Just a little on why Dean supporters are a wee tad cross.

[madfloridian]

Are you aware that Florida Democratic chair Scott Maddox has said Kerry could be the winner in
Florida? He criticizes Dean, just as the CA state chair does, in the NYT, no less. They criticize Dean, praise Kerry, say he can win.
This article is archived now, but I have it on my hard drive. Here are the pertinent quotes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/politics/campaign/29CAMP.html

SNIP...""Dean is a tougher sell," Mr. Torres said. "Not because of who he is
and who he represents, but because he's perceived as being an angry man."

In Florida, Scott Maddox, the state Democratic chairman, offered a similar
view as he compared Mr. Kerry's prospects in his state with those of Dr.
Dean.

"Florida will be the battleground state in the election," Mr. Maddox said,
"and I think John Kerry can absolutely carry the state of Florida. The thing
with Dean is he seems — his persona — is more liberal. I don't think he's as
liberal as they make him out to be, but the question is could he shake the
moniker."

SO right there we have the GOP talking points of *angry* and *liberal* being applied by our own party head in Florida. He refuses to respond to any of us who have contacted him.

I am "angry". The Democratic party used the media to hurt Dean. Carville and Begala just about destroyed him on Crossfire.

More quotes from the article about the "concerns" about Dean.
SNIP..."Democratic leaders expressed relief Wednesday at the emergence of John Kerry as the leader of the party's presidential field, after his twin victories over Howard Dean. But they voiced concern about the potential electoral liabilities of Mr. Kerry, a candidate who remains unknown in much of the country."

MORE:
"To the extent to which there is an establishment, it wants what the Democratic primary voters want: the strongest candidate in the fall," said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. "I think the consensus is that John will be a more formidable candidate than Howard."

A Southern Democratic state chairman, who would not allow his name to be used, said, "There's been a big sigh of relief," while a national Democratic strategist said: "It has been a sea change. People were worried."

MORE:
"On Capitol Hill, the sense of excitement surrounding Mr. Kerry's back-to-back wins was palpable among Democrats, who are clearly eager to put the divisive primary season behind them. Many lawmakers — some of whom had been privately despondent about Dr. Dean's rise in the polls last year — were finally sounding as though they truly believed they could take on Mr. Bush and win.

"I think what's happened is there's an excitement that we could actually win the presidency, and there's a good feeling that Kerry could do it or that Edwards could do it," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, reflecting the view of many Democrats, said the race was far from over, but added, "I think he's (Kerry) clearly the strongest candidate, the guy most likely to beat Bush."END SNIPS

Do not pretend to tell me the party did not influence Kerry's rise! Do not pretend to tell me that they did not use the media....this is the NYT they are speaking to.

Yes, the Democrats did have a role in this.

In the end, the party is deciding who the candidate is through tactics such as these....they used the "Dean is not electable" meme and it really took root bigtime. The party IS deciding and the voters are picking up on it.

And they are trying to put all of us on a great big guilt trip. For right now, I am just tired of that.

[aldian159]

1. Perhaps these Democrats

didn't want to lose. They wanted to win the white house, and they thought that Howard was a bad candidate. They're entitled to their opinion, aren't they?

[madfloridian]

3. That statement does not address the issues the article posed.

I guess you can call me strange, but the party elite should NOT be choosing the candidates for us. NOT that blatantly.

If you think so, and you agree, then that is your right.

It is my right to believe that for once Rush Limbaugh was right:
He said Howard Dean was the intellectual leader of the left, and they needed to have him gone.

[lurk_no_more]

116. So you're mad because those of his own party

felt he was unwinnable and said so, and proclaim them wrong using Rush Limbaugh to back your argument?

It seems it doesn't matter to some who it is that says dean was the best as long as they support dean.

Rush Limbaugh was wrong once again and as hard as it is for those that feel otherwise, the others were right.



And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[revcarol]

7. Then why even bother to schedule primaries?

The DLC/DNC just could gather in a smoke-filled bar and select our candidate for us.

another thing: the media went to those who would give them what they wanted to broadcast. They KNEW ahead of time which people to ask for quotations!!Just like picking pro-something and anti-something so each view would be respresented. Ya gotta know in advance who is pro and who is anti.

So each of these candidates got out to the media in some way that they were anti-Dean.(Calls by their press secretaries?) So when the NY Times wants to do its hit-pieces, it knows exactly whom to call!!

[Ninga]

10. Opinon Schminion

How about the "Opinion" in Osamba/Dean/ Iowa ad smear??????

How about the "Opinion" of the 900 plus times the scream speach was played across American.

How about the "Opinion" ad acuseing Dean of being a hippy loving commie driving Volvo.

Yea, I get it, they are just opinions, opinions don't sway voters. What the heck is wrong with this "Opinion" picture?

[chief joseph]

70. Agree

[buckeye1]

35. Dean proved them right.

He was a bad candidate. Oh,and God forbid they have an opinion about this.

