A respectful question for Dean supporters.

[Cuban_Liberal]

Unlike many 'innocent question' threads that are thinly-veiled taunts and bashes, mine is quite sincere. As is quite clear from my avatar, I support the candidacy of Sen. Edwards. I do so for many reasons, but chief among them are these:

1.) Sen. Edwards is a moderate who also has the most progressive economic agenda and most realistic tax-fairness plan of the remaining active candidates;

2.) In every 'open primary' to date, Sen. Edwards has demonstrated the ability to appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans, and the numbers from WI show that he and Dr. Dean were the most successful in doing so. Those voters will be critical to an electoral success in November;

3.) The average voter, i.e., Joe and Jane Sixpack, can personally identify with Sen. Edwards life story, and when polled they consistently say that he is more likeable as a person than Sen. Kerry. This quality, while difficult to quantify, is nonetheless important; we must remember that a substantial number of those who do not agree with Bush's policies nonethelss say that they LIKE him.

I'm quite aware that both Sen. Edwards' IWR vote and his assistance in drafting the Patriot Act are troubling issues for many of you, as they were for me. Surprised? I am a veteran and a police officer, yet I opposed the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act; nonethess, I believe Sen. Edwards voted for both in good faith knowing what he knew at the time. Since I am not a single-issue voter, I place these votes in perspective as part of the whole 'package' that is John Edwards, and the scale tips in his favor.

How, then, may I convince you to take a second, longer look at Sen. Edwards? What can I say to convince you of my deeply-held belief that he is, in fact, a MUCH stronger GE candidate against Bush than is Sen. Kerry, whose nomination I fear would portend an electoral disaster? What realistic steps can the senator take to help you get from where you are to where you would need to be in order to support his candidacy?

I am sincere when I say that I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Dr. Dean and his supporters. He was (and still is) my second choice as a candidate to lead our party. I admire his courage, his vision and his plain-spokeness. At a time when we found ourselves demoralized, it was he who gave voice to our anger, and who touched the wellspring of both hope and resolve that resided in each of us. In an ideal world, Dr. Dean would be the candidate in first place, rather than Sen. Kerry, but time and events have conspired against that.

Can we talk, please, for the sake of our party and our country?

Thank you.

---Tony :hi:

edit: typo

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Yeah, just tell Edwards to put Dean as vp

and we'll be kosher.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. I have written to suggest that very thing.

Nothing would please me more than to have them both on our party's ticket for the GE! :D

[dsc]

3. I have sincere problems with his gay right's record

in that he wouldn't sponser even ENDA and hate crimes prior to determining he wanted to run for President. He also has come across as ill informed on those issues at many forums.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. I agree.

I'm also gay, as you know, but what I see in Sen. Edwards is this: he is an open and honest man who is open to hearing from us. His mind is not closed, and he has on numerous occasions spoken out plainly against anti-gay bigotry. We can bring him around on these issues, i believe, because he IS willing to listen to us. :)

[dsc]

5. you have a valid point

Edwards has a poor record but is saying many good things, while Kerry has a great record but is running from it and saying awful things. Not exactly an ideal choice.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. True.

Edwards' heart is not hardened against us, while Sen. Kerry seems to be deveoloping an acute case of 'gay deafness'.

[Armstead]

7. Have Edwards talk with Dean and Kucinich

I like Edwards, but he seems a little too much in the status-quo centrist camp. But the fact that he does have mainstream appeal would be an advantage and might be able to provide the "missing link" that Dean tried to be.

I like his criticisms of NAFTA and free trade and their effect. But does he see it in a larger context?

If Edwards would take a few more steps towards a more clearly progressive populist agenda that acknowledges the problems of excessive corporate power, I think he could be a great candidate.

I don't like his IWR position, but you're right -- at least he isn't trying to cloud it like Kerry.

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. I've been told that he and Dr. Dean plan to meet privately.

Some friends with the campaign have told me that he and Dr. Dean have talked on the phone since Wednesday, and that a private meeting is being arranged prior to Super Tuesday. Cross your fingers. :)

[Eloriel]

16. That would be about an endorsement from Dean

Don't imagine any disucssions include a VP slot -- IMO that's the farthest thing from Dean's mind -- he has pledged to continue to head this movement for change, and he won't be able to do that as the VP. And those who suggest he ought to head up the DNC or, far worse, HHS or be Surgeon General, are insulting the man and his supporters. I suspect they understand this.

