The coming civil war within the Democratic Party

[WilliamPitt]

There are a lot of reasons why we could very well lose in 2004. Bush has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, a lapdog media to serve him, a Congressional majority to cover his backside and kill legitimate investigations, a Justice Department that will do the same, a 'jobless recovery' that is nothing more than a short-term adrenaline shot from the tax cuts, and a populace still feeling the fear he fed them after 9/11 and before the war. These all have to be overcome to get him out, and it is daunting. Daunting, but noble and worthy. That's what the fight should be about.

I fear, however, that we will lose in 2004, not because of these things, but because the Democratic party establishment will eat itself over the candidacy/nomination of Howard Dean.

Gore's endorsement was a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE boost to a campaign that is already surging. I believe Gore timed the release of this endorsement because he sees what is on the horizon: A coalition of the other candidates putting up a united front to deny Dean the nomination, also known as an "Anyone But Dean" movement. The pieces have been coming together on this for a while now, made all the more necessary (in their minds) by the fantastic success of the Dean campaign. The locus of the ABD attacks, in all liklihood, would be Iowa, which is a little more than a month off.

Dean has said he will essentially recreate the Democratic party. Gore echoed these plans today, and endorsed them. With Gore on board, this makes Dean an even greater threat to the party powers-that-be, most of whom are affiliated with the Clinton wing of the party, the DLC and hence to candidates like Clark, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman. These powers-that-be are the ones who will be shown the door if Dean wins the Presidency, and they don't want that to happen.

A civil war is about to erupt within the Democratic party between the Gore wing and the Clinton wing. The Clinton wing is more powerful than the Gore wing, and I worry that - if Dean gets nominated - they will sit on their hands during the general election to keep Dean from potentially winning and reworking the whole apparatus. Regardless, Gore's endorsement was a warning shot across the bow of the ABD people. He let them know that, if they do this, they will have a divided party on their hands. I think, I fear, the ABD attacks will happen anyway, and in fact, will happen even more vigorously after the Gore endorsement. Gore raised the stakes, and simultaneously made the other candidates more deperate, and thus more likely to launch such an attack.

If you're a Dean supporter, this should worry you. If you are a supporter of another candidate, as I am, then you need to be vigilant. If you see your candidate preparing to participate in a massive ABD trench war against Dean, raise hell about it. We all have to make sure that Dean wins or loses the nomination on the merits, that any of the other candidates win or lose the nomination on the merits, and not because the party's self-interested power brokers chose to destroy the village in order to 'save it.'

The war is coming, folks. I can smell it.

[Crewleader]

1. Good insight William

I wonder how the debate will be, I'll be watching tonight.

Thanks William for the reminder of the real prize! :hug:

[Zomby Woof]

8. What time is the debate?

What channel? And Hi Crew! :hi:

[beyurslf]

20. 7 pm EST on CSPAN n/t

[Crewleader]

50. Hi Zomby!

Tonight's Debate is on CSPAN & ABC at 7pm Eastern Time to 8:30 pm!
Hope you get to watch it....:hi:

[Zomby Woof]

77. Thank you!!!

Thanks to you and beyurself! :hi:

Hope all is well with you Crew! :bounce: I will be watching!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

131. A split in the DLC - DLC Clinton vs. DLC Gore

Since both Clinton and Gore are long time members of the DLC, and all the frontrunners - Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Edwards - support most if not all of the centrist DLC positions, this sounds like a fight over who gets to run the DLC from now on, Clark/Clinton or Dean/Gore.

I remember when DU was AGAINST the DLC and their centrist, GOP Lite policies. The more things change...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. I don't buy the Clinton/Gore wings angle

Sure, there maybe some factions at the top, but it's not going to matter after the primaries. All factions of the leadership in the Democratic party have the same neo-liberal economic policies and the same socially liberal platform. Neither Clinton nor Gore command enough "troops" to do much after the convention.

The worst thing that could happen is a base that doesn't bother to show up.

[WilliamPitt]

4. It isn't about ideology or policy. It's about power.

Dean will strip a lot of people of power if he wins. They don't want that to happen.

[Sliverofhope]

10. Ugh, what a horrible, horrible

thing to have to think about. Beating Bush will be ugly. We don't need any surplus ugly going around. Bush cannot win a second term. Everyone needs to realize this.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. sure I agree

Sure, there will be a battle of the bureaucrats - Clinton people wanting to retain their positions and the "new" Dean/Gore/Trippi axis trying to take over. After the primary, it won't matter. If Dean gets the nod, he'll bring plenty of former Clinton people, and Dean will beg Clinton for his support. They will all kiss and make up after the primary.

Well it will make for interesting insider baseball...

[theboss]

39. "Remake the Party"

Those are the key words in the speech. I can't believe that you can remake the Party without firing those at the top. And those at the top still have a lot of weapons they can use. If I'm Terry McAulliffe, I am calling in every favor I am owed today.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. so, he'll fire some people, and replace them with similar people

The party will remain the same.

[Eloriel]

97. He's already chnged the party --

the only question remaimimg is how much more and how permanent?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

111. changed the party? how so?

Is Dean calling for anything different than 1992 or 1996? While they did a good job fundraising, and greatly expanded the mailing list, I don't see any substantial differences between then and now? I mean concrete, actual differences, not a "change in tone" or a "new spirit of activism" or whatever.

[Eloriel]

132. Most important -- or noticeable, at this point

is a large infusion of highly motivated, activist members. A lot of them never involved in politics before (for good or ill). We'vwe been overrunning some reg Dem party functions.

Tremendous uptick in expectations about our politics and our politicians. Dean supporters are NOT going to be content with being consumers ever again -- they're participants and they like it.

And then there are all the ways Dean has changed campaigning, hopefully forever -- and beliwvw me, the internet piece is just a piece (and a tool, tho a vital one).

And since I'm typing with one hand, that's all I've got the patience to explain.

[theboss]

145. I'm not convinced

I'm curious to see if the newcomers Dean brought to the Party are going to stick around and change things. But we've been down this road before ('72 and '92 to be exact). There have been two huge supposed shifts that lasted until November . . .and the Daleys are STILL the moneymen.

Let's not think that we are viewing a tidal change yet.

[Eloriel]

178. Well, I did say it remains to be seen how much more and

whether permanently -- did you miss that? And the answers to those two qurdtions will rest in large part -- hopefully not entirely -- on how far Howard goes.

And just because you don't see it as a tidal change doesn't mean it isn;t. I've said many, many timres that to understand the Dean campaign and the "movement" that has grown up around it, you have to go there and take it in for yourself. A FEW commentators (print, mostly) have actually gotten it well enough to write about it accurately. In a lot of ways, I'm okay with that -- for now, because it has kept Rove&Co. off his back (tho that's changing). The downside is that it keeps the electorate in the dark about a campaign that offers a revolutionary, bottom up difference.

[polpilot]

172. Good post. Expectations have never been higher. No more apologist

reach across the aisle Democratic drivel. The party of social security, medicaid, fair housing, and democratic ideals rises like the phoenix with the good doctor leading the return.

Dean '04...

[blm]

133. Dean got old lefties to embrace centrism as pragmatism.

And he used populist rhetoric to do it. Thankfully enough lefties are on to Dean's dog and pony show.

[bearfartinthewoods]

163. from your lips.....

i may even give up agnosticism before this is over..

[Scott Lee]

164. I'm not that old, Rumplestiltskin.

[Eloriel]

182. Not at all

Centrism and pragmatism aren't necessarily related, nor are they mutually exclusive. And Dean supporters aren't at all confused.

Personally, I am really turned on by Dean's pragmatism. I LIKE the idea of actually getting things done, what works or what will work.

[polpilot]

140. Democrats aren't enablers in the Iraqi Disaster. Without Dean we'd have

a bunch of apologist reach-across-the aisle nominees talking about how going to Iraq was 'right and necessary to protect America'. Who can forget the surprise on John Edwards' face in California when he make a statment in support of the Iraqi Sheperd Bombing. DEAN TOTALLY CHANGED THE '04 ELECTION PROCESS.

Saying the Repubs 'want Dean' is like Kerry saying 'I want Dean'. Dean has framed the debate, showed the DLC the door, and launched the greatest grassroots effort ever. Where you been??

Dean '04...

[no name no slogan]

192. How quickly they forget

Oh come on now, you know quite well that there are at least TWO candidates besides Dean who have been against the Iraq war FROM THE START. And at least ONE has been STEADFAST in his opposition, NEVER waivering, and even organizing congressional OPPOSITION to it.

While Dean was on the campaign trail tapping into the populace's anger, Dennis Kucinich was leading the opposition in Congress. Not only that, Dennis took time from his daunting schedule to speak AND march at a number of protests.

Iraq war opposition does not start and end with Dean. Saying that Dean is the reason for the opposition is a slap in the face to ALL of us who have been against our intervention in Iraq since 1990. Howard Dean is little more than an opportunist who saw a chance to make a name for himself as "the anti-war candidate".

If it weren't for that war, Dean would be little more than John Edwards with a health care plan.

[Clark_for_America]

30. Frankly, I don't think the DLC has anything to worry about

As I have stated over and over and over and over again, Dean's desire to repeal the entire Bush tax cut will kill his chances.

There is no way a middle class American making $60K per year with two kids is going to give back over $2000 per year. Ain't gonna happen!