[chief joseph]

80. Disagree

[GodHelpUsAll2]

121. Not only is it wrong

It's incredibly sickening. To have ANYONE that claims to be a democrat so publicly try and sway the primary process is underhanded at best. Regardless of who they "choose" and who they don't. Does anyone here even know what it is suppose to mean to be a democrat anymore? Or is everyone just so damn content to be sold out again and again by the party elite on both sides. You can complain about Bush and the Republican's all you want, and those complaints are completely justified. They have taken us down a very dark and dangerous road. But it's amazing that no one sees that the democratic party is not too far from the repubs in the "business as usual" methods. And we will never be able to effectively fight them at their own game. Wake up America, go back and find out just what it is that the democratic party is suppose stand for then compare it to what it has become and is today. This go along to get along and don't rock the boat we may not be able to attract the "swing" votes is BS. You either stand for something or you don't it's just that simple. You either fully support civil rights for all or you don't. This we better only dole out these things in moderation because heaven forbid we don't want to offend those who think it is only right for "some". And that is just one example. When will be a "right time" to take on the repubs and call them out on the long list of wrongs? Will it ever come? I say no, not anytime soon because we as democrats have for so long catered to those "swing" votes and courted the "soft Republicans" that there is virtually no definite difference between the two in a large portion of the voting publics eyes. Thus, you have 50% that don't even bother to vote anymore because why bother. You want to wake a sleeping giant? Then give that 50% a reason to want to fight. That my friends will be the biggest stick you can find to 'Beat Bush" in November.

[Tinoire]

2. God forbid anyone be angry at Bush

Gotta love that DLC spirit! "Don't be angry at Bush! Just cooperate with him and everything will be ok".

Wish I had more time to reply. Thanks MadFloridian!

[madfloridian]

5. You are most welcome, Tinoire.

You can just reply later.
:evilgrin:

[JNelson6563]

and the aside that goes with:

"And we can keep feathering our nests and stay nice and comfy."

Good thing they did away with that Dean fellow, he was too likely to cause uncomfortable changes. Unacceptable.

Happily for politics as usual, mission accomplished.

Julie

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. I envision a time when

someone comes up and shits in that nest.


But, hey, I'm a dreamer.

[JVS]

120. I know someone who shits in that nest.

See if you can guess the phrase
_ _ L _ H

N _ _ _ R

[Indiana Democrat]

4. All those quotes are right on.

[madfloridian]

6. Then why have an election, ever again.

Think about what you just said.

[Indiana Democrat]

9. Those people aren't allowed to give their opinions?

Just because they don't toe your line of thinking, that doesn't make them wrong.

[Ninga]

14. Opinion Schminions

I wish I could give all of my opinions in front of a TV camara any time I had one.

Where do I sign up?

[Indiana Democrat]

17. Where do you sign up?

I'm sure you could get a gig as an intern at your local TV station.

[madfloridian]

15. I am not going to answer that.

.

[boxster]

23. I think you just did.

[madfloridian]

26. Good going, guys.

Good going.

[Indiana Democrat]

30. Thanks!

I always try to speak the simple truth but rarely am patted on the back for it.

Thanks again. :)

[boxster]

40. Hey, any time.

I'm the master of the obvious.

[Indiana Democrat]

24. Why not?

[Cha]

48. ANd it doesn't make them right, either.

IMHFO, those war mongers are what's wrong with the Party for the People!

[Indiana Democrat]

61. Yeah, they're "War Mongers"...

...they all want death and destruction...they want people DEAD!!!

Blah, blah, blah...

[Cha]

104. And they got "people dead", too!

they got their wish.

[chief joseph]

81. Yeah

[burning bush]

95. Indiana Democrat?

Isn't Evan Bayh a hoosier?

[Indiana Democrat]

105. Yes he is!

And a hell of a man! And leader! And Democrat! And future Leading Democrat!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. You are cross because a majority of Democrats disagree with you

about who the nominee should be. And that is an understandble and natural reaction.

[Selwynn]

12. Best. Post. Ever.

[boxster]

18. Oh, but it can't be voter preference that's the issue with Dean.

It must be the media. Or other Democrats. Or other candidates. Or the DLC. Or the phase of the moon. The tides. The Red Chinese. Clinton's penis.

Nope, can't be that Dean or his campaign were the problem. They were perfect. The sheep were just too stupid to see it.

/sarcasm

[Indiana Democrat]

36. What the HELL is WRONG with you???

ANYONE with ANY sense KNOWS the reason for Dean's downfall was Skull and Bones!!!!

[boxster]

39. Yeah, but I thought that that was a secret!

Sorry, I just completely forgot the *real* reason for Dean's poor showing.

(Channeling Chris Farley): How could I be so stupid!!

[Guaranteed]

87. What WAS Dean's downfall?

I mean, I know it was his fault...but, what exactly did he do wrong?

He was the trailblazer in all of the issues, miles ahead of everyone else. He showed courage and leadership, and WAS presidential.

The best you seem to be able to offer is that it was "his fault" because he was "unelectable."

[boxster]

114. How soon they forget.

Hmm, let's see. Perhaps it was the Confederate Flag gaffe. Or maybe the Osama Bin Laden one. Or perhaps calling Russia the Soviet Union half a dozen times. Locking up his records. Calling out the media. Veiled threats to Democratic Congresspeople.