Dean has already said that he thinks Edwards is a better candidate than Kerry.

As for your original question, I don't think you can say anything. Those who are amenable to switching either have or will, of their own accord. Many who aren't switching will end up voting for the nominee; many won't.

Dean supporters who haven't yet voted should still be voting for Dean anyway, since he wants to continue to gain delegates if possible for more influence at the convention. They should do this esp. since their votes aren't numerous enough to likely affect the outcomes.

I've seen people say re Edwards that "at least he shows more backbone by standing by his IWR vote." I think that argument is -- well, illogical. Both current viable candidates know their votes were wrong, based on the outcomes AND the reception they've gotten on the subject. Kerry has chosen a "nuanced" approach to (trying to) defend his vote -- once again trying to have it both ways. Edwards chose a straight-forward, almost in your face "I stand by my vote, it was the right thing to do" approach. That is in one way at least more honest than Kerry's (or it seems so on the surface), but it's still a purposely calculated approach to the issue. The war grows more obviously wrong by the day, and yet he stands by his vote and his insistence that the war was a good thing. That's not the kind of insight, honesty, vision, or judgment I want to see in the White House. And you can call this a one-issue argument, if you want, but I consider it symptomatic of a larger problem.

IOW: Sticking by a wrong vote in order to LOOK principled is absolutely no better than the kind of "nuanced" argument Kerry puts out there in order to LOOK principled (and in Kerry's case, have it both ways).

I think people should just leave Dean supporters alone about their future vote(s). We're perfectly capable of making up our own minds about things, and tired of being pandered to, harrassed, cajoled, prodded, taunted, etc. You've been one of the few respectful people, but you can't overcome all the bitterness that you haven't participated in.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. One thing, if I may:

I don't think the senator has said that his vote was a 'good thing', per se; I believe he has said that it was a good-faith vote based on the best information available to him at the time, both from administration briefings and multi-year breifings he received as a member of the Senat Select Committee on intelligence. Not trying to parse words, just simply highlighting what I believe to be an important distinction between his and Sen. Kerry's position on the IWR.

Additionally, he did vote against the $87 billion supplemental bill. :)

[Skip Intro]

29. Well - Edwards says he wasn't misled - big problem for me

I don't have the links to this, but I believe it was on an MTP appearance where Edwards said that, re: the IWR vote, he was not misled. That is a big deal to me, because obviously those who bought into the lies in the buildup to the invasion surely know by now that they were misled. I have heard Kerry say, in contrast, that he was misled (or words to that effect).

That is a big distinction for me, and really prevents me from going over to Edwards. Not that I'm happy about voting Kerry either.

As far as being a one-issue voter, all I can say is look at the scale of what has been done re: Iraq and the bush gang's creation of a conflict and "to hell with everybody we're gonna attack" run-up. Look at the human toll, the economic toll, the toll on our ties with our allies, our standing in the world, the increased hatred for our nation. Everything else pales. As those costs continue to rise, this is not an issue I can set aside or take in combination with other issues. The wrongs, the crimes of the bush admin on this matter scream for accountability and justice. The lives lost and bodies maimed deserve not to be marginalized.

Sorry, didn't meant to ramble on there. But for these reasons, I simply cannot support someone who currently supports that illegal and unnecessary invasion.

btw, thanks for a thoughtful, polite discussion - a nice change

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. YW.

We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable about it. :hi:

[DjTj]

41. He has backed off that statement...

...in the wake of David Kay's resignation.

The MTP interview was last October. When he has been asked recently, "Were you misled?" Edwards answers, "I don't know. We need to have an investigation to get to the bottom of this."

[liberalnurse]

21. There is a problem with that here in Ohio.

Many of the Dean delegates are Union members who have switched to kerry......Edwards needs to get the votes to lay the turn-coat Dean delegates back into their hole. Just the Union members, who are delegates, switched to kerry so far........