Bush and the republicans will destroy Dean UNFORTUNATELY!

[WilliamPitt]

You've stated stated over and over and over and over in three posts?

:)

[Clark_for_America]

49. Yes, and I always get booted by the moderator.

Hopefully not this time. :-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

112. well i've said it over and over and over and over and over

i can't sell Dean...not with a 2000 dollar price tag attached.

[Wonk]

43. "As I have stated over and over and over and over again"

You have two posts, both in this thread :shrug:

What other DU names might we know you by?

[RobinA]

85. Maybe?

Maybe he has a life outside DU?

[Wonk]

91. See post #49. nt

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. "Give back $2000 per year"??? Show me exactly how...

...a middle class American family making $60K per year with two kids is getting a $2000 tax cut from Herr Coke-n-Smoke.

Were you behind the door quite some time ago when the real truth of the Chimpster's tax cut was revealed? If you failed to understand this before, let me help you now...only the TOP 1% of those earning incomes in the U.S. were helped by the tax cuts.

Even the same family you described would get a pitifully small tax cut at $100,000, much less $60,000.

Nice try, now move along.

[Clark_for_America]

98. Sorry, I don't have access to my bud's tax records, but

I would assume it's from the decrease in the 15% bracket (not 10% on first $12,000) and the child income tax credit.

[Clark_for_America]

99. Sorry, I don't have access to my bud's tax records, but

I would assume it's from the decrease in the 15% bracket (now 10% on first $12,000) and the child income tax credit.

[bornskeptic]

185. It's like this.

For a couple with two children and income of $60,000, assuming they
take the standard deduction and have no credits except the child tax
credit, comparing 2001 taxes to 2003 taxes:

2001
gross income 60,000
-standard deduction 7,600
52,400
-4 exemptions @2900 11,600
40,800

tax from table 6,124
-2 child credits@600 1,200
tax due 4,924



2003
gross income 60,000
-standard deduction 9,500
50,500
-4 exemptions @3050 12,200
38,300

tax from table 5,049
-2 child credits@1000 2,000
tax due 3,049

decrease:$1,875

I think this is right. Of course you can check yourself if you think
it's wrong.

<http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/lists/0,,id=97817,00.html>

[Lorien]

60k earners got back $300

(an advance on their return, not a real tax break). Not $2000. How much has health insurance gone up in the past three years? College tuition? Prescription drugs? More than $300 per year?

Some bargain.

[CWebster]

173. Here's a classic:

Frankly, I don't think the DLC has anything to worry about
Posted by Clark_for_America

[Kira]

174. We did not get $2000

back. That is my family and we got and advance on the child credit, 400 each. No tax cut for us.

[SharonAnn]

35. Well, we have some people in the Democratic party who need

to be stripped of power. They're like the AARP, purporting to advocate for a group but really lining their own pockets at the group's expense.

[Clark_for_America]

55. Who needs to be stripped from power?

[ulysses]

41. but aren't differences about policy

beneath the questions of power? The DLC is a very ideological organization, just as with any faction within the party.

[BJ]

66. And that's a bad thing?

The problem is that too many Democrats in Congress and in other positions of political power have a vested interest in the status quo. Both parties, when it comes to economic policy, seem more interested in preserving "buggy whip industries than in advancing new technology or investments.

Just the other evening a friend said that if the transcontinental railroad was built in the 1860s in a like political climate to today's Congress would have subsidized every stage coach company, keel boat captain and Conastoga wagon company and the railroad companies would have been broke before a single rail was laid.

[library_max]

114. Well, we've got to be careful about this "new ideas" meme.

A lot of what needs to be done is to restore what's been broken and perverted by the Republicans: Social Security, Medicare, public education, unions, and the social safety net in general to name five. These are things that have been broken by Republicans under the guise of fixing them. A whole lot of the institutions and ideas from the New Deal and Great Society eras were working fine until Republicans started sabotaging them, stealing money from them, or privatizing them.

Leaving fashions and popular culture aside, the seventies were a good time in this country. I'm not suggesting that there wasn't a lot of progress still to be made from there (in GLB rights, for example), but generally we could do a hell of a lot worse than to turn back all of the "reforms" of the eighties, nineties, and particularly the Bush Administration.

Ideas aren't necessarily bad or wrong just because they aren't new. The Bill of Rights, for example, is an old idea.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

117. preserving buggy whip industries

Ah I see, it's a good thing that corporations are laying off Americans and moving jobs to cheap labor totalitarian companies - cause those were buggy industry jobs anyway (like software engineering, or making clothes).

Yeesh.

[Hope4]

193. Really shake things up, vote abcd

I am worried about these two power groups trying to select the next president. Let us do it. Vote Anybody But Clark or Dean. We have great candidates and let us send a signal to these two power groups that we will not follow them and the media. NH voters are known to hate power groups like the clinton/gore power groups telling them to vote one way.

No dem on here has posted any logic for going outside to get a person to run that is a military guy and not even a dem.

[theboss]

26. It begins and ends with McAulliffe

Dean does not need McAulliffe; he has his own money.

But the rest of the incumbants do. And any re-shaping of the party is going to start with him. I don't expect him to go down without a fight. And from I can see, Hillary still has Terry's back. If it becomes Dean v. McAulliffe, it is ostensibly Gore v Clinton.

Someone smart needs to interview Mayor Daley fast and get his take on all this.

[bearfartinthewoods]

124. If it becomes Dean v. McAulliffe,

it is ostensibly Dean v Clinton&Clinton.

the only power Gore wields was wielded today...

[Patriot_Spear]

3. "They're not trying to stop me, they're trying to stop you."

Dean is on target with this sentiment.

[janx]

12. Boy you're not kidding. Especially right now.

.

[BJ]

5. Well, you're right there. There needn't be intraparty rancor.

Yet I stand by my position, that should a Democrat win the White House, regardless the candidate, that a reassessment of fundamental Party philisophy needs to be addressed.

[SahaleArm]

53. Isn't that what the Green Party is about?

Is Dean really running on a liberal/progressive platform?

[BJ]

82. No, I don't think he is. He's pretty centrist, if you ask me.

But is is so wildly Lieberal to stand for universal health care, adequately funded public education from pre-school to college, a fair and equitable living wage, a Department of Peace? Those, as I understand them, are Dennis Kucinich's positions and I don't find them so outrageous as to be outside the mainstream.

But what Dean is doing, as far as I understand, is circumventing, and therefore undermining, the corporationist-donor-lobbyist-politician funding circuit.

[SahaleArm]

129. Kucinch has a problem with delivery.

Most of his ideas are pretty Democratic or union-centric other than the Department of Peace. Nothing wrong with the idea just the naming of it. For instance Clark is proposing a Department of International Assistance that lives outside State and Defense.

[deutsey]

6. The "uncivil" war has already arrived here at DU, IMO

:evilfrown:

I've been advocating for a long time that we all be prepared to rally behind whomever gets the nomination and have urged everyone to avoid spitting so much venom at other Dems. It just blinds us all and poisons the air.

[janx]

61. I agree. And the wingnuts know that some people are disappointed;

they're pushing this "division" and "fractured party" line to divide us.

It's the biggest propaganda push I've ever seen in the media in one given day.

[library_max]

119. Come on.

There's ABB sentiment all over DU. It's just a few soreheads and non-Democrats who make a lot of noise that give the impression of fundamental division.

[deutsey]

142. Let's hope

but I'm seeing a growing nastiness here lately among various camps.

[library_max]

156. Well, I've got a poll going, "Do You Support ABB?"

Maybe it'll give us some idea. Right now it's at 78% ABB.

On edit: sorry, here's the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=860885

[Homer12]

7. The last thing we need.

Well, if this is true, then the two camps in the Democratic PArty really could care less about actually defeating GW then they do about their split in ideologies.

It would really make me sick to see this happening, but will this civil war destroy the party at this weakened state, or help it to become re-born?

I have know Idea.

[papau]

9. I agree as tro the "Clinton people" in control -but at this point most are

very neutral. Hillary is explicitly neutral - and I have heard nothing of Bill chosing a horse in this race.

I suspect the war you anticipate will be among folks that see themselves as power brokers - and I see it going nowhere except I do anticipate the Teamsters sitting out the election.

Gore will restore Black support for Dean - but more important - I do not see the Gore endorsement as ending the race. Indeed the senarios needed to win for Gep, Edwards, Kerry, and Clark have not changed. Lieberman is reduced to expectations lowering so a 4th or 5th place finish in Iowa and NH do not mean he can not say on to Feb 3.

This will be interesting - but in the end, I think we will take the WH in 04 with any of Gep, Edwards, Kerry,Dean, or Clark.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Neutral?

Clark's entrance was the first ABD move on the chessboard, and it came straight from the Clinton crew. It failed (at least to this point), upping the desperation level.

[tameszu]

54. Will Pitt, you are a deep thinker

But you disrepect the thousands of people who have worked very hard in an uncoordinated manner for Clark when perpetuate this idea that Clark was merely a "move" that came "straight from the Clinton crew."

I agree that Gore's endorsement may be part of a looming battle for control of the Democratic Party, but you badly underestimate Clark and his supporters if you think that he or they are mere handmaidens of anyone.

If Clark was merely an ABD pawn, then the Clintons sure didn't use enough of their pull to nudge weaklings like Edwards and Lieberman out of the race, which would have consolidated Clark's status as ABD in much more direct manner.