Hell, you name it. Pick one.

Or, maybe it's just that he polarizes people and unfortunately for him, only 20% or so of people were drawn to the positive side of the polarization.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. n/t

[chief joseph]

73. True

[Cocoa]

82. it's not so understandable to me

I thought Gephardt was the best candidate, but I was not the least bit angry that very few other democrats agreed with me.

I think that's what the primaries are for, to come to an agreement among all dems. They're not for picking MY candidate.

[Scott Lee]

96. The majority of Democrats would elect a turnip these days

if told to by their DLC/DNC taskmasters. That's the problem.

[Malikshah]

106. Disagree?

Please-- folks followed the message hook line and sinker.


Folks here have done a good job at baiting that hook. Gotta give credit where credit's due.

Too bad we'll be hauled off for the big ole fry later on.

[DjTj]

11. This Edwards supporter agrees!

What's up with everybody jumping on the Kerry bandwagon?

Let's let the voters decide.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. Admittedly, I know nothing about this Florida party chair's politics...

..but Biden and Bayh have proven themselves to be as useless as tits on a rooster in recent years. If they endorse some idea, you can bet your life savings it's a fucking mistake.

[Ninga]

16. Interesting, hummmmm

Are tits on a rooster the same thing as a boil on an ass?

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. Only if you are referring to the fact that...

...the DLC is the boil on the ass of the Democratic Party.

[revcarol]

20. Yes. God forefend that either of them be VP or in the cabinet.

"Useless as tits on a rooster" that would be funny if it weren't so true.

Fellow Democrats were ruthless in attacking him.

A Kucinich supporter.

[madfloridian]

34. Florida party politics is "let's play nice".

One of our DUers ran for office last year. His own DEC left him hanging because the GOP candidate offered more in financial returns. Our guy only offered intelligence and character.

Florida party Democrats in many areas are virtually Republicans.

[KFC]

19. If Dean can't even overcome that mild criticism

He would not have stood a chance in the GE.

Dean was simply not a strong candidate, 0 for 17, as I recall.

[madfloridian]

22. That is good, that is very good.

I believe this forum today has done a lot to form the thinking of a lot of us who were honestly considering going along and being good little Democrats and falling in line.

[Ninga]

25. Mild criticism is like a boil on the ass.

Unless you have one, you don't know what its like.

Way too profound for me.

[WillyT]

29. Maybe So, But The Same Could Be Said About Kerry !!!

But now that he's attained PRESUMED FRONT-RUNNER status, any criticism of Kerry here, is now perceived as supporting Bush.

:shrug::wtf::shrug:

I'm gonna vote for Kerry in the GE if he's the dude, but hey Kerry supporters...

Welcome to Frontrunnerville!!! Hell of a neighborhood, no?

:shrug:

[KFC]

32. Thank you. I am still wondering what a boil on my ass would feel like.

Uh Oh.

My nipples just got hard.

[burning bush]

93. A boil on your ass ? Imagine a Kerry presidency

Then you'll be close

[lyonn]

50. overcoming mild criticism?

Not when it's your party doing the dissing.

[chief joseph]

74. Agree

[Guaranteed]

85. You're right. He was unelectable, because he wasn't a strong candidate.

ALSO, he was a weak candidate, because he wasn't electable.

I also heard that he would have had a hard time going up against Bush, because people had a lot of doubts about him. People were really worried that he wouldn't have been able to get elected. There were too many doubts about his strength.

We just needed a stronger candidate, someone who could really go up against Bush. And I can see how relieved people are that we finally have that candidate, someone who is truly electable. That's the best part about having a strong candidate, is that people will go out and vote for them. If Dean had been a stronger candidate, he would have been electable too, but, he wasn't. And his lack of electability shows how weak he was.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

124. There in lies the problem

"I also heard that he would have had a hard time going up against Bush, because people had a lot of doubts about him."

Everyone HEARD. Did anyone do anything beside just hear? I heard my neighbor was impregnated by aliens. Good God that must mean there is a little green toddler living next door! I heard it. It must be so!

[burning bush]

92. If it were ONE criticism, instead of a flood

One drop of rain is nothing, but 40 days and 40 nights can kill ya! Dean had more than his share of badpress, and ZERO support within his own party, and if you don't see THAT then you have selective memory issues.

[CityDem]

27. DLCer's have their wish

The DLC is orgasmic over the fact that they have another establishment type about to be the nominee. Unfortunately, he will go down in November because people like myself will seek out a true progressive candidate.

Once again, thanks again to the DLC types for destroying the campaign of Howard Dean. He deserved a lot better. And damned right -- I am bitter.

[capriccio]

28. Potted Plants?

The idea that people whose lives revolve around politics (indeed people who make politics their living) would not, come voting time, have a strong rooting interest in the outcome of an election strikes me as..well, how shall I put it? Unrealistic, perhaps? The idea that they would just sit back and let the voters decide who they should back is as preposterous as film critics sitting back and letting the boxoffice determine which films they should review. These people, be they DLC or DNC or what-have-you, have as much right as anyone at DU to support the candidate of their choice in any way possible. And if they do a better job of it than those supporting another candidate, so be it. That's how it works. They don't devote their lives to politics to simply become decorative pieces when it comes time to count the votes. Dean folks seem to be a tad bit angry, I believe, because they don't appreciate the competitive aspect of the process. Those who have not moved on can't accept the fact that their candidate couldn't appeal to more than his passionate base.