[cosmicdot]

26. one might throw Edwards and Kucinichs name in a hat

and, see what happens

food for thought

[patricia92243]

9. See mu sig line - But my vote will make the difference between Edwards/...

Kerry, then I will vote for Edwards.

If it apears my vote will not help/hurt Edwards - then I will stick to voting for Gov. Dean, as he requested us do.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. I respect that, and I thank you.

If you can see it in your heart to help us at the time you vote, please do. Thanks! :hi:

[sallyseven]

11. I think that if Edwards wants to win

he had better pick someone else and not Dean. I like Edwards but I wouldn't be happy with Dean as a running mate. I also think it would be fraudulent for him to choose him. Just remember folks the people who vote on election day are moderate and want a change from bush. So if you really want change your going to have to become involved and work with the person who is elected. Keep playing the game and do not pick up your marbles and go away in a huff. That solves nothing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Sen. Edwards would be deeply appreciative of any help Dr. Dean would give

Whether the senator felt that that help would be as VP, or a cabinet member, DNC chair, etc., I truly don't know, but I do know he would be genuinely grateful for any help the Dr. would render. :)

[jansu]

35. Picking up my marbles and going away in a huff....

How childish of you! I believe that it is childish and wrong to change over to another candidate, the winner?, from your beliefs, just because the man who's positions are the closest to yours, is not actively campaigning! He is second in the delegate count, and more importantly, he has asked us to still vote for him. If you understand the process, Candidates take their delegates to the Convention, the more you have, even if it is not enough to win the nomination, gives you power to have a say in the party platform, helping to shape the future of this country and who is chosen as VP.

None of the other Candidates positions and votes are something that I can support. That is why I have not supported them in the past, and I don't now.

That said, I will work for and support and vote for whomever becomes the Nominee! ABB!

You want us to give up our beliefs? Would you?

[mandyky]

13. I hope Dean supporters will vote for Dean

in the primaries. It will be very telling, and hopefully a wake up call for some in the party if Dean gets 10 - 15% in many super Tuesday states. (and not campaigned)

I find Edwards more attractive as a candidate than Kerry, but his war stance is much like Joe Lieberman's and shrub's.

[HFishbine]

14. In order to give you an honest answer

you'll have to clarify what it is you think it was Edwards "knew what he knew" (paraphrasing) at the time of his IWR vote.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Rather difficult to do, frankly.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Edwards was regularly briefed on Iraq, and nothinh disclosed to him in those briefings is he legally permitted to reveal.



"...North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said his support for the Iraq war was based on years of intelligence briefings and evidence of Saddam's atrocities against his own people...."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3693920,00.html

. "We need to find out what the truth is. What information did the president have? What information did the intelligence community give to the president?" Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said on CBS' Face The Nation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-01-bush-intel_x.htm

And, inter alia:

"...Emboldened by Kay's findings, opposition Democrats vying for their party's nomination to challenge Bush have mounted increasingly fierce attacks on the administration's public case for using force to topple Saddam.

"What information did the intelligence community give to the president? Was the information flawed? Was it exaggerated, either by the vice president or the president?" one of the candidates, Senator John Edwards, told CBS television.

But Kay has blamed intelligence failures, not political leaders, for the much-publicized accusations that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons and sought nuclear arms - the core of Bush's case for war...."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/69174/1/.html

What Sen. Edwards thought he knew, and what we now know, may well be different things; the point remains, however, that if he believed in good faith the information that he received, then his vote must also be examined in the light of good faith.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. I have to go to a funeral now, so i'll be gone for a while

We're burying our pastor today, so I will be gone for a couple of hours, but I will bookmark this thread and check back as soon as I return. I will attempt to answer any new questions, etc., when I do. Thanks!

:)

[diamondsoul]

23. Very sorry for your loss,

CL.

Not a Dean supporter, but he did move into my second choice slot. Here's my troubles with Edwards-

He's a lawyer. That's a biggie because that AND his votes for IWR and the Patriot Act combined make him unpalatable for me.