Clark is running because he has a distinct vision of America's place int he world that he has been articulating since he led NATO and wrote his first book, and the reason he has the 2nd most active netroots and local network is because there are tens of thousands of people who share that vision. Please try to keep this in mind when making your calculations regarding the Democratic Party's power struggles.

[WilliamPitt]

67. Don't get me wrong

Clark isn't some cardboard cutout. I think he is a fantastic candidate for a variety of reasons. I also think he is part of a larger game being played. Every candidate has backers, planners, etc. Clark's crew is the Clinton crew.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

104. I had not thought before this that Clark...

...could be the Clinton Wing's candidate of choice. That does make a considerable amount of sense.

[WilliamPitt]

107. See post #83

[Clark_for_America]

69. I disagree

I don't think there is any desperation. If the party can't see that raising taxes on middle class Americans is a losing position then there is nothing the ABD cabal can do. That is if there is any validity to the ABD theory.

[janx]

76. Pitt, I know you're smarter than this.

Go back and find where the Clintons decided to put Clark in the race. It's true that some people they knew and/or associated/worked with favored Clark, yes...but it does not necessarily follow that the Clintons were responsible for Clark's candidacy.

That theory was promulgated by none other than the huge army of tabloid media pundits driven by the Right Wing.

Now it's this "rift" B.S.

Don't trust it. It's insidious and it's meant to divide us.

A real Democratic process like this is bound to be bumpy. But as we're experiencing a rough ride, let's not be vulnerable to such dirty politics and low-down right-wing attacks.

[WilliamPitt]

83. Wanna know where I got that?

From one of the state chairmen of the Democratic party. One who is involved in a lot of day-to-day campaign stuff with the DNC. He said it the way one might say "The sky is blue," i.e. everyone he deals with knows this is true. I find that pretty compelling evidence.

[Eloriel]

177. not only that

it's been widely reported. Sometimes those rw talking points bear some truth.

[bearfartinthewoods]

143. i'm gonna keep saying this

every idea you don't agree with or that you don't want to hear is not necessarily RW propaganda. to dismiss it as such is foolishness.

[Upfront]

183. Na

The big shots may try something on the sly, but the people out hear will see through it. Who wins the vote will be the candidate. Hate for B*** will be the thing that unites the people behind who ever. We must beat B***!

[AP]

106. Again, another theory.

I think it's very possible that the entry of Clark wasn't so much to get Clark the nomination, but to remove national security from the table as an issue to disparage Democrats. Of course, if Clark won the nom straight up, nobody would complain.

However, Clark's real value is that he introduces the national security issue in a legitimate manner into the debates, and whomever gets the nomination will carry forward with Clark's imprimatur (whether it's Clark or someone else).

I really don't think the Dems wanted Clark as if that were the primary goal of his participation. I just think they wanted him in it because it shows America that Democrats can wear uniforms too. And Democrats can be strong on national defense.

I think, to that extent, Clark's participation has bee valuable and, perhaps, has reaped real dividends for the whole field.

[kentuck]

128. Clark is going to be very powerful in the South....

He will beat Dean in that area of the country..

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

122. Clark was not an ABD move

Clark's draft movement was long before anyone thought Dean had a chance at winning the nom.

[mikehiggins]

199. Okay, this talk started with this post, right?

Maybe I've got this wrong but this sentence seems to be saying that Clark's entrance into the campaign was designed as an "anything but Dean" move.

Does that mean that the Draft Clark movement was a creation of the Clintons? Does that mean that Clark is simply a "stalking horse" for Hillary?

You allege that a pretty well connected Dem discussed this as almost a given, as if everyone should know it was obviously true. Surely you know better than that.

I was active in a union where most influential positions depended entirely on access to the "leader". The closer you were to the leader the more influence you were assumed to have. This beleif structure worked to my advantage more than once, since I was close to some of the people who were thought to be close to the leader. My opinion was considered pretty knowledgeable by those around me, and those who were seeking to be seen as being knowledgeable.

I of course had no idea WTF was really going on. Moreover, I learned most of the people "in the know" had no idea WTF was really going on.
Bill Clinton makes a remark that Hillary and Clark (sounds like they should be exploring the Louisiana territory, or climbing Everest) are the "stars" of the Democratic party.

Shazam! Clark is Clinton's boy, and after all, he worked for Clinton as a general and they grew up in Arkansas and they're both Rhodes scholars and, and, and...

When Bill Clinton comes forward, places his hand on Clark's shoulder and says, this is my candidate in whom I am well pleased, EVEN then you should take it with a grain of salt.

Occam's Razor suggests the simplest explanations are often the most correct. Clark is running for President because he wants to. He is no politician and he, more than most, knows just how far loyalty goes when you work for Clinton (who didn't know Cohen and Shelton were going to screw Clark out of NATO). If he is running it is best to look at his campaign, and at what he is doing.

For an "anybody but Dean" candidate he seems awfully careful NOT to go after Howie in any sustained manner. Would that be the way you would approach an assignment like bringing Dean down? Doesn't seem so to me.

I consider all this stuff a distraction. From my point of view Clark's campaign has to be looked at as a blessing. I cannot see any reason to think that Dean or any of the other candidates are going to succeed in bringing down an incumbent president in a time of war, no matter what the folks on DU most fervently wish to be the case.

Clark, at least, gives us the opportunity to reach out to a wide range of voters from all parties and provide them with a candidate who not only can do what Bush claims to be doing, but do it far better. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and if national security is a major concern of the election (as it usually is) nobody else on our side can provide anything but the same old same old that has earned us a GOP House and Senate.

Oh, and I wrote a book also ( http://www.tellnotales.info )

;^)

[bearfartinthewoods]

134. neutral???are you kidding?

the Clark campaign was born of their loins. ok...bad choice of phrase but you get what i mean.

[Paragon]

11. This sounds a lot like what I said last night...

...but I'm not prepared to use inflammatories like "war". Call it a disagreement -- sorry, but it's like picking a fight with the British when you see the Nazis coming around the corner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=852628&mesg_id=852628

[deminflorida]

13. If it's a war, then Dean will fight the first battle in the South and,

lose due to his stance on Middle Class Taxes. It's the one issue that will turn the south against him, because he will be perceived as a Tax and Spend New England Liberal, even though he's not a liberal nor did he ever perform as a liberal when governing Vermont. The non-liberal stance he took in Vermont could very well be the other issue that turns black voters (the ones that Sharpton hasn't already commited) against him once they really get a good look at his previous record.

He needs to modify his tax stance. Period.

[BJ]

96. I don't know about the folks you hang with...

...but the guys I used to work with aren't so taken with these Bush tax cuts. They know who's getting what. And it ain't them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

151. it's too late to do that

he said it, it's his plan...we will live or die by it. the people who are suspicious of NE 'liberals" anyway will never accept any 11th hour retraction of his tax stance.

[bearfartinthewoods]

152. dupe

,

[Cheswick2.0]

14. very good point Will and great idea

if we find that our candidate is part of an ABD campaign we must raise hell. In the long run there are some in the party who will screw the voters rather than give up their own power. I think we saw that plainly in 2000.

[mrgorth]

15. Thanks Will

I hope you're wrong. I'd hope that Bill and Al can still be friends after their term. I'd hope they talk. Anyway, I keep hoping this is all "politics" but as a Dean supporter who also likes Kerry and Clark let me say this. If this rips apart the party, so be it. Yes, the GOP will run the country for 50 years and ruin it. Yes, I'll have to move to Canada. Howard Dean is running a great campaign and if Bill Clinton's vanity is going to prevent him from saving the country I'M not gonna lay down for him. Let it all break.

[Clark_for_America]

16. This reminds me of the McCain/Bush split in the repub party in 2000

Now, it's Dean vs. Clark!!!

Clark, the more moderate candidate, versus Dean, the extremist candidate.

[WilliamPitt]

23. I know I'm going to regret asking this...

...but how exactly is Dean an extremist?

[Clark_for_America]

37. I think raising taxes on middle class Americans is an extreme idea

[TreasonousBastard]

136. He isn't, but...

well, you know how campaign ads work. Is McCain the stark raving looney they made him out to be?

OK, so maybe Clinton did give Clark a little push, and all those weeks of agonized indecision were really buying time while seeing how support lined up.

And, maybe Clinton and Gore aren't such buddies after all, 'specially after Big Dog cooled his heels in 2000.

So, maybe Gore sees the writing on the wall and is trying to keep his fingers in the larger pie, so he has to pick a horse.

Beyond that is pure speculation. Some of these guys are running to win, but everyone else is jockeying for power and covering both the bases and their asses. Don't be surprised to see a few more surprises down the road.

Sounds like business as usual to me.

[unfrigginreal]

25. Yeah, I bet you saw Bush as the Moderate too.

:eyes:

[Clark_for_America]

75. This is what I mean by the attack-dog tactics in these forums.

You have no idea what I think about Bush or McCain. You immediately assumed that I think Bush is a mod because I called Dean and extremist?

I'll go out on a limb and assume you are an ardent Dean supporter.

Don't you think politically that raising taxes on middle class Americans is an extreme idea???

[sendero]

115. what a one trick pony....

... taxes, taxes, taxes - that's all you are worried about? You need to pull you head out of the sand - the American middle class has much bigger problems than a few hundred $ per year in taxes.