[Ninga]

31. Golly, gee as a Dean suporter, I totally missed the part

about the "competative aspect of the process."

Could you please direct me to the place I can find such a process?

[capriccio]

33. Yes, I can

People vote. People count the votes. The one with the most votes wins. Except when it's the year 2000. Then it's different. In any case, the competition never goes to those who are most bitter.

[Eloriel]

43. It's not about "supporting" -- it's about manipulating the outcome

Sure, they can support whoever they want. Their right.

NOT their right to choose our candidate for us. And that's what they've done. The quotes madfloridian gave you are merely their verbal expressions, some of which were patently designed to manipulate opinion.

But mere quotes were just the tip of the iceberg of how the DLC/DNC and media cooperated (no doubt inadvertently -- IOW, not a "conspiracy") to bring Dean down, and Terry McAwful's infamous front-loaded primary season helped seal the deal. There was no TIME to recover from the media manipulation of the IA speech, or the defeat at the hands of DLC/DNC operatives from kerry's campaign and the Vilsack machine.

You can imagine that the people spoke, and you'd be wrong. But the much bigger message is that it's not about Dean. It's about YOUR right to choose our nominee. If you'd rather see Dean dead (politically speaking) than give a damn about democracy, I guess that's your right too.

But a lot of people around here need to wake up and smell the coffee. Next time it could be their candidate that gets burned and buried -- in fact, Clark supporters have a bit of a clue, as do some Kucinich supporters.

[capriccio]

49. The saints never go marching in

when it comes to politics:

In 1960 JFK slandered Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary over the draft.
In 1964 LBJ ran a repulsive ad against Barry Goldwater conjuring up the image of nuclear holocaust.
In 1968 the Party Establishment totally ignored the antiwar vote and over the body of Bobby Kennedy gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972 the progressives who wrote the new nominating rules stole the nomination out from under the noses of the old guard and gave the nomination to George McGovern.

Sometimes it goes over the line; sometimes it just goes up to the line. And sometimes, as in the 2002 election, the opposition is so ineffectual and timid that it doesn't even come close to the line. I give Dean all the credit in the world for making sure that doesn't happen again in 2004. But for his supporters to continually complain that either the DLC or DNC was somehow morally bound to support him or get out of his way while he took the nomination from someone they deemed stronger is just plain naive and misses the point completely that these people dedicate their lives to politics so that they can get their way.

[madfloridian]

54. See, we said the same thing.

QUOTE: "DLC or DNC was somehow morally bound to support him or get out of his way while he took the nomination from someone they deemed stronger is just plain naive and misses the point completely that these people dedicate their lives to politics so that they can get their way...."

Uh, you are right. They got their way. We made the same point a different way

It did not have to be Dean, it would have been anyone in the way of the ones who are chosen.

I understand, will have to find the article, that Kerry have been meeting already with Tony Blair's rival....even offering to fly him here for meetings.

I will find the article. He will be the nominee.

[Eloriel]

107. Definitely not stronger -- more pliable is the desired quality

they wanted in their nominee.

In 1960 JFK slandered Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary over the draft.

ONE example, not a boatload or, more accurately, a gangbang.

In 1964 LBJ ran a repulsive ad against Barry Goldwater conjuring up the image of nuclear holocaust.

But it didn't call him a traitor, did it?

In 1968 the Party Establishment totally ignored the antiwar vote and over the body of Bobby Kennedy gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey.

Wasn't that when The Establishment was officially determining the nominee -- IOW, before primaries and caucuses (which I believe were actually begun in the early 90s as a backlash against just this kind of shit).

In 1972 the progressives who wrote the new nominating rules stole the nomination out from under the noses of the old guard and gave the nomination to George McGovern.

Ditto.

But for his supporters to continually complain that either the DLC or DNC was somehow morally bound to support him or get out of his way while he took the nomination from someone they deemed stronger is just plain naive and misses the point completely that these people dedicate their lives to politics so that they can get their way.

Then we ought to do away with the illusion, not to mention the expense, of primaries and caucuses wherein The People are supposed to get the chance to choose their nominee.

And I absolutely, positively, 100% reject your underlying premise: that's the way it's always been (which you haven't proven anyway, IMO) and thus that's the way it ever shall be. We ARE going to change this party, and for the better. We ARE going to rout out all the self-serving nincompoops who serve the GOP as eageraly if not more so than their own party. We'll not do it by tomorrow or next week or next year, but if this is your best philosophy about politics and governing, then I can promise you: YOUR days (or chance) of power and influence are numbered.