There's this awareness in the back of my mind about what it takes to be a good lawyer and a good politician. In some ways the needs for being good at both are the same. The ability to take facts and turn them so the darker side of them isn't obvious to your audience, if that's to your advantage and also to do the opposite if it's to your advantage. The more I watch John Edwards, the more I get the sense that this is precisely what he's doing. It's manipulation and it doesn't sit well with me at all after 4 years of lying.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Here is a reply from a fellow Hoosier progressive

I have removed the names of the sender of the e-mail that was send to the listserv of Indiana peace activists. The e-mail was in reply to comments that have been expressed about Nader entering the 2004 race. As many real Leftists already know, Nader's expected entrance into the election campaign has gotten a mixed reception, particularly from those Leftists that feel that a reactionary, prowar, pro-PATRIOT, pro-NAFTA, pro-Plan Colombia Democrat is preferable to four more years of little Hitler.

The main theme of the e-mail is not Nader, but the way many peace and progressive activists view the way the Democratic primary is turning out. The author's concern about Kerry's electability is shared by many Hoosier leftists, myself included.

----- Original Message -----
From: (redacted)
To: (redacted)
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Ralph Nader To Announce Decision on 2004 Presidential Race, THIS SUNDAY

I say let Ralph run. You can bet he wouldn't even be thinking about it if
the Democratic Party had been able to come up with even a tolerable
candidate.

But the voters in the states who get a say in the matter (sadly Indiana
isn't one of them because we like to hold our primaries AFTER the nominee
has already been decided), have decided to go with the LEAST electable of
the major candidates.

The ironic thing is that many of the voters claimed Kerry wasn't their
favorite on the issues, but they were voting for him because they thought he
had the best chance to beat Bush.

Kerry? The best chance at beating Bush? The Massacheussets Democratic who
served with Dukakis? The guy who won't be able to attack Bush on ANYTHING
because he voted in support of just about everything Bush has done? The guy
who's almost as beholden to special interests as Bush?

Just goes to show the power of political advertising to short-circuit reason
and logic with voters and convince them the most ridiculous thing is true.
Kerry's new campaign manager deserves credit for that at least.

At this point I think Edwards would be a better choice and I don't like
Edwards at all.

As far as supporting Kerry anyway under the Anybody But Bush logic, it seems
to me we had a similar Anybody But Bush thing going on 12 years or so ago
and we got Clinton into the White House. After two terms of that so-called
Democrat in office things are WAY worse than they were before.

Do I think things will be at least marginally better under a Kerry
administration than a Bush one? Sure, I do... in the short run. In the long
run the radical right will get even more mobilized and Kerry will only sap
all the energy of the real progressives in the Democratic party. So we'll
end up with an energized Republican party and an apathetic Democratic party
heading into the NEXT election.

That's how Bush was able to steal the White House the first time around.
Don't blame Ralph, blame the Democratic Leadership Council and their
Republican-lite philosophy. You never have any sustained success chasing
trends. The Democrats need to stop being followers of trends and start being
leaders!

We need to take back the media and start setting the terms for debate
ourselves instead of letting a small, but powerful contigent of right-wing
idealogues set the tone for political discourse in this country.

And to do that we need leaders, not spineless political cowards who
constantly have their finger in the political winds. We don't need John
Kerry.

Sure four more years of Bush is going to suck. But it's going to suck even
more if you vote for a candidate you don't believe in, and Bush still wins
(or is appointed again.)

[diamondsoul]

22. Read that this morning-

and nearly broke down.

I feckin' HATE politics and now I remember why.:P

[KFC]

42. Pure stupidity

Apparently this person is fairly comfortable with Bush. Idiots like that won't be swayed by logic.

"I won't vote to remove Bush because he might win and I would feel bad that I did'nt vote for _____"

What a fucking pussy.

[liberalnurse]

20. Its easy.....kerry is a miserable failure.

I'm helping with the Edwards Campaign in Ohio.....I have all this reserved energy and want the experience....but most of all, I really dislike kerry.

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. You know, a lot of our new supporters say the same thing.

I'll be honest about it--- we have gotten a lot of new supporters for our campaign in IL from the ranks of former Dean supporters; they are not thrilled with Sen. Kerry, but almost uniformly they loathe Sen. kerry.

I can understand that, and it's a place to begin to come together, at least. :)

[ModerateMiddle]

24. not a dean supporter

but I take issue with a couple of your points. Kerry has done an amazing job of appealing to Indies in half of the primary/caucuses to date. WI is just the latest, but by no means the sole state that allowed crossover votes. Kerry outscored Edwards among Indies in two significant states: VA and MO. Kerry has also pulled significant numbers among the various minorities.