[hippiechick]

27. Dean ... an 'extremist' ??

:wtf:

I gotta see some links and quotes to prove this...


:hippie:

[dpbrown]

18. I think the greater danger is between centrists and progressives

But thank you for your insight on this.

Clark, Dean. Yawn. I don't think, looking back on the bringing back by Republicans of disgraced former felons from Iran-Contra, that Democrats will so clearly shun any powerful party insiders, no matter what.

[dave29]

21. It's not only about power

it's about the cynicism of those in power.

If the Clinton wing of the party can't see the good coming from the Dean campaign - it doesn't deserve power.

[goobergunch]

22. Good piece - however, IMHO the war is already here

My thread ignore list wouldn't be as humongous as it is if it weren't.

[Paulie]

24. Kucinich speaks against the DLC....

... So has Studs Turkel. Studds is really really really anti-DLC. :)

So, there may be THREE sides to the war. Those DLC people, the anti-DLC people, and then the liberals like myself who think we need a MASSIVE change of course to save the COUNTRY, if not the PARTY. Those of us who are idealists, who want more than someone picked FOR us. We want our CHAMPION for a CHANGE!!!

[liberalcapitalist]

45. if Dean wins the nom, the Kucinich supporters need to get behind him

Though he isn't Dennis by a long shot, he is much closer than the alternatives. Furthermore, the CMB and Sharpton people need to get behind Dean as well.

[Mairead]

64. I'm afraid I disagree, and rather strongly.

He's not only 'not Dennis by a long shot' he's not even in the same species. He's the candidate of the status quo. He's Bush Lite.

Try to find some substantive change in his platform. You can't, because there is none.

[blm]

123. That's absurd, Dean isn't even CLOSE to being Kucinich like.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards are closer to Kucinich than the Libertarian leaning centrist Dean.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

150. I thought we were supposed to drop DK and support Dean now?

That's what the Deanies have been telling us since the MoveOn primary - hell, that was their line DURING the moveon primary.

Dean is closer to Clark than either are to Kucinich.

[Zomby Woof]

155. we don't "need" to do anything

We NEED to think for ourselves, and not be slaves to someone else's needs.

[dpbrown]

105. Dean's a centrist, Clark's a centrist - who cares about insiders?

What happens to the Gore versus the Clinton insiders in the next administration is secondary to the continuing hijacking of the party by centrists.

Soon no one will be left to speak up against the corporate takeover of our national process.

[grasswire]

28. I would agree....

...except I am suspicious that this "civil war" is the product of the WH back room boys. Too many of the usual pundits have been crowing about the alleged Gore Clinton split, with a little too much enthusiasm.

But we will see.

I suspect that Rove has been planting MANY different theories in order to create chaos and confusion. When you see many different rumors running in cross-currents in Washington, you're seeing Rove at his most active.

[SharonAnn]

29. Thanks, Will. It's especially valued since you're supporting

another candidate.

Of all political parties, we should know best that a divided group cannot effect change. The Union Movement alone should demonstrate that.

So, I hope we avoid the circular firing squad, too. We have more than one great candidate and I could vote for any of them (though I'd have to close my eyes, and remember his generally good voting record, to vote for Lieberman.

[terryg11]

31. as long as Dean doesn't start slinging mud

As one who feels the party is in need of a makeover at some point in the future this is distressing. I agree in that what you write about is a real possibility and tht it's coming at a bad time. I want GW out of there even if it means someone only marginally better because like it or not, in this case marginally better is a hell of a lot better tht's how serious this is. back to the point, I've been leaning toward Dean for what he says and the fact that he's polling good everywhere. If the other candidates move to block him like you suggest then could he not use this as an example of how serious he is about doing things differently and really get the people fired up?

[fishnfla]

32. We can let these primaries get in the way can we?

Instead of Gore annointing the chosen one, it would be nice to win the nomination the old-fashioned way, at the precincts.

I think the backlash will come at the voting polls.

[felonious thunk]

33. I disagree

Ultimately the party apparatus will rally around whoever wins the nomination, Dean or whoever else. It looks ugly every primary season. I look at this primary as a show of the strength of the Democratic party. The party leaders aren't the whole of the party.

Look at 2000 and Republicans. The Republican party started backing Bush in 98 or even earlier. As such, the party leaders had the strength and money to completely squash McCain, even though he may well have won in a fair and open campaign against Bush. But the Republican party could not let that happen.

Contrast that with the 2004 Democratic primary. Clearly the party leaders don't want Dean, but the party base seems to want him. The party leaders don't have the power to push Lieberman in the primary. The voters won't follow suit. The party may indeed fall in line with a Clark or someone else, but I don't think that signals a war within the party. There may be an internal power struggle, but that happens every election cycle. Power struggles don't doom the party. Clinton wasn't the party guy in 92, and Dean isn't the party guy in 04. But when push comes to shove, the party will back the nominee and the Democratic party apparatus doesn't have the same kind of money and influence as the Republican apparatus.

34. Don't you think this has been going on for some time?

In a different form perhaps? Why is the threat different now?

I remember back when Clinton first appeared on the scene, there being these factions within the party.

& also I think Nader's appeal in the past has been a product of this split.

[goodhue]

war metaphor

"Our national policy dialogue is infected with war metaphors: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on this or that. Our children are immersed in video war games. Our sports are rife with war talk. Our media often glorify war. How did we as a society develop such an ardor for arms? Our Founders, while providing for the Common Defense, did not envision America as a land of conquistadores. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at the beginning of World War II, encouraged steadfastness among the American people: 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' As the war wound down, FDR aspired to ending the beginning of all wars: 'Today we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace.'" -- Dennis J. Kucinich, Nov 2000

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech3.htm

[ecstatic]

36. Actually, we may find that Clinton and Co. love democracy just like

the rest of us, and that they are not the power hungry folks that right-wing Repugs have made them out to be. Only time will tell.

[HuckleB]

38. My worst fears summarized so well by Mr. Pitt -- as usual.

I dearly hope that we are not our own worst enemy.

[ludwigb]

40. Well...

I am more inclined to see Gore's endorsement as part of a general trend among "establishment" Democrats towards seeing not only Dean's inevitability but Dean's unique virtues, and giving up on believing Clark, Kerry, or Edwards are ever going to hit their stride. Obviously Gore sympathizes with the MoveOn/Dean wing of the party--mostly because he is an intelligent guy, but of course partially out of ambition. More and more politicians (including some of the current candidates) are going to be coming around to this new Gore/Dean wing because it is going to win.

In other words, I don't see a fight, I see an ongoing reconciliation. Gore is a reconciling figure and he's stepping in early to prevent the bloodbath.

One argument against the existence of an ideologcially organized or even conspiritorally organized "Clinton Wing" that dominates the party is that the powers that be are pretty disorganized lately. I mean, where is the concerted campaign to get the likes of Liebermann, Kerry, and Edwards out of the primaries? There would certainly be some reports behind the scenes if this were going on. Terry Macauliffe obviously would rather not see Dean win, but he doesn't seem to be working feverishly behind the scenes to stop him either.

I think Liebermann won't make it to New Hampshire at this point, and Edwards may very well fold as well, but they are going to have to drop out well before New Hampshire and throw their support to the ABD candidate. But even this scenario his hard to imagine. Edwards for one can't afford to alienate Dean, so I doubt he'll endorse an opponent. Liebermann will oppose Dean but his endorsement hurts more than it helps.

Clark might be able to still make a fight of it, but time is running out.

[Walt Starr]

42. If you're right, Will, this could end up being the end of America

I'm serious here. A Democratic Civil War WILL result in retention of all power, plus and INCREASE in power for the neocons. It would be enough that there will never be any way to stop them.

The neocons are to the Republican Party what the DLC is to the Democratic Party. It's a new wave and new way of thinking to move the party forward in the acquisition of power.

The Democratic Party Civil War will result in a worse state of affairs than the splintering of the left in 1933 Germany.

Pray to your respective deity that this does not take place.

[janx]

44. Will, not you too?!

Do you realize that this theory comes from the wingnuts? Do you realize that just this morning, the following pundits (and more) have spouted close to what you just did about this "Clinton/Gore" rift?

Clifford May
Imus
Tucker Carlson
Dick Morris
Buchanan
Rush Limbaugh

Rush has been talking about the "fractured" Democratic party and the "Clinton/Gore split" for over an hour and a half. It ain't so. It's another right wing LIE.

Don't buy into this, Will. Please.

[grasswire]

72. Torie Clark, too

On CNN Monday night.

[janx]

139. Torie Clark? The DOD chick?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[WilliamPitt]

73. Even blind pigs find a nut every once in a while

I'll be happily wrong if a coordinated ABD movement does not explode into this race. The Republicans are adept inside-game watchers, too. That's how they win as a minority party; they see seams and exploit them. This is a seam.

[Iverson]

46. can't agree

Surely the Democratic Party is stronger than to self-destruct over different brands of centrism.

I initially thought you'd refer to centrists versus lefties, but that's more like a purge than a civil war. Still if something like a self-destructive split between centrists camps occurs, then maybe it's better to be on the outside, looking in.

Best of luck.

[library_max]

130. Pure schadenfreude. Nice.

nt

[Iverson]

170. pure projection

nice.

[blm]

47. Dupe

;

[XanaDUer]

63. Thank you , blm

for another one of your always-eloquent posts. I agree with you completely.

