For the 600th time -- about Dean

[Eloriel]

I'm tired of posting these things over and over again in threads where Dean is questioned or outright bashed. So I'm going to say them here, and bookmark the damn thread so I can just post the link from now on.

1. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT DEAN if you're not tapping into and accessing his campaign directly. If you're just repeating what you've heard or what you've read, BRZZZT! you lose. You don't get it. You can't get it because "they" don't get it. I've seen one or two columns/articles about Dean that got PART of it, but didn't get all of it. If YOU want to know about Dean, you MUST go directly to his campaign. It's just that simple.

There's nothing like what the Dean campaign is that has EVER happened before. It's unique in American history. It is a quiet revolution, the top (noisier) edges of which are more visible and to some extent get reported on. Beneath the surface is a re-ordering of the old ways of doing politics and political campaigns. This is more than a political campaign, it's a movement, and it is changing people's lives -- giving them a sense of hope, giving them a sense of self-empowerment, and engaging them in the political process in a very direct way. Many of us who have been affected by this campaign will never go back to "the old ways." Most of us who have been affected by this campaign will go on to EXPECT to be participants in our government in ways that we haven't before.

2. DEAN IS ALREADY ATTRACTING MODERATES, SWING VOTERS, INDEPENDENTS, EVEN REPUBLICANS, AND EVEN PEOPLE WHO'VE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED OR EVEN VOTED BEFORE. He's actually bringing in NEW voters. So stop "worrying" if he can do so in the future. He's already proven it. Any pundit who worries about this either just doesn't get it or is using talking points to try to diminish his "electability" quotient and thus erode his support.

At most of Dean's appearances, esp. outside Iowa and NH, he asks people in the audience how many have never been involved in politics before. Time and again, a large percentage -- up to half and even more -- raise their hands. Read the comments posted by supporters on the Official Blog to get a feel for people joining up who are from across the political spectrum, who've never been involved and/or never contributed to any campaign before. THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON HERE THAT NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN TAP. Based on these numbers, Dean is not just "electable" he's the MOST ELECTABLE of the candidates.

Official Website
http://www.deanforamerica.com

Official Blog
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/

BRAND New Democrats for Dean
http://brandnewdemocrats.blogspot.com

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

Republicans for Dean
http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/

African Americans for Dean (new)
http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/

D.C. area Dean supporters to participate in the 40th Anniversary of March on Washington, Aug. 28
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000991.html

Eloriel

[caledesi]

1. Thank you El. I have just about given up on their people who

don't know shit about Howard Dean.

[tedoll78]

2. Point #2

I wonder how much turnout would increase in the general election if he were our nominee. I also wonder if these new people are the key to his being nominated.

[Ediacara]

3. I agree with you 100% Eloriel

and as we both know, that doesn't often happen :-)

[tedoll78]

6. See?

The Dean campaign does attract all sorts of supporters! lol..

[Eloriel]

14. ROTFL -- so true

Hi, DinoBoy!!

Eloriel

[JNelson6563]

4. I've had an interesting thought

on all of this bashing lately El. Tell me what you think. It is no secret that there are some candidates and their supporters have a sense of entitlement. Kind of like a seniority methodology. One puts in x amount of years, by golly the nom should be theirs. (Nevermind the question: what have they done for us lately?)

Ok, couple this with the smashing success of Dean reaching the grassroots, tapping into the frustration of many who feel a deaf ear has been turned to us by our supposed leadership. How many previously never involved in politics before types that are flocking to this exciting campaign, well frankly I cannot help but see much frustration and bitterness.

One would think there'd be plenty of that just from certain candidates having supported some ghastly Bush policies. Well that may be part of it, having to condone, explain away, spin (whatever) behavior of the past 2.5 years but then, there's that upstart Dean swooping in and taking support that (by birthright apparently) should belong to their candidates and VOILA!!!

Angry, bitter hate-mongering that might make Danny Coulter blush. Frankly I am horrified.

Julie

[Eloriel]

22. Oh, I think you're entirely right

At least 2 of the candidates certainly do have a sense of entitlement about the nomination.

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

26. LOL, only 2????

Frankly, my jaw dropped when I saw DUers figuring out how to spend Teresa Heinz' money for her.

It's really a shame that some aren't content to SUPPORT their candidate and feel a need to smash others.

I've dropped out of most of the candidate threads because of it. Why waste time when the same bunch come in to divert, flame and accuse?

Go DEAN!!!!! The next POTUS!!!!

[DagmarK]

71. Exactly DemA - let's get that silent majority in the US registered to vote

and stop wasting our time with the alleged "party faithful" who have basically adopted the right wing punditry attack dog tactics and have the audacity to call it "info sharing" and "debate".

The silent majority who doesn't seem to show up to the polls IS going to show up in 2004. And from the bottom all the way to the top of the dem hierarchy.......there's going to be some house cleaning.

Why should we waste our time with folks who are just going to be edged out of the popular movement anyways. And YES, I am speaking directly to MANY DUers here. Been nice knowin' ya!

I am ALSO somewhat curious about why so many of the Dean bashers don't even show up in the voting fraud threads. Lack of interest? Or is the Old School way of doing things working just fine? It sure the hell isn't because they are out stomping for their favored candidate! That much is clear.