Also, according to exit polls, regardless of the messages of each of the candidates, Kerry did better among blue collar workers than Edwards, who seemed to get his largest support among (1) affluent middle classers, and (2) those satisfied or even enthusiastic about Bush.

I respectfully submit that while Edwards is clearly the more charismatic and energizing speaker, which is a huge advantage, taking their respective candidacies altogether, Edwards is not the strongest candidate we can put forth in November. Kerry is.

[janx]

27. You are considerate in your question, CL.

But my state won't hold its caucuses until April. I have supported and volunteered for Dean since last summer, although I was aware of and interested in his campaign as far back as 2002.

So my primary vote will be for Dean.

I can say that although I see Kerry and Edwards in much the same light, I might be able to be a little more enthusiastic about Edwards should he win the nomination. To me, Kerry epitomizes everything that is wrong with politics today.

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. I respect your choice, as I also respect Dr. Dean himself.

I have never seen the wisdom in the vulture-like swooping down on the supporters of candidates who have either dropped out, or who have suspended their campaigns. Furthermore, I despise the 'fall in line behind sen. Kerry, if you are a loyal Democrat' school of thought. I have far too much respect for Dr. Dean and his supporters to diss them.

If at some future time, you could see fit to support Sen. Edwards, for either personal or strategic reasons, please know that we would be honored to receive your support.

:hi:

[AntiCoup2K4]

31. It's a good thing my caucus is already over with.

...Because I would really be torn on what to do, if I still had to vote in the primaries. Dean was the best candidate. Kerry is the worst. Those two things are carved in stone, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who still votes for Dean on principle because they truly believe he's the best man for the job. The dillemma here, for those who still have a primary vote, is this - can you make a difference in preventing the Kerronation by the DLC?

Which leaves Edwards or Kucinich. I'm guessing that for most of us, Dennis is much closer to our beliefs and positions on the issues. At this point, I'd like to see him get the nomination if it can't be Howard. But given his numbers so far - virtually non existent - the odds of him turning it around and coming out of this with the nomination aren't very likely at all.

Edwards voting record under the Bush regime is about as bad as Kerry's and that concerns me greatly. But he's not Skull & Bones, so he's not under any obligation which conflicts with the Constitution. As far as I know, he's not funded by FAUX News, or advised by PNAC. Aside from Edward's votes, his other potential problem is lack of political experience. He's a one term senator, and in some of the debates, he actually seemed to be confused by some of the questions. Don't remember exactly all the subject matters. I know the gay marriage issue was one of them, and something else related to foreign policy, I think?

Yet, despite these weaknesses, Edwards as the #3 man in terms of delegates and #2 in terms of states is the best posed to take down Kerry. And if Dean were to pledge support to Edwards, with the Doc still being #2 in delegates, the combined force would be something for Kerry to worry about.

A lot of big "ifs" and no endorsements implied - just me rambling on, really. But one thing's for certain - John Forbes Kerry is the lamest excuse for a candidate I have seen in my lifetime, and that includes Dukakis. We as a party, and as a country, are so fucked if we allow the Kerronation to happen, whether or not he beats Junior. :(

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. Kick

:hi:

[frustrated_lefty]

33. CL/Tony

I'm giving Edwards a second glance. He did some stupid things, in my book. In my book, he's also a kid and kids sometimes have to learn through mistakes. Yes, he's 50. In political years, he's green. After the second debate my wife and I both said the same thing: he'd make a GREAT president in 2008 or 2012.

I'd vote for Edwards in '04. His heart is in the right place.

So, from a Dean supporter, I'll give your guy another look, but he damned well better have a better answer for why he screwed up on the IWR vote.

"The president lied and I fell for it" doesn't cut it. I was all over the web during the lead up to the war and there was a LOT of reason for scepticism and doubt about the intelligence. If Edwards says 'I saw the way the wind was blowing in Congress and, as a first time congressman, I voted with the wind and it WAS a mistake,' I could live with that. There are other things he can say. But he needs to be honest.