[liberalcapitalist]

48. this could be negated with a Clark VP nod

n/t

[blm]

51. May I ask why it was OK to allow Dean to attack damn good liberals

to make his name and wrong for those damn good liberals to reciprocate?

THEY are the ones protecting the party from the Dean disaster in 2004. NO Dem candidate who has campaigned as deceptively as Dean can withstand the scrutiny of a corporate press corps in a GENERAL election. If his record matched his rhetoric I'd be as happy as any of you, but it doesn't. I can't pretend it doesn't matter because to ignore it seems incredibly naive.

Dem spokespeople have looked forward to the day where THEY are the ones going after Bush for HIS words that don't match his record, HIS lies, HIS inexperience on foreign policy, HIS secrecy, and HIS service gap. Now they will be stuck defending Dean for all those points.

Are Dean supporters from DU who slam every post that points out Dean's failings going to be in front of cameras saying "Yawn" or "Dean-basher" or will it be the various Dem spokespeople who are worried about what they know will be the storyline of the campaign - The stoic, commander-in-chief vs. the angry Democrat?

If ABD side wins this battle and the truth about Dean's deceptions come forward NOW, it's the best way to insure a more honest campaign and a victory for the Dems in 2004.

[Don Claybrook]

78. Which damn good liberals are you referring to?

I don't believe Dean has attacked Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosely-Braun.

[blm]

84. Quick...name the candidate with a lifetime record closest to Wellstone's?

.

[bearfartinthewoods]

160. answer please?

[blm]

162. heheh....Kerry.

Wellstone rated 3% and Kerry 6% on their lifetime ratings. Unfortunately for DK his past votes on abortion gave him a higher rating than he deserves right now.


American Conservative Union Ranking of Dem Canidates
Of course, lower is better. Congressional rankings are 2002, 2001 and lifetime. Numbers indicate the percentage of the time that the canidate voted "conservative".

Dennis Kucinich 2002-0%, 2001-20%, Lifetime-13%

John Kerry 2002-20%, 2001-4%, Lifetime-6%

John Edwards 2002-30%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-15%

Dick Gephardt 2002-8%, 2001-13%, Lifetime-12%

Joe Lieberman 2002-20%, 2001-28%, Lifetime-20%

Bob Graham 2002-20%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-18%


http://www.conservative.org/default.asp

[Mairead]

52. "Dean has said he will essentially recreate the Democratic party."

Oh? As what?

If we look at his record and his platform, it seems to me that any 're-creating' he does will be to make a second GOP party: GOP Lite.

Why exactly would that be a good idea?

[SahaleArm]

56. Recreate all right - He wants control of the DLC and DNC.

Will he actually move the party in the direction of Kucinich? I doubt it.

[Eloriel]

186. He'll move the party in the direction of fighting for our lives

and facing down the repugs, which I believe is a little more impt than ideology. And he'll restore fiscal sanity, and int'l respect and cooperation (which, of course oyher candidates will do as well).

[Cooley Hurd]

57. Given the tone towards Dean from both the DNC and DLC...

...I fear they won't be able to rise above their spite for him, even after the primaries have run their course. Vigilance is indeed essential by those of us who still recognize that it's our race to lose. Can the collective pride of the DLC/DNC machine be held in check long enough to get someone nominated, or will the energy of our party be sapped up by the divisiveness? I, for one, pledge to campaign fervently for the eventual Democratic nominee for President, regardless of who it is.

Damn, I love politics as much as anyone, but there's too much at stake to let this turn into an old-fashioned convention-floor fight...

P.S. Just saw the Misleader ad on CNN again - the 5th time today!!!

[Gringo]

58. I couldn't disagree more

My poll shows that most Dean/Clark supporters will be amenable to the opponent winning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=860029&mesg_id=860029

It's also consistent with the conversations I've had with people of all stripes Dem, Independent, and even Republican.

Bush's overall failure is driving more and more voters to the democratic party in '04, and I think the party will be very unified behind WHOEVER the candidate is.

If Dean wins, there will be some shaking up of the party power structure, but it will be more about tone than changing the overall agenda. Dean is centrist and moderate, but he's not ashamed to be a democrat, and he's urging the party to stand up foir itself more.

If Clark wins, that means that most democrats are satisfied with the status quo within the party, and simply want Bush out of office. Deanies may be disappaointed, but they will go along.

I'm optomistic that the Dean phenomenon will bring more voters to the party, and help clarify for middle-of-the-road voters what we are, and why we are better for the country. If there is a civil war in this country, it will be against normal, rational people, (democrats and moderates), and the insane fanatics (the ultra-right-wing, fundamentalist, armageddon-loving faction of the GOP)

[WilliamPitt]

70. I'm not talking about supporters

I'm talking about the gamers in the party apparatus, and about the candidates themselves.

[arendt]

59. You had me worried at the start, but good post

While there has to be a DLC vs Dean showdown
at the level of the national party (i.e., McAuliffe,
DLC, etc.), we cannot afford to have the rank and
file start beating each other up on this.

I am busy trying to stop the rank and file hatred
of Al Gore from being the story of today's endorsement.

We need to get people focussed on Bush.

The DLC's batting average for 2000, 2002, the Budget,
Medicare etc is ZERO. Any decent coach would bench
McAuliffe and all the other Bush-lite strategizers.
They would also discipline Zell Miller and Joe
Lieberman.

It is perfectly appropriate for regime change inside
the Democratic Party. But, we don't have to carpet
bomb the rank and file to accomplish it.

arendt

[Ganja Ninja]

60. I know Clinton has a wing in the Democratic Party

but I’m not too sure Gore does. If Dean wins the primaries I don’t see how a war will erupt. I could see a struggle if the convention is hung and we wind up with it going into the proverbial smoke fill room to come up with the nominee. Then all bets are off and we could see a real surprise like Hillary or Al Gore as VP or some compromise for a Clark/Dean ticket. I think things will be worked out behind the scene. In any case I don’t think we will be seeing Kerry, Edwards or Lieberman on the ticket.

[Catherine Vincent]

62. We need to get that rat bastard out of office!

This civil war crap better not happen. We democrats better get behind whomever is nominated and back him 100%. If we don't, then we'll deserve to lose!

[OneBlueSky]

65. in addition to all of the Bush advantages you enumerate . . .

don't forget that, for all intents and purposes, they have the voting machines themselves as a very viable fallback tactic in closely contested states . . . anyone who thinks this is not a legitimate concern hasn't been paying attention . . . (that's not directed at you, Will . . . I KNOW you're paying attention . . .)

[Ksec]

I tend to agree

Dean being the outsider seems to be getting alot of inside help. Clark, the man who could win ,is being injured by Gore who endorses Dean. Everyone is now pissed at Gore , and rightly so. I think what he did was unethical. Ex leaders should have the decency to stay out of it until the nomination is made. Now Dean has all the momentum and it shouldn't be this way. Its clearly unfair that Clark now has to fight the endorsement of and ExPresident in his quest.(yes Gore won the Presidency in Democrats eyes so he is an ExPres.)

[CWebster]

68. Here is the interesting dynamic though

the more they go for Dean, the more they slide. Kerry is the prime example of this. By contrast, Clark is a stealth operator who benefits from a low profile. Dean perserveres and continues to gain allies.

[Junkdrawer]

71. The "Populist vs Elitist" split is probably why Gore isn't running...

this year. I guess Gore wants the matter settled before 2008.

In my mind, the DLC "Elitists" are only marginally better than full-bore Republicans - Nader's "Teedle Dee and Tweedle Dum". I'd probably vote for one, but would never work for one.

One thing, I think Clinton straddled this divide. Why do you think he leads the DLC wing?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

125. Gore has always been on the elitist side

Since his first run for president in 1988. He's been a DLC "New Democrat" neo-liberal longer than anyone. So what is this nonsense about the Clinton "elistist" vs. Gore "populist" wing?

The only populists in this race are Kucinich and Sharpton, and they aren't winning. The elites will.

[wakfs]

74. Question

If you see this coming and your prediction comes true, how in hell can you in good conscience support a candidate who condones this? The way I see it, if you support candidate B and candidate B supports a strategy that is likely to split the party and result in four more years of Bush, then you are at least tacitly supporting that strategy, aren't you?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious or quarrelsome, I simply don't understand why you would support a candidate who would willingly and knowingly try to split the party. Or would you? Saying that you'll "raise hell" about it is all well and good, but you must know that that would have zero effect on such high-level power politics.

[WilliamPitt]

80. You're making a leap here

I don't know where my candidate stands on fomulating an ABD movement. Kerry pointedly refused to bash Dean in our meeting last Thursday, and he was offered ample opportunities to do so. If he joins some ABD movement engineered by party power-holders to keep their little feifdoms intact, I will barf on myself and then run my head through a wall. But as such a thing has not happened yet...

[wakfs]

109. Maybe I am

Frankly, I don't think these guys running the Democratic Party are that clever. After all, they lost the last two elections.

[lewiston]

86. If there is going to be war...

the first shot was fired today by Gore. Will the second shot be fired by one of the Clintons by endorsing Clark? Where's my flak jacket I'm heading for the hills.

[eleny]

87. A split opens the door for Hillary to be nominated, too

[AP]

88. Another theory.

Gore and others lining up behind Dean is a way to show the Republicans that Dems are willing to put up a united front if the media and the Republicans insiste on foisting him upon Democrats.

