Reply #68: I understand what you are saying.....

[FrenchieCat]

and certainly Dean and Kucinich were strongly against this war. In my book that is a lot....but in my book it wasn't enough....as I was looking at it from a difference perspective, that not only was Wes Clark also against the War, and advised against going into Iraq in September of 2002 to both Houses of congress in different sessions, but I also felt that his gravitas and his persona would give Democrats actual credentials in being able to do convince more voters during a General election of our proficientcy on the matters of war and terrorism.

So I give credit to all of them, but FOR ME, Clark was a more logical choice in an election in where not only the ideology of the rightness of the war would be battled, but also the ability to convince voters that Democrats could actually deliver and execute and alternative better solution and a way of getting that solution achieved. In other words, for me, it boiled down to the credibility of actions that would have to be taken, not just the fact that one opposed to what was happening.

I don't quarrel with your support of Howard Dean, as he is a great man...but again, Dean only had 25% of Democrats convinced...hence, there were other prevailing views out there about who could do the best job in standing up to Bush with an realistic alternate plan to get the job done needed to win the General election.