[capriccio]

112. Something's happening here, etc

Actually, you haven't rejected my premise at all. Rather by your impassioned final paragraph, you've embraced it. If you'll reconsider the progression of events I offered in the history of the Democratic Party, you'll notice that by 1972 the Progressive wing had taken control of the nominating apparatus and got their man in. Now as it turns out that election didn't go so well, and that'ss aanother debate. But the point here is...going alllllll the way back to my initial post on this thread...the political process IS competitive. Too many supporters of one particular candidate, whose name I will not mention, believe they're the only ones who worked hard, gave time, gave money, believed more deeply in their candidate, understood the issues better, and were totally above and beyond manipulation of the darker forces. I'm glad to see that you for one are willing to work in the future so that the results come closer to matching your self-esteem.

[chief joseph]

75. No truer words.....

[Guaranteed]

86. Okay, so, given what you just said, why in the HELL

should WE, as Dean supporters, then support the DLC candidate for president?

[Eloriel]

110. Hey, I'm already there. They'll get no support from me.

No way in hell. They've done shit and sat in it, AFAIC.

[jansu]

37. We still have the Power! Vote for Dean!!

:yourock: madfloridian

The media whores gave Dean a T-Shirt which said on the front/back
ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA
WE HAVE THE POWER!

It seems that only Dean supporters and a very few of the other candidate's supporters "get it"! In the 2000 election, Bush was given a pass & a boast by the media.....most all agree to that. They mentioned his National Guard service (?) 49 times and two days before the election, a drunk driving arrest came up....too late. Why weren't they looking into all of the rumors of all his arrests and the actual fact of his Service? What were the positive to negative reporting between Bush and Gore? Google it and see who really chooses the winner! Don't' get me wrong, I believe that each of you are supporting the Candidate of your choice, for your own reasons and I applaud you for that. But, to be naive and think that the media, television etc. does not have an affect, is not dealing with realty. Why would they spend millions of dollars on ads, if it does not make a difference. Why are we subject to interruptions of the programs we are watching, to view a product? They are selling things to the public, BECAUSE IT WORKS! They sold Dean down and out and they have sold a couple of the other candidates up! Those who they decided are fringe, are not doing well, because of it. They now want to take the rest of them out of the debates. What gives them the power to decide that? You do. The media is owned by six (6) corporations which are owned by extreme right wing people.

I would support another candidate, if there was one which had most of my beliefs, but there is not one that does. I will ABB in November, not before the Convention!

The more delegates we give Dean, the more our message will have an impact on the party. They may have taken him down, don't let his message or his movement get taken down also! Stand with him!

My beliefs do not change, just because my candidate is not campaigning! I do not know, if yours would either, if you were in this same position. One would hope not!

[capriccio]

42. You forgot something

With all that media power against him, Gore still won the popular vote.

[jansu]

57. How True, but can you imagine how hard it would have been

for the SC to install Bush, if there had been fair and balanced reporting and the American people had known what he really was....it would never have been that close!

[otohara]

38. Carville & Begala - HUGE Disappointment

HUGE - showed their true DLC colors on many occassions regarding Dean...OH EXCEPT NOW they are praising Dean for giving the Dems back their Balls

[Indiana Democrat]

41. They simply believe in REALITY.

And THANK GOD for them.

[Cha]

52. Their reality is something I'm glad I

don't live in.

[Indiana Democrat]

53. You mean you don't like it when Democrats WIN???

Unfortunately, that's all too typical among Dean supporters.

[Cha]

101. That's not the "reality" I was talking about...

the dlc lost the 2002 elections..that's Reality with a capital "R"!

[Capn Sunshine]

55. Wow I heard that exact thing about Bob Doles candidacy

he was SURE to beat Clinton. It was a reality. I mean, look at things.

[Indiana Democrat]

62. Where the hell did you hear that?

Everyone was saying the EXACT opposite...Everyone was saying that Dole was a sacrificial lamb (Which he was).

Hell...I didn't even bother voting because I knew President Clinton was going to win in a WALK...And he did.

What color is the sky in your world?

[BL_Zebub]

125. Didn't bother voting?

For who, I wonder? Did someone just "out" themselves?

[Tinoire]

58. Oh please!

:puke:

DLC Carville married in real life to a Republican. That's the god-damned reality and I'm glad people (not you) are finally realizing WTF is going on here.

[Indiana Democrat]

63. BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You're bashing James FREAKING Carville???

Oh my GOD!!!

Now I've seen EVERYTHING here.

Good GOD!!!


Wait...I just thought of something...

Your rantings about Carville can mean ONLY one thing...He is a puke plant and Mary Matalin is a REAL Republican?

So...How about this...

How about those of your ilk and the pukes who say the same thing, in reverse, about Matalin get together and see which group is the whackiest?

Make it a reality show...You'll make MILLIONS!! Call it the Tinfoil World.

[Tinoire]

71. Sieg heil to the DLC

Another joke of a post. DLC-style of course so what could one expect?

Rah rah rah. DLC all the way. If we don't win, we'll bore you to death with our vapid posts.

[Indiana Democrat]

84. So now Carville and Democratic WINNERS are Nazis?

Nice.

[Tinoire]

90. In a simplistic connect the dots world I guess they must seem that way

to you. Such a shame isn't it the way idiots simplify things and reach really stupid conclusions?