It's a way of saying that they WON'T have a civil war.

Already, I sense a shift in the Republican/RW media representation of the campaign. I think they expected more of the Dem hierarchy to resist Dean, which they aren't doing.

If the media and the Republicans back off (or, at least, trash Dean as much as they trash the others) it creates the possibility of a primary battle on a more level playing field, endorsements notwithstanding.

(And, anyway, what are the endorsements worth? The unions which endorsed Dean haven't ever picked a winner. Gore is, in my eyes, the essense of being a loser (or at least, a guy who rises by being second best). I think it's possible that the endorsements don't do much more than tell the Republicans and the media that there won't be a civil war.)

[WilliamPitt]

95. Do you see Gore being in the Dem hierarchy? I don't.

He has split with the DLC, and fully adopted the populist persona that so pissed off the Dem hierarchy in 2000. He swings weight, to be sure, but I would not put him in the top-tier of controlling influences.

[AP]

110. Definitely not. But I'd be surprised if he didn't clear this with the Dem

hierarchy before he did it.

In fact, he'd have to be pretty certain that Dean really really represents a transformative political force before he'd hitch his wagon to him.

If he's wrong, and he did this without clearing it with people at the top, he'd risk going into the political wilderness with no more supprot ever. Since he doesn't seem to have mutch else going on his life besides politics, I doubt he'd take that risk. He doesn't really seem like a risk-taker to me.

I suspect he got the OK to do this.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Gore had no comprehension of why he'd be set loose to do this.

[AP]

118. Another thing about Gore splitting from DLC...

I may be crazy, but I don't think Gore ran as a populist at all. I know that he was criticized for doing so, but I thought of that as more of revisionist spin to discourage populism in the future -- or at least, a message that connects with people who begin to realize which direction money flows in America, ie, to a few people and corporations at the top -- a message with which I think Gore could have won, and the winner in 2004 will win.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that the DLC called Dean too liberal to help him establish liberal bona fides. I think of Dean as archetypal DLC'er and I'd be very surprised if he didn't govern as a DLC'er (his education plan is DLC written all over it).

[Green Mountain Dem]

126. Perhaps it is time for the hiearchy....

to be removed and replaced...after all, what have they done for us lately ?? How about capitulation on every fucking vital Democratic core issue that has arisen in the past few years. The leadership, and willingness to fight, has virtually disappeared with the exception of appointing Bush Judicial nominations.

If this truly is a "line in the sand" being drawn within the Party....then I, for one, am willing to support a new hiearchy and I don't give a fuck about the present power brokers who have proven their ineptitude to move this country, and the Democratic Party, in a positive direction.

[AP]

144. The hierarchy won elections in 92 and 96 and would have won in 2000

if they had nominated someone like Kerry rather than let Gore run because he had been VP.

They have also managed to keep the Democrats within striking distance of Bush despite his despotic measures to wrest power from the democracy.

Furthermore, we have a diverse field of good liberals running for president this year, any one of several who would be the most liberal president we've had in years.

[bearfartinthewoods]

171. speaking of media....

if media is the RW sop everyone here believes, why are they promoting 'it's all over..Dean is the one" bit? either the pubbies really do want Dean or what? the natural tendancy of the media would be to prolong the horse race aspect of the primaries. why is there all this push for Dean's inevitability from the media?

[mzmolly]

89. A Civil War within the party will only help *

I hope like hell your wrong about this one. Perhaps just being proactive will 'prevent' such an occurrence?

As I recall people were bitching that Dean supporters wouldn't support the eventuall nominee, now the meme seems to be ABD supporters won't support Dean. Every Dem in this race needs to support the Democratic nominee and their supporters should do the same...PERIOD!

Thanks for the forethought Will. Be sure and tell Kerry that he would be wrong to take part in such a thing will ya? ;)

[tsipple]

90. Bill, I'm Not Buying It

Sounds like a press corps hyperventilating over invented tension. It helps sell newspapers and fill TV time, I guess.

But there are absolutely no data to support such a rift. Dean is the most popular Democrat in the race with the highest favorables. You can't form an ABD bloc in that climate.

Besides, the endorsement floodgates have opened now. And frankly Dean -- make that, Dean supporters -- are spreading the wealth, and money talks in Washington.

Of course, it's to Dean's advantage to be perceived as an outsider -- which he genuinely is to a large extent. Who the hell wants to vote for a Washington insider for President? So both the press and campaign have incentive to keep this storyline going.

[janx]

113. Well, we have some serious hyperventilating going on today.

I've never seen anything like this.

This Gore endorsement has made a lot of people very nervous and/or pissed off.

All of the RW gasbags are saying the exact same thing--on print, on the Net, on television, and on radio.

As I said, I've never seen anything like it.

[Kazak]

92. "they will sit on their hands during the general election"

I'd really like to think that they're bigger men than that...if not, then we'll deserve what we'll get.

[LuminousX]

93. Ouroburos Party

The war is coming? Bring it on.

[OKNancy]

94. Is there no value in "ABD"?

Actually not ABD because there are others in the field who have no chance either. What if someone truly believes that Dean is a bad choice, that someone is not only a better candidate, but a better person......that vision thing?

I am firmly convinced that Dean will lose. So it is my duty to work for someone who I think CAN win, and someone who I align with on policy as well.

There won't be any "war" as long as people maintain a bit of respect for others choices.

[oasis]

100. Scrubbing double post.

[oasis]

101. Win in 2004/Schism in 2005: There is far too much at stake.

[littlejoe]

102. I strongly disagree.

The anyone but Bush movement will far outweigh the anti-Dean movement, which I cannot deny there is. But if Howard handily wins Iowa and New Hampshire, even the powers that be within the Democratic party will acquiesce, and jump on the Dean bandwagon. We may even see president Clinton jump on board the Dean campaign. Let us not forget, Clinton is the most savvy politician to come along in generations. He won't back a loser.

[xxqqqzme]

103. MayB, but it is way overdue!

The Democratic Party abandoned us in Dec, 2000. There should have been a ROAR when SCOTUS selected squatter. Since then, there has been NO opposition party; no leadership; no recognition or respect 4 their base. Dean's campaign has caught on because he is proud 2 B opposition; is a leader AND gave the grassroots base a voice when one was desperately needed one. I stayed w/ the Democratic Party cuz where else was I going 2 go? I had no choice. Howard Dean tapped the anger and exploited it. And good 4 him.

The Democratic Party should B glad Dean came along 'n threw it a lifeline cuz it was sinking fast. I Blieve Gore has recognized the resurgence and pride re-lit by Dean. There is no other presidential candidate that can even come close 2 Dean. They were all being so f*cking 'safe'. Well guess what? I'm sick of safe! I'm sick of screaming wrong wingers; sick of their blustering, posturing, arrogance, thinly disguised bigotry, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic tantrums! If the Democratic Party ignores their base and does not embrace Dean, it will B the party's death! Their credibility will B exhausted. I will B using MoveOn as my new political party and a 'decline to state' on my voter registration.

[Scott Lee]

108. Civil War? So be it.

It's a lovely time of year for a civil war, I think.

The Democratic Party and it's fossilized leadership, the "Clinton Wing" as you want to call it, needs to be overhauled. It is an entrenched oligarchy of entitled ones, operating largely from viewpoints that have been outpaced by political reality. Ersatz "democrats" talk the talk but end up largely voting with the military juntaists in power to make their seats safe. They enable war and the warmongers. They slap the working people, deflate union power and tell us that if we find some of their financial dealings shady, we can "go to Cuba" (thanks Terry McAuliffe). Having much power and comfort to lose, they are cowed by the other party that is becoming the largest threat to the world, and fellow Americans, in a century.

The Hindu faithful revere a Goddess named Kali-Ma. She is also called Mother of Darkness, or Mother of Destruction. Her images are fearsome; penetrating eyes from pitch black skin, fangs, and a belt of human skulls that rings her waist. She is that Who Destroys, and dances on the bones of the vanquished. But, while her followers fear her, they also love her because they know that without destruction there would be no rebirth. That the old must fall to create the new.

This is why I welcome the "war" in the party. It's a time to be happy, anticipating the emergence of something new, powerful and gleaming.

So to those of you who do not shy from a fight, the New Democrats, put on your skullbelt. We're going dancing.

[janx]

127. Lovely post, Scott.

.

And true as well.

[library_max]

137. Yeah, well in this case

what will emerge, "new, powerful, and gleaming," will be a Bush Administration with over 80% of the electoral vote and a filibuster-proof lock on both houses of Congress, while we're busy slaughtering each other over nothing.

I have nothing against a Dean nomination, if that's how things come out. But whoever is the nominee, we need unity in the coming year! We need to bury whatever differences we really have and work together against Bush. I don't remember who said it, but they're right - the Republicans aren't bucking for leadership this time, they're bucking for rulership. And we need to do what it takes to stop them.

[Cha]

141. Good Read!

[Pale Blue Dot]

116. Don't you think battles like this exist every time?

I remember a lot of animosity between the Gore/Bradley camps. I think that the only thing that has changed is that there are forums like DU for partisans to discuss/debate every move a candidate makes. I am not all that worried; I trust that 99% of the Democrats out there know exactly what's at stake here.

