padraig18]

110. I'm sorry, but we just disagree.

But I wish you well.

:hi:

[candy331]

112. Perhaps a break from DU would be good

also. I was a bundle of nerves when I kept watching the media hoping for some fair and credible news and all I got was the same old flap so I watch only selected pieces and very little of news now. Too much crowds your thinking and throws you off balance and you miss the big picture just as they want you too. DU has a tendency to do the same if you are not well grounded and can't filter out a lot of it.

[saoirse]

124. A candidate could hardly ask for more than that

As someone whose first choice (Clark) just dropped out, I sympathize. The General made it easier for us to move on by dropping out, and I hope Howard Dean will do the same.

Edwards is my second choice - he's great, but I just think a lot of people will look at him and think he's too inexperienced to be president at such a critical time. When we win, if Edwards isn't the nominee I hope he's the VP or Attorney General - he's a rising star and an obvious possible nominee in the future.

If you bring the same zeal to the Edwards campqaign that you've shown for Dean, you'll be one of the senator's most energetic supporters.

[stickdog]

125. Why Edwards over Dean if Dean can beat Edwards again in WI?

Just wondering.

[Cuban_Liberal]

138. I know this isn't an easy decision for you, Paddy.

I know you've wrestled this one for over a week, and I know you didn't reach it lightly. I'm pleased that you will be supporting Sen. Edwards, obviously, and you have nothing to apologize for as regards your decision. Dr. Dean could not have asked for a more vigorous advocate on this board or in real life, as your passion for him speaks volumes about Dr. Dean himself.

Some times we must withdraw from the field of battle in good order and regroup and re-provision the army in order to ultimately win the war; I think your decision is wise and, who knows, maybe '08 or '12 will be the year to fight the final battle. I have immense respect for Dr. Dean and sincerely hope that he does not fade into history--- he is too good of a man!

:)

[eyeswideopened]

154. Excuse Me

But isn't Dean ahead of Kerry in Delegates?

[Cuban_Liberal]

155. Barely, and that includes super delegates.

They're very close, actually, and I suspect Dean will lose most of his remaining super-delagtes if he doesn't do well in WI on Tuesday.

[Renew Deal]

163. I don't think so.

Super-delegates are included here.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

[NV1962]

156. Wow. I mean, wow.

Padraig, you have not only been an avid, but a sincere and very convincing supporter of Howard Dean.

But now I'm confused, let's put it that way.

What motivates your dropping support for Howard Dean could be characterized as "pragmatism" or "realism" - but I don't understand why, after ardently supporting a ticket (i.e.: rooting "for" someone) you now are, in essence, rooting "against" another (i.e.: Kerry)

Is that anger talking? Is there really no one better to capture your beliefs and hopes, other than Edwards?

Please don't construe this as a potshot at Edwards - it's simply that I can't fathom how, seeing as you oppose Kerry, you don't opt for someone with a much more clearly distinguishable profile: Dennis Kucinich.

Please explain, I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Padraig18]

164. The explanation:

To be sure, I am angry with Sen. Kerry's campaign, and with the senator himself, but that's not what's prompting my decision.

Tony said upthread that there comes a time to withdraw in good order from the battlefield. As one who is Irish-born, that analogy captures well my sentiments about the Dean campaign. It is time for me to retreat to the hedgerow and the boolie house, to rearm, to reprovision and to make plans for a new battle in the ongoing war; in so doing, I am temporarily allying myself with a new band of warriors--- the enemy of my enemy. The struggle will go on, and the war will be won.

Sen. Edwards is not 'Tweedle Dee' to Sen. Kerry's 'Tweedle Dum'--- he is a distinctly separate and unique political player. I see in him and hear in his message many of the very same hopes and dreams that Howard has expressed so eloquently; I further see a man of good character, without many of the possibly fatal flaws in judgment and ethics that I see in Sen. Kerry. Above all, I see in Sen. Edwards a brilliant mind and a populist message that represents the best core values of the Democratic Party, and it is one believe will resonate with Democratic voters when given a chance to compare him one-on-one with Sen. Kerry.

As I said initially, I will always love, honor and respect what Howard has done for my party; he, along with Rep. Kucinich, stood up and said "The emperor has no clothes" at a time when our party was reeling and in despair. He energized me and made me believe that George Bush can become a one-term president just as his father was. For all that, and so much more, he shall have my eternal gratitude.

But the time has come for me to move on, and to do what my mind tells me must be done. I cannot let maudlin sentiment cloud my vision, or deter me from seeing the battle order that is arrayed against those of us who believe both that we MUST defeat George Bush and that Sen. John Kerry is not the candidate capable of doing so.

I hope this helps explain my reasoning.

[NV1962]

179. First of all, thank you

I very much appreciate your taking time to lay out your rationale for your decision - all the more, considering the dense forest of messages here.