[Scott Lee]

97. Carville is merely a snivelling old bald headed fart

Who is part of the autocratic DLC (propaganda arm, auxilliary to the Compliance Division).

[Cha]

102. And married to another

media whore.

[otohara]

60. REALITY - Are You Saying CNN Is A Shining Example

of reality? Oh please - Carville and Begalla know they have power to influence many a democrats - and they use their little 1/2 hour program to promote their agenda. Which wasn't to pile praise on Howard Dean, his large grassroots movement and Dean's front runner status.

Begalla and Carville are political consultants. They've been working for the higher ups in the party - Dean was not part of the DC establishment.

So kind of them to praise Dean now, don't ya think?


For the record, reporters and editors deny that this occurred. Privately, they chortle over their accomplishment. At the Washington airport I ran into a bunch of them, including some old friends from long-ago campaigns, on their way to the next contest after Iowa. So, I remarked, you guys saved the Republic from the doctor. Yes, they assented with giggly pleasure, Dean was finished--though one newsmagazine correspondent confided the coverage would become more balanced once they went after Senator Kerry. Only Paul Begala of CNN demurred. "I don't know what you're talking about," Begala said, blank-faced. Nobody here but us gunslingers.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=greider

[Indiana Democrat]

64. They knew Dean meant DISASTER for the Democratic Party.

They are partisains...Not "Journalists"...They are SUPPOSED to speak their opinions. And I, for one, will FOREVER be greatful for whatever they may have done to help expose Dean as the sure loser he was.

[otohara]

67. Yes I Too Pray The Media Will Continue To Choose Our Candidates

for us. Thank God for the media types who have the power to eliminate front runner candidates they don't like. Remember Al Gore?

Funny how that loser you speak of was able to build an army of supporters. His many accomplishments as a doctor, governor and most importantly exposing the Democrats as spineless wimps, too afraid to criticize Bush.

Kerry is working very hard to get that loser to endorse him now. Aren't you concerned that this loser you speak of may endorse your guy?

[Indiana Democrat]

68. No...He's a GREAT follower...

...just a poor leader.

[AntiCoup2K4]

78. And who would be your idea of a "great leader"??

Someone who spent the last three years following the Bush Criminal Empire's agenda and voting for it?

I have other suspicions on who your favorite "leaders" might be, and anyone else could figure that out from the tone of your posts. But I'll let individuals complete that thought themselves :)

[Indiana Democrat]

83. Bill Clinton.

Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, just to name a few WINNERS.

[Scott Lee]

98. "We are Eisenhower Republicans" - Bill Clinton

THAT Bill Clinton?

*smirk*

[Eloriel]

109. Well, the question arises -- were they REALLY winners

or did they too steal their elections by some combination of Establishment dirty tricks and media manipulation?

Put another way, after some of the remarks you've made here (and the resultant erosion your credibility has suffered), now I am doubting the legitimacy of their wins.

[Guaranteed]

88. Reality? WHAT REALITY?

THEY created this. They **CREATED** this.

Calling Dean "unelectable" over and over does NOT constitute REALITY. It's media sabotage.

[Indiana Democrat]

103. Bush would have SLAUGHTERED Dean.

[lyonn]

47. Carville & Begala

Oh so true. When Dean first got media attention I was sure that the Dems on Crossfire would be praising Dean. Wrong, it really surprised me when they made slightly negative remarks. But, I decided they were just being fair. Wrong, it only got worse. That tells Me a lot. It was that way with most of the base media talk type people. Maybe Dean does have a problem I'm not aware of but I sure didn't get a clue from the media. I don't count the so-called misspeaks, like Osama, people in the South with confederate flag decals, etc. The media hammered him rather than repeated what his reasoning was for the statements.

[chief joseph]

76. Don't be dissin carville. He just wants to win.

[Kolesar]

94. Carville & Begala were sickening pro-war Bush-lite Democrats

I was almost glad when the show moved from 7 pm to 5 pm so I could not see it any more !

[candy331]

108. The (for now) talking heads of the party are downright disgusting

I stopped watching Carville and Begala on Crossfire because of their attacks on a member of their own party who was speaking for the interests of the party. Carville should take lessons from his wife.

Zell Miller would never have the kind of free rein he now has in this party in the repub party and he knows it that is why he stays in the party where he can lob his missiles w/o impunity.(Although I tend to agree with him on the Dems being 'A National Party No More')
Seems like they should have gotten off their butts and talked with Nader but they were too busy crucifying Dean and now demanding Nader not run just shows the arrogance and sense of entitlement they feel.

I too believe everyone is supposedly in theory anyway, entitled to their opinion but when and where that opinion is voiced to me is more important. Republicans have differences of opinion but don't show up in major news to vehemently trash one of their own. That's truly a lesson Democrats could take and apply from the repubs.

Democrats seem to go out of their way to continuously bite the hands that feeds them(supporters) and then come back and expect the other hand too. I think they may have bitten a few hands too many this time around.

[Ugnmoose]

44. This is why we need a viable third party

It is honor among thieves. The clubbers will always stick together. Dean was an outsider and he threatened to break up the club. Hence he had to be crucified. You can spin it anyway you want but the bottom line is that Kerry is the handpicked candidate with Edwards waiting in the wings should Kerry stumble.