[jokerman93]

120. Civil War?

I don't think so. Here's why:

Granted the power struggles you mention are real enough. Nevertheless, I don't see where this becomes a self-destructive civil war.

I'm just a DU news hound. I have no inside knowledge of power dynamics of the party, but it's fairly clear to me that if Bush is allowed to continue burning down America, there is literally NO guarentee that the '08 elections will even remotely resemble a democratic contest.

We're talking about smart people here. Smarter than the average bear in most cases. I don't think the Clintons or the Gores or the Deanies are going to risk our fragile democracy, divide the party and lose the election because of a lust for personal power.

What I mean to say is -- they are different in kind and quality from the kind of reptilian voraciousness we have seen on the right for nearly two decades now.

Of course I could be wrong about this.

[VolcanoJen]

121. Will, you nailed it.

As usual, you're spot-on. And I'm with you 100%. I'm not an "ABDer" per se, but I feel the coming war too... and I'm terribly, terribly concerned.

[KaraokeKarlton]

135. I was mentioning the same thing last night

I don't think Gore would have endorsed anyone this early if the "powers that be" in the party and some of the other candidates weren't "pig-piling" on Dean to try to stop him. Gore, better than anyone, knows that the country can't handle another rigged election. I think he did this to make sure what happened to him doesn't happen to Dean and that the people choose the winner. He's a damn good man for looking out for the people of this country, too. Kudos to Gore for wanting a FAIR and JUST primary.

[AntiCoup2K4]

138. Regarding Dean's "recreating the Democratic party"

.... how can anybody possibly think that is a BAD idea?? We lost Congress nearly a decade ago. Lost the Presidency (sort of) 3 years ago, and may NEVER get the courts back without a decade of solid majorities in the other two branches.

Meanwhile, our so called leadership in congress votes for the Patriot Act, votes for war in Iraq, votes for the corporatization of Medicare.

Hell yes we need to recreate the Democratic party, and the sooner the better, because these people aren't representing the Democratic values as I have always understood them. This same "party leadership" which has bent over backwards and lubed up nice for Bush & PNAC the last three years are scared shitless of Dean. Possibly Clark as well. Kucinich would frighten them even more, if he had any chance of winning. For some reason, and damned if I know what it is, McAuliffe, Daschle, Biden, and the like have no interest whatsoever in being the "opposition party" these days. And then you have the Zell Miller's, Evan Bayh's, John Breaux's of the world who might as well be Republicans.

Where are the real Democrats? Well, a lot of us are here at DU, but that's a few thousand in a nation of nearly 300 million. That's not enough to make a dent. Let alone crash the corporate machine before it steamrolls us completely into the pavement forever

[Snellius]

146. Is there a "Gore wing"?

Gore seems more of a lone agent. He certainly has admirers but he has no influence over any cog in the Democratic political apparatus. His only real affiliation these days is Moveon.org, which may emerge as an independent party if the Dems come down too heavy on Dean. It was obvious during the recount that the Dems had abandonned Gore, as he did them.

The Bush machine has changed everything. The Democrats need Dean more than he needs them. Whether you like him or not, I think Gore is right. The Republicans can not be beaten unless the Democratic Party remakes itself into a much more aggressive movement.

[NNadir]

147. I think this is nonsense.

Most sane party members, the former President I'm sure is included, recognize the stakes here.

[proud patriot]

148. I appreciate your candor William

:hi:

[Ramsey]

149. That is so idiotic

I hope your prediction is wrong Will. If the Democratic Party decides to sit out 2004 and look to 2008, they risk becoming an irrelevancy. People who truly care about this country, and not just their own power base, cannot tolerate another 4 years of Bush, and won't look kindly on a Democratic establishment that allows that to happen.

If the DLC, et al., cut off their nose to spite their face in this way, we may be in for decades more of right wing rule. The reason Dean is firing people up is because he does not represent the establishment politics as usual that has been a losing approach in at least the last 2 elections.

However, there are rumors that Dean has been wooing some of the Washington types. We know that he has been "sharing the wealth", agreeing to help other Dem candidates on the ticket. He has also impressed the establishment with his fundraising ability. So if they jump on the Dean bandwagon to reap the financial benefit, then so be it. At least they are on board.

The whole concept of "wait until 2008 if one of ours isn't the nominee" seems like political suicide to me. I don't get it. Is it truly better to sit out and not help Dean and put up with 4 more years of Bush, then to watch Jebbie run, and then watch George P. run? The truth is the longer they are in power, the more entrenched they will become because they are actually changing the law of the land, and installing their right wing judges to help them do so. We may not have the voice or the power to win an election, we may not even have elections as we know them, if Bush gets another 4 years. Whether we have a country that can be legitimately called America is in question. There were Republicans at a major donor Dean fundraiser I co-hosted today saying they are supporting Dean because they cannot tolerate 4 more years of Bush extremism.

The DLCers and ilk need to suck it up and get behind whomever the nominee is. That's what the RNC demanded of its wayward souls, discipline and loyalty. That's why Bush is in office today.

Dean is a perfectly good candidate (he's certainly no Bush!) and not supporting him because he might want some fresh faces around the place is beyond moronic. Please say that is not the mentality of my party!

[IrateCitizen]

153. I think that you completely DO get it, Ramsey...

... even if you don't want to come right out and say it.

The whole concept of "wait until 2008 if one of ours isn't the nominee" seems like political suicide to me. I don't get it. Is it truly better to sit out and not help Dean and put up with 4 more years of Bush, then to watch Jebbie run, and then watch George P. run?

If the "establishment" types are given a choice between beating Bush and not beating Bush, they will choose beating Bush -- but ONLY if it is done on THEIR terms.

You're dealing with people who are not exactly "mainstream" here. They live in an insular world that is surrounded by a barrier called the Beltway. Their primary concern is to hold onto power, and protect their own asses. THAT is their first priority.

Certainly, they want to see Bush gone. But even more so, they want to hold on to their power. Given the choice between 4 more years of Bush (but holding on to their power and privilege) and a Dean Presidency (but being thrown out on their collective asses), they will almost undoubtedly choose the former.

Honestly, it gives me chills just to think of that kind of ceremony, but that's what we're facing. The reality (whether we, as Democrats, like to believe it or not) is that BOTH parties represent primarily elite interests (most of all, self-interest). They do NOT represent the great masses. The movement around Dean represents an opportunity to change that power balance a little bit, and that scares the hell out of the establishment types. The last thing they really want is an empowered grassroots coming to the realization that it DOES have considerable power.

[library_max]

157. Do you know the folks you're describing?

Or is this just projection?

[IrateCitizen]

167. It's mostly projection

based on the behavior that I've seen from the Democratic establishment over the past 10 years.

But I guess I could also be 100% wrong. But I doubt it.

[Zomby Woof]

154. The Democrats have always been this way

Divided and contentious, sometimes reeling it in for the election, sometimes letting the rift fester - but it has always been a noisy, messy, and factional party, which is part of why I love it. Insert the famous Will Rogers quote about the party's organization here.

Think of how the party split in 1948, and yet Truman prevailed.

Then there was the Green/Dem split in 2000, and Gore still received the most popular votes.

The Democrats have historically shown the ability to prevail over factional in-fighting and splitting. Not always, but they have, and will again.

Although you make some valid points, I find the "civil war" metaphor to be a bit extreme and over the top. I am wary of war metaphors anyway, even if we are one pugilistic party at times. To most of us, this is just politics as usual, even as the cast and issues keep changing.

Most of us will unify and put past differences behind us when the nomination is sewn up, and some will insist on their way or nothing, and go third party - as is their right. Either way, the Democrats will live to see another sunrise.

[Jerseycoa]

158. Gore People

Will, I'm wondering about all the Gore people who have allied with other candidates, particularly Clark. What do you see them doing, if anything? Do they shift or stay?

[Zynx]

159. The civil war will be in the establishment mainly.

If Dean is the nominee, the Clintons are toppled and it will be a back scenes thing that most people won't notice. If Clinton and his cronies sit on their hands, that's fine. 90% of Dems will go out and vote for Dean if he is the nominee.

[Hep]

161. GREAT POST. Still, I'm not worried

You know, all I can do is my best. Same for everyone else. Our campaign has a wealth of resources and a persuasive power not yet realized.

If the DLC/Establishment or whatever wants to fight, the election is NOT the appropriate battlefield. We have a common enemy. When we do away with that, then we can address our inner grievances. The DLC has had the leverage for years now, which is why this is going on in the first place. If they know what's in their best interests, they will have to yield the leverage in terms of this election and fight for their interests directly.

There may be a civil war on the horizon, but we still have to keep this country's needs in mind before we think about our gripes.

[slinkerwink]

165. I think you're overrating the Gore endorsement, Will.....

Did you hear Terry MacAucliffe on Crossfire today saying that he'd back Dean if he was the nominee? It sounds like to me the old party establishment is waking up and realizing that unless they want to shoved out, they have to get on the Dean bandwagon in order to save face.

[meow mix]

175. uh riiiight..

and what did he say right before that?

"But we don't have the first vote cast. We'll see what happens. I love all nine equally"

[janx]

176. Well it is ultimately up to the people, Slink. So your account of

what MacAuliffe said isn't surprising. What choice do they have but to get behind the nominee eventually, whomever that happens to be? We get a lot of bluster from D.C. types (what a surprise!) sometimes.