That's what Dean brought to this party, a thirst for honesty. Dean's out, ok. Give us a man who will speak truth and not spin.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. Thank you!

I appreciate your open-mindedness. :)

[Padraig18]

36. VERY nice, Tony!

If others had shown Dean supporters as much respect, they might have more to show for their efforts here. :)

[diamondsoul]

39. I did and got spit on.

Ah well, such is life.:shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. For the record, I agree that you did, diamondsoul.

I'm sorry that you received such rude replies, but please don't let that change who YOU are. We should all continue to make every effort to reach out to Dean, Clark, Mosely-Braun, Gephardt, Lieberman and Graham supporters, because. I will state that my observation of Kucinich supporters here at DU leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you guys are the MOST respectful group of supporters toward other candidates' supporters, followed by us, the Edwards supporters. Both your candidate and mine are running positive campaigns, and we shouldn't let a few soreheads change OUR approach.

:)

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. I'll say it again, Paddy--- I have the greatest respect for Dr. Dean

There's absolutely no reason would not respect both him and his supporters. :)

[Scott Lee]

37. Alright, let's take an honest look at Edwards, shall we?

He certainly looks the part. Youngish, suave, milk and cookie goodness exuded by that small town grin. He's got that part down. Score ten for public appearance. Now lets get to some main issues.

Taxation. Edwards, being an established Washington Insider, has all the verbage down for raising a ruckus over Bush-holes tax cuts for the rich. Edwards is, after all, a "son of a mill wuhkuh" (a phrase we droned almost as often as the nauseating reminder that John Kerry was a Vietnam war hero). Edwards, after all, being a product of such humble blue collar roots, wants a tax plan that doesn't reward the rich and punish the middle and lower economic classes. Rah rah. Everybody cheers. But what about Edwards himself, who can't even pay timely taxes on his own lavish eight bedroom Georgetown mansion? Which Edwards are we to believe here? The salt of the earth boy from Smalltown USA, or the filthy rich DC Insider who lets his tax obligations slip until he gets an "oopsie, did you forget something?" from the local property tax authorities?

The Iraq War. Yeah, that thing again. Everybody knows that Edwards voted for IWR. Interestingly enough, so did John Kerry. Interestingly enough, like Kerry, Edwards plays stupid about this vote. He was "duped". Uh huh. Like these well connected Senators, privy to military intelligence you and I can only dream about, somehow were more clueless about what Bushhole was up to than you or I. Am I to believe that such an outstanding and presidential person as John Edwards was so easily duped into Bushhole's plans? Are you interested in some great swamp land I have for sale in Florida?

The Patriot Act. Edwards not only voted for this atrocity, but helped craft it. It is such a disgraceful piece of legislation that law suits are lining up to challenge it, and the American people from all walks are increasingly condemning it. Didn't the illustrious and progressive John Edwards see what a slap in the face to our most core values The Patriot Act was? Actually, I think he did. Which leads me to my conclusion.

Conclusion. Neither Edwards nor Kerry are idiots. They weren't duped by anything. They knew exactly what they were doing, and the main goal for them was safety. Taking the safe vote, avoiding controversy or being branded a "traitor" for standing up to Bush-hole's assault on our democratic system and our constitution. Edwards and Kerry are both cowards, and quislings to the very agenda that is bashed right here on DU day in day out. The results are that both Edwards and Kerry are consumate Washington lifetimers, Insiders experienced and adept at attaining their number one goal above all else: staying in their chairs. Not surprisingly, that's the very goal of the Democratic party establishment who shares the two men's fear of being out of that position. As such, John Edwards presents nothing of major difference from what has been eating away at our democracy for many decades now. An Edwards, Kerry, or Bush administration are mere shades of each other while the real troubles go on unabated.

This is why I remain a Deanite. This is why I am committed to fundamental, grass roots change in my country. I draw my line in the sand and say, no more appeasement. No more play along to procrastinate on solution. No more lesser of two evils votes. No more holding my nose to vote for a repulsive Democratic option. Howard Dean has started something that has grown way beyond him. I am doing my small part to see that it goes all the way, come what may.

[mdmc]

38. Dean veep

:kick:

[Padraig18]

40. Kick