[Indiana Democrat]

45. Yes, it's a huge conspiracy...

...and the only people who are not in on it are you and the rest of the Dean supporters.

Sorry I had to break it to you like this.

[Cha]

51. You're not breaking anything.

Anybody that's paying any attention at all can see what's going on.

Even apolitical People have come up to me and cursed the media for their bias.

[otohara]

69. I Feel Obligated to Break This To You

there was most definitely a conspiracy and living in denial is a great escape from the truth.


The party establishment, limp as it is, was correct to target Dean with tribal vengeance. From their narrow perspective, he represented a political Antichrist. The unvarnished way he talked. The glint of unfamiliar, breakthrough ideas in his speeches. His lack of customary deference to party elders (and to the media's own cockeyed definition of reality). What the insiders loathed are the same qualities many of us found exhilarating. I already feel nostalgia for his distinctive one-liners:


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=greider

[adadem]

46. Yes, another third party

to split the progressive vote between the Dems and the Greens. Exactly what the Repuglicans want.

[DFLforever]

59. The Dems don't seem to mind it either - they're playing into Repub

hands: Down with Dean. In with Nader. On with candidate who lacks all conviction.

[Old and In the Way]

56. But Dean made it clear that he will support the Democratic nominee.

Are you saying Dean's in on the conspiracy?

Unlike the GE, the primary voter is certainly more engaged and interested in the process that selects the Democratic nominee. Could it possibly be that they evaluated all the candidates running and chose to vote for the one whom they believe has the best chance of defeating GWB in the GE? That this person best reflects the values and atributes that they want in a President?

[chief joseph]

77. Won't happen in our lifetime.

[oasis]

65. Of course Dean bears no responsibility for his own slide. Just bein' Dean.

[WilliamPitt]

66. Had Dean won a single primary or caucus

a lot of this would have been proven silly.

[eileen_d]

72. Just think of what Dean could have achieved

if his supporters actually worked to get him elected after IA and NH. Instead, they devoted all of their energy to blaming the media, other Democrats, and everything else under the sun. No wonder Dean never recovered.

[chief joseph]

79. The Louozzo family couldn't have imploded Dean's

campaign any better than he did himself.

[Guaranteed]

89. How could he have when every other word coming out of the Dem

pundits' mouths was "UNELECTABLE" in referring to Dean? And this was BEFORE Iowa. They didn't even give any reasons! It was just "People have real doubts about Dean's strength as a candidate" or "I'm not sure about Dean's electability" or "Some have a hard time putting real faith in Dean's ability to beat Bush."

It was fucking GOSSIP.

[Scott Lee]

100. The DLC worked hand in hand with the rethugs on that one

Neither entity wanted to deal with the shake-up that Dean was leading. No way, no how. With Senator Ham Sandwich as the front runner, everybody entrenched right now gets just what they want.

[Eloriel]

111. Actually, I wish he were as exciting as a HamSandwich

or as principled.

[burning bush]

99. Right Behind you 100%

Freak on Kerry and the damn horse upon which he stole into town.

How can you not be angry when the most honest politician in a generation or more gets ravaged by the man who snarked at a crowd of Dems, angry at the stolen 2000 election, that they should "Quit cryingin their teacups and get over it"

What a bastard! What a insensitive piece of shit!

How could I NOT be angry that this John F.ucking Kerry is deemed "electable" and Dean is called "out of the mainstream"

Lies, and the liars that tell them

You go right on talking MadFloridian, I love what you're saying!

[Samantha]

113. Politics is just a business today

and to all of those formerly in the inner Clinton circle, gigs are few and far between. Backing a DLC nominee and having that nominee win the White House, puts them back in the inner circle right where the influence and money are.

It's kind of tough to swallow, if you are idealistic enough to think that voting represents a person's choice in who they want to speak for them when in the larger picture voting is of little consequence to the power brokers in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

That's why we have this large crevice between the base of the party and the so-called leaders -- we want the representation of our viewpoints, they want the spoils of the election war. And with each passing day, as it becomes clearer to the average man that his interests are not even being addressed, that crevice is doomed to just grow larger and larger.

It was obvious when the DLC sent its members out into the public to ask Al Gore not to run in 2004 that the party was splintered between those championing an ideal and those determined to maintain control. When the city of Boston was chosen for the convention location, I though that was a clear signal who the party wanted to run. It was after all Kerry's turn. Kerry wanted to run in 1992, but having voted against the first Gulf War, the party would not support his bid. In 1996, Kerry could not take on the incumbent Bill Clinton. In 2000, Kerry wanted to challenge Al Gore for the nomination but concluded that he could not wrestle the nomination from him. Now he's being presented to the voting public as a true winner, when the simple truth is, it's merely his turn. Everyone who supports the party and comes up through the ranks finally get his turn, whether he's the best candidate or not. And that's why Kerry will win and Dean could not. It was not Dean's turn. In order to maintain control over the party mechanics, you have to control the process. And so we process Kerry.

And for everyone on this site who stands by the statement Dean self-destructed, one cannot get around the DLC's own words: first, while we do not select the candidate the Democratic party runs, we do have a lot of influence over who that candidate will be. That statement was printed in The Washington Post in response to the DLC's public statements regarding their disfavor of a Gore run in 2004. Second, the statement was made recently in a Washington Post article, that party leaders were dismayed over the rise in the polls of Howard Dean. If the trend continued, they would do something to stop him. The arrogance of the DLC is overwhelming, the only thing more startling is the lack of reluctance to publicly display it. And now having narrowed the field to two of their own, their strategists float the slogan Anybody But Bush, suggesting to the base, if we lose because you don't vote for the candidates we have selected for you, a Bush* win will be Your Fault. Lost is the fact that the majority of Democrats, 60 percent, opposed the Iraq war. Salient is the fact that once again they have prevailed, and we have already lost.

[kayob1]

115. Excellent post

Thank you.

[CWebster]

123. Well said!!!!

A mind that thinks!

[Lexingtonian]

117. I'm sorry

but what I hear is fear talking. The Dean campaign constructed a Manichaean way of looking at things and the paranoia and hostility except to folks of one's own very particular kind and creed. White is not black, even if you want it to be; welcome back to the shades of gray.

Secondly, Southern and Midwestern Democrats have a way of unwittingly echoing Republican talking points. (You can observe this on DU.) Northeastern Republicans have a way of unwittingly bringing up Democratic talking points sometimes. We are defined regionally in a painfully large way; the local cultural terms drive the political assumptions and way of articulating them.

A political party is an open conspiracy for power. It isn't a conspiracy for one kind of morality or another- expedience in obtaining power is what dictates the choice, nothing else. They are not religions unless they degenerate into desperate ideologies that are occultic systems of thought. (In my opinion both the Bush and Dean movements are exemplars, though, of the latter- both are -deliberately- Manichaeanisms.)

And, as a New Englander, I have to tell you that Dean struck lots of people up here as one of the kind of people you know here as small business people along the lines of car salesmen, and invariably conservatives at bottom. We've seen his kind before. If Vermont can't do any better, that's fine, they're a relatively small place and maybe he was the best person at the time for them. But his limitations come as little surprise around here- there is no need for people who watch New England/New York politics to see any conspiracy whatsoever to his media darling rise (we have our demogogues, too), the mau-mauing and triumphalist behavior instigated in his followers by the campaign, or to understand his fall after being placed on a stage with his peers.

A will-driven Northern conservative pushing a rigid Left agenda seemed the perfect response to the present situation- if it really were what it seemed to be. We are now getting- it seems- a hard Northern liberal with a nuanced and carefully blurred liberal-and-moderate-Left agenda. I'm not sure which part of that inspires you to violent resistance rather than passionate insistence, but the reasons for seemingly unappealable rejection of the offered lie imho on your end. One vehement Dean supporter here (dsc) has admitted something of the kind, of traumatic experience all his own bringing him to respond to Kerry with an extreme conservatism. I think that there's something of the kind going on with many anti-Kerry folks around here- they want change in very defined and narrow ways and respond with remarkable fear to the prospect of Kerry. I think that's what the ideological, but unprincipled and intolerant, haranguing and hankering is about. That's what the extreme anti-snobbism is about. It's time to become solid and genuine liberals if you want part in what is to come and many find that very difficult or too high a price. For reasons that are very understandable, sure- we've all been burned before- but not actually very good ones.

[stickdog]

119. Yes. The media & the Dem establishment took down Dean.

That's undeniable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1152741,00.html

Isn't it a shame that we have to look to the British press for even this sort of "Well, duh" political analysis?

I mean, this story is so modestly written as to be almost categorically undeniable. However, US obits of "Dean's demise" were almost universally written as if the media had no hand whatsover in process of forming US electoral opinion.

[CWebster]

122. And now

they demand that we vote for them.

[IndianaGreen]

126. The NY Times also sold the WMD in Iraq lies to its readers

The NY Times was also part of Bush's PR campaign to support the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.

What the New York Times "overlooked" in the Venezuelan events
By Bill Vann
18 April 2002

The disarray within US ruling circles over the failed coup in Venezuela has found its most distilled expression on the editorial page of the New York Times.

When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was in the custody of military coup leaders and apparently bound either for execution or exile, the Times hailed his overthrow in the lead editorial of its April 13 edition. “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator,” the paper exulted, noting that “the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader.”

The collapse of the coup in the face of mass protests and dissension within the military required a shifting of gears. “In his three years in office, Mr. Chavez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington,” the newspaper declared in an April 16 editorial. “That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer.”

How the Times’ editors “overlooked” the small detail that Chavez had been removed by flagrantly undemocratic means is not explained. Did they fail to note the military uniforms of the coup leaders portrayed in the photograph on the newspaper’s front page? Were they not informed about the tanks in the streets of Caracas? Were they so unfamiliar with Venezuela’s recent history that they did not know Chavez had been elected, not once but twice, and that his policies had received overwhelming backing in a popular referendum?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/nyt-a18.shtml