[seventhson]

166. SO Your Boy Kerry is in the Clinton DLC wing of the Democrats?

as is Clark in the PNAC wing?

And then Gore/Dean are in the Wellstone and Democratic wing of thge Democratic party?

And you support the other wing: Kerry?


You amaze me, Will. You promote this war and decry it at the same time. Which way do you swing, Will? --- To the Right?

WHY???

If we had you behind Dean and fighting for the Democratic weing instead of the DLC wing your voice would make a difference.

Why do you fail to join the people who want Bush out and have the best chance of accomplishiung that.

Instead you denounce Dean as the loser and worry out loud.

STOP Will.

You are hurting us.

[blm]

189. Dean was PULLING the DLC further right while he was governor.

Thankfully, liberals like Kerry kept pulling back to the left, or else Libertarian leaning centrists like Dean would have completely taken over.

Amazing and appalling that you can't see the truth.

[Justice]

168. Who Came Up With ABD

Doesn't that label itself divide us? What upsets me is if I support another candidate - that doesn't mean I am ABD.

If Dean loses the nomination or loses the general election -- his supporters will insist no matter what that he lost because of ABD.

It is wrong to label the discussion that way - it is no better than what Bush's people do with anti-war or pro-Hussein or unpatriotic.

[Shakespeare]

169. Joe Conason disagrees.

Check out today's blog on Salon--he discusses why Gore's endorsement is specifically not reflective of any kind of Gore/Clinton split.

[HighTide]

179. we eat our own

so sad

[Deja Q]

180. So Clinton's gang is centrist and Gore's is the progressive lot?

Deanie's gonna reinvent what, now? He supports NAFTA, that alone's enough to make me consider voting elsewhere for real, especially if that's in his grand scheme to "recreate the Democratic party", which is none of his fucking business when his constituents aren't nearly as wealthy as he is. Sorry, but while Dean speaks for the people, I bet he's getting paid by big business elsewhere.

In the end, I could care less anymore. It's a game of "wait and see". In the end, all we can do is applaud or complain. What good do we do in the end?

[KoKo]

181. Hey Will! The War has been going on here on DU since.....well about 6

months after Skinner, et al. formed this site. Nothing new here. We've always been at War!

[Code_Name_D]

184. A civil war comes. I say, "Let it come."

For a year now, we have been beaten over the head with one question. "If Clark wins the nomination, will you vote for him." But this wasn't a question at all, despite the wording. For the tone it has always been delivered with made it perfectly clear that this question was in fact a demand, and order, given to us by our self appointed lords and master. High ranking, fat cat democratic leaders, who from there hot tubs and Cherokee corporate jets, would pull on the strings tied to jewel studded fingers to make us dance, to make us kneel, and make us curtsey to the latest corporate golden son.

In this peace, William Rivers Pit would warning us of the coming civil war within the democratic party. His tone paints the image of him suddenly throwing open the curtains and counting to torches on the move over the horizon, as if he would count the fools on the hill, so driven by ignorance and the ideology of the left to see reason. Fear and panic clearly play within his words reasoned as they may be.

But what Pitt says in epiphany, I have been saying for a great time. Have I not said that the DLC is the GOP's first line of defense? Have I not also said that we must first defeat the DLC, before we can challenge the Republicans in power? I have seen the coming of this war within the democratic party for some time, and not because of foolish ideologues immune to logic. But because myself, and many others, have looked down to our limbs, and have seen the cords that binds us as links of heavy iron. Our heads turns within the grip of a noose, growing tighter around us and choking away the vary air which our country breaths.

I have seen this war from a far, for I know that in order to America to truly throw of the corporate chains, we must first defeat the whip masters who are in their service. Yes Mr. Pitt, a civil war within the Democratic party comes. Why do you tremble from the thunder it speaks with? What would you have the slaves do? Halt the revolt, just as the powder is lit? I do not think even the Fates hold that kind of power. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end, and some truths defy logic. The opposite of war is not peace as one's logic might tell, but slavery.

It pains me to say so, but even before the court has been opened, the new King has been annoyed. Perhaps Gore is already aware of this, and has chosen to arm the champion before the fight begins, rather than afterwards, as our tradition and custom might demand. For the ranking leader of the Democratic party has returned from his wanderings, and appointed his successor, even as the battle lines are being drawn before them.

And now the Clark supporter must fast the force of his own demand. They must now live up to there own precept, and support Howard Dean. But shall they? This remains to be seen. William Pitt has once said that he would vote for a baloney sandwich? Shall Dean now measure up to such a mediocre standard?

The war is coming, and the walls to the Democratic party are now under threat. And as Pitt has noted, the dukes in the tower are surly aware of this, and shall fight to the lass. But dose Pitt know that they shall not done armor? They shall not take up a sword? Not even in there own defense. No, they shall send others to the wall to fight for them. The only measure of this battle that their hands shall see is the passing through the air to accent angry defiant words.

What the Clark, Leabermen, and Gepheardt camp needs to ask themselves is shall they be standing watch at the wall to protect the dukes of the Democratic party, or will they be among the masses at the gate.

They express fear that Dean can not win against Bush. And to them I say the following. Cast aside your fear NOW. Hold on to your doubts, and know them, for they shall be your eyes needed for looking through the twisted glass of the liberal media. But fear here doses not serve you. Yes, we may indeed fail, for no thing worth having, not even freedom comes with ease. And we may indeed fail to take the presidency. I shall insult no one here by painting a false picture of victory on the eve of such an intractable battle before us.

But the slave is not made free when he steps into the promised land. He is made free the moment he brakes lose his binds. He is not made free by the fist sip from the rivers of honey, but when he raises his voice in defiance. He is not made free when he can do as he will, as he pleases. He is made free, when he refuses the order of his master.

We must not let our dreams retaking of the White House distract our selves from the task at hand. Our freedom shell come on the day we stand up to the Republicans, and draw a line in the soil of America and say to them with the voice of one nation, "Your Fascism ends here!" On THAT day, we will ALL again taste the spirit of freedom. And it shall be a spirit that shall live on, even in defeat. It is that spirit that shall bring us courage into the Republican's "brave new world." IF the defenders of that fascism would chose to burn to the ground our village, in order to save it. Be they Republican or by they Democrat. Than so be it, for we shall prevail, none the less.

[Gman]

187. I argued last night that Gore's endorsement was an attempt

to keep people from sitting on their hands in November if Dean wins the nomination. There is a very real danger of that happening. There is precedent aplenty for this happening in the party.

Dean had to cut some kind of deal with Gore to get his support. Gore got concessions that he likely felt were wanted by the "ABD" crowd for them to get off their duffs in November.

More here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=854753

I was especially amused that Deanies saw this post as sour grapes from a non-Dean supporter.

[ErasureAcer]

188. The issues will kill the Democratic Party

Dean may claim himself as a "recreator" or "the democratic wing of the democratic party" but he truly is not.

I won't vote for Dean because he doesn't even pass my first question that matters most importantly to me...and that is the death penalty. This is also a big reason I didn't vote for Gore(Lieberman also played a part in that).

Dean is same ole...I want more change.

His ideas on most things are compromises...he brings nothing new to the presidency. He is Al Gore.

Gore's nomination is nothing.

[library_max]

191. So suppose Dean turns out to be the nominee?

What are you going to do? Stay home and sulk on election day? Vote for a splinter candidate, which is the same thing? Vote for Bush out of spite? Or what?

[bobthedrummer]

190. A Dean/Clark ticket puts fear in this administration.

Explore it.

[mmonk]

194. Will a

Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean ticket avert the civil war?

[HILLARY SUPPORTER]

195. Bring it on....

"Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 11:02 a.m. EST Carville: Gore Looks Like 'a Corpse' Former Clinton war room capo James Carville is trashing ex-Vice President Al Gore's decision this week to endorse Howard Dean, saying that Gore looked like "a corpse" at Tuesday's announcement ceremony in Harlem. "It was the perfect picture of a doctor and a corpse standing there," Carville told radio host Don Imus Thursday morning. The Clinton hit man also derided Dean's decision to bring Gore to Harlem in a bid to appeal to African-Americans, saying Gore could never compete with his old boss. "I don't think Al Gore should even get in the same ring with Bill Clinton when it comes to trying to impress black voters," Carville advised. The Democratic strategist openly boasted that the Vermont Democrat's presidential bid was doomed, recounting a conversation he had with one top Dean aide. "I told Steve McMahon, the media guy for Dean, who was on 'Crossfire': You have one of the three most influential presidential campaigns of my lifetime. That's the good news. The bad news is the other two are McGovern and Goldwater." Carville predicted that Gore would run for president himself in 2008, but wouldn't stand a chance against Hillary Clinton. "It would be a titanic struggle but it would be more of a personal struggle as opposed to an ideological struggle," he explained. "My sense is, if it came down to that, it wouldn't be very close," he told Imus."

I knew I always like James Carville - he speaks such truth!!

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Myra]

197. WillPitt, I think this is valid fear. But hasn't Clinton said he wouldn't

endorse a Dem candidate before the convention?

If that's true, do you think he'll be waging war
on Dean by pulling strings behind the scenes?

[Walt Starr]

198. As far as I'm concerned, Kerry and Gephardt have declared Civil War

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/12/politics2015EST0748.DTL

It's now Dean or nobody as far as I'm concerned. You wanted a war? You've got one now.