Reply #102: No, I'm attacking Dean's astroturf anti-war campaign

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

For a Dean supporter to attack Clark for doing his duty fighting a war started by a Democratic president, and supported by NATO and the UN is really beyond the pale. I mean I've attacked Dean for his pro-NAFTA and pro-corporate policies, and Dean has attacked other candidates for their votes on war, but this is a bit much.

I've marched against every war in my lifetime, most of them under Clinton. I worked for two years as a professional "peace activist" in which I raised money to lobby Congress. We never had any illusions about the politicians we were trying to pressure.

Now I'm reading the basest most transparent tripe about Dean - we have supposed adults swooning like schoolgirls over his "aura" and "magentic personality" and other such crap. Upper middle class white liberals can certainly relate to Dean, but a lot of Democrats don't.

But to listen to Dean campaign staff come on here and pimp his newly found anti-war views is more than I can stomach. Dean has run the most deceptive and superficial campaign I have ever seen, excepting Bush's.

When I first heard of Dean, I looked quite favorably on him, until I realized he was a long time DLC Democrat that was a campaigner for NAFTA and corporate trade agreements. Now that he's running for president, I've read spin on DU that makes Republican propaganda look like child's play. The amount of spin and deception is crazy.

I don't want Dean to win the primary mostly because Bush will actually win an election against Dean. And to listen to Dean supporters criticize Clark for fighting a war while pimping their chickenhawk, millionaire, Yalie, pro-corporate pro-NAFTA DLC candidate is sickening, but goes a long way explaining why the Democrats are now the minority party.

I said it before - Dean is the Ralph Nader of rich white liberals. They are willing to throw away the general election for a candidate that makes speeches they like, just like the Greens did for Nader. No thanks.