[Cha]

30. I never thought of that! Thanks, Julie! I know exactly what you

mean, though, because that happened here in New York politics with Carl McCall and Andrew Cuomo! It was Carl's "turn" to be the Dem nominee and Andrew came in and there was a lot of that kind of talk of "entitlement". So, finally, Andrew dropped out!

That's the way I see it anyway!

Plus Dean is outside the beltway!

I might add that it is so wonderful to be a part of this "exciting campaign" at the Grassroots level! The way I always thought it should be!

[calimary]

31. Julie, I think you make a VERY good point.

I hadn't thought about the "entitlement" angle, but I think what you said makes perfect sense.

After all, we HAVE seen the "entitlement" question play out in spades with the rethugs and their little king george, haven't we?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Go Dems!

United for America! Go Dems!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Ediacara]

10. I suspect

she probably forgot to turn it off

[Eloriel]

16. 'Cause I screwed up the UBB. Fixed it now. nt

[wryter2000]

7. Dean's picture is next to my computer as we "speak"

Jim Jeffords was the first politician I *ever* gave money to. Dean is the second. I have to keep reminding the hubby not to let me send any more money.

I understand the frustration with the people who don't get it. But can't we keep the tone a bit more civil? I have to say that sometimes I cringe when I look at the forum and there's thread after thread about Dean. This isn't a Dean discussion room. There are other good people here with other good candidates. Let's keep that in mind.

[tedoll78]

9. Did you get the huge postcard from him in the mail this week?

I got a huge postcard in the mail from him.. just about made my day! It has 2004 in the upper-lefthand corner and Dean standing in front of a the flag. There are words on the bottom..

[caledesi]

12. Yes! I was thrilled. I have it on my fridge. Made my day too.

[wryter2000]

13. I sure did

I have to say there was only one disappointment in it...he's 2 days younger than I am. How dare he!? :)

[Cha]

51. The words are "Thank you for your help!" And

"Glad you are on the team."


Yep! Right on my desk, too! :7

[Larkspur]

93. Yep, I got it too and the "Glad you are on the team" is the key to his

campaign's success. Unlike the others, Dean makes you feel that you are part of a team, not a sheep to be sheared.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

11. Geez, howcome there is no "Greens for Dean"?

This Green would welcome it. I'd even start it if I had the time.

[phiddle]

23. We've seen a lot af vague assertions:

The DLC saying that Dean is "too liberal","unelectable", etc., and
Dean's forces asserting that he is attracting many Ex-greens, Republicans and A-politicals. This seems more the case. I went to a Dean meetup last Wed., and approx 10 (of 110 present) were self-identified Republicans, including the chair of the 2000 McCain campaign in our state. I also noted quite a few people previously involved with the Greens.
There is one way to start resolving this issue: poll Dean supporters. Ask self-identified Dean supporters a) their party affiliation, and b)for whom they voted in 2000. If the #s come out as I suspect, maybe the DLC will SHUT THE HELL UP!

[hedda_foil]

32. Here ya go. Greens4Dean!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Greens4Dean/

[OffWithTheirHeads]

54. Thanks Hedda

Tell you what though, going to other discussion sites sure makes you appreciate DU. Soooo easy to navigate. Sooo easy to use.

Green for Dean

[wheresthemind]

15. ugghhh

What I don't like is singling out Dean bashers... Why not say ALL canidate bashers know your stuff before you say anything.

Then what about those who DO know Dean, do know his record, do know his campaign and still are critical of him? Its not as if ANYONE who "bashes" Dean "doesn't know shit".

[JNelson6563]

63. it's tricky sometimes but...

Recently I caught a I-hate-Dean thread, it was rather typical too. A beautiful mix of methods. Everyone disagreeing got "READ MY POST!!" like it was this flawless criticism comprised wholly of facts and unassailable logic, which it was not.

An example would be the claim that while yes, Vermont has fared well, fiscally speaking, while some 48 other states struggle with deficits, Vermont got federal funding!!! Oh, well!! That slimey bastard trying to misrepresent a federally funded success story!! But wait...every other state got federal funding too. In spite of this they have deficits, some pretty sizable. For that information to not be included in this "criticism" sort of gives it a dishonest flavor, no?

This and similar "criticisms" are not respectable dialogue or honest debate. It is thinly disguised bashing and should be discouraged.

Just my take--
Julie

[FubarFly]

17. The more the people are directly involved with government,

the more the government is directly involved with the people.

This is the heart of the matter for me.

Dean's supporters are the American people, and Dean, despite his more conservative stances, will be responsive to them, and not to the corporations who are ruining America.

Dean is willing to listen to and fight for ordinary Americans in a way that no other candidate is able or willing to do. This is the primary reason why I support him. I believe that Dean honestly wants what is best for America. His vision of America is one in which I would be proud to live in.

[LWolf]

18. I agree.

I would also say to do the same for all 9 candidates before you make your choice.

I like to check the facts when someone says candidate A "is" or "is not" a supporter of something, or that he said this or voted for that.

I'm not a Dean supporter. I have been to his site. I was (and am) impressed by the energy and support he is generating. I don't agree with him on many issues, and have a candidate that I agree with more.

But my choice was made after accessing the Dean campaign directly.

Bashing, in this case, is a 9-way street.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I See The Monitor Has Already Deleted the Offensive Post

Why do the Dean supporters use such heavy handed tactics to demean their opponents.

It really is fascictic to shout down your opponents with epithets like "asshole".


It's worse than fascistic. It's down right