However... I really still am uncertain as to what prompts you to drop support for Howard Dean, moreso in light of your explanation of why you opt for Edwards, instead. Here's why.

Howard Dean leads John Edwards in delegates won; from that cold statement alone, I'd consider Dean a stronger contender - and that's without much further reference to your earlier arguments for supporting Dean.

As you said, Dennis Kucinich is, together with Dean, "the other" guy still running, who stood up against the load of BS that Bush c.s. lavished on the American public. If this argument of "early opposition" in conjunction with their "still running" is decisive, I'd see "the Kooch" as a more obvious choice.

Of course, I can understand that you're not happy with Kerry. When "my guy" was still in the running, I wasn't convinced at all that Kerry has what it takes to lead the charge, not only in short term into the White House, but into Congress also, and truly provide an agenda that places this country back where it belongs: essentially, being a good place to live with deserving trust in its government, serving as an inspiration for the rest of the world.

I believed that the General offered the best of both: a populist appeal, with an honestly decent agenda. Clearly, I was wrong on the first part, much to my chagrin. Very reluctantly, I took a closer look at the guy Clark chose to endorse: with all the trust I place in Clark's judgement, I wanted to give Kerry a second chance to convince me, in spite of all my misgivings towards his being a part of the political establishment that, with or without that intention, have forsaken their Constitutional duty of providing vigorous Congressional debate when and where the government of the nation was at its greatest peril and instead shunned "controversial positions" in a misguided desire to avoid inconvenient dissent. Neither Kerry nor Edwards were echoing in the Senate what Kucinich said in the House of Representatives, joined "on the outside" by Dean and Clark (who testified in Congress.)

So, how on Earth could I reconcile that with Clark's endorsement? Well, in essence because of two things: pragmatism, and similarity among their political agendas (i.e., their positions on "issues")

Similarity in their agendas is obviously not exclusive towards Edwards but it doesn't rule out Dean either.

Pragmatism however is an argument of a different magnitude for me. In light of what I referred to as "issue similarity" (again, placing Dean, Edwards and Kerry in the same group) pragmatism becomes the defining factor: Kerry obviously has immense electoral traction, and aside from that, he hasn't taken a position that would prohibit my support.

Is Edwards a more gifted orator? Perhaps he is, but I'm willing to accept that just for argument's sake. Kerry is by no means a "bad" speaker. Does Edwards really have a more "populist" appeal than Kerry? I disagree, both in terms of voter demography and looking at their respective electoral resonance levels. If you consider Kerry a "gray mouse" then, again, I'd point to Dean and Kucinich for contrast.

So, in summary: Edwards is lagging Dean in delegates, Edwards has no credible "outsider" appeal, Edwards lacks an "issue advantage" (where he actually lags Kucinich, if you'd go for a more "courageous" agenda) and, even with these things assumed equal, Edwards lags in electoral support.

All things considered, I don't understand why you don't stick with Howard Dean (to whom, once more, all candidates owe the enormous credit of really firestarting this campaign with an awesome grass-roots, truly populist movement) or, alternatively, if you really want to switch, go either for the ideologically more compelling Kucinich, or the politically similar (to Dean) but electorally most appealing Kerry.

Personally, I'm still coping with the loss of Clark's candidacy as I am embracing Kerry as "the next best guy" - but the more I get to know about Kerry, his past views in their pertaining context, and how he presently approaches the unsavory reality of politics, plus the for me not unimportant factor that he received the early endorsement of Ted Kennedy, and last but not least, his electoral propositions, I am becoming less and less uncomfortable with Kerry. Whereas before I considered Kerry a no-go (I referred earlier to him as an "empty suit" together with Edwards) because I saw him as utterly uninspiring, I am now growing to appreciate him as having a decent agenda, while packing a lot of political experience to deliver on his promises, and most of all: a proven ability to inspire a majority of voters to back his bid.

But that's merely meant as an explanation of my particular voyage over the past week - not to sway you towards one particular candidate or another, but to point out that my approach is actually quite similar to yours, that Kerry isn't necessarily "the enemy" (in the political / electoral sense) and moreover, that because you mentioned "realism" (which acknowledges success and defeat as determining factors) I still don't understand your final choice.

Just to cut short to the part that probably is why I don't understand: what is it that makes you see Kerry as a candidate to topple?

[burning bush]

178. So, when Edwards fails, you'll support Kerry?

Why not do as you're told, support Kerry now, and forget all about Edwards and Dean. Drop a $20 spot in the mail to the DNC, and have a chocolate chip cookie.

You'll feel a lot better about this tomorrow, in fact, you're already wondering why the heck you ever supported Dean in the first place.

Its all a dream. Go back to sleep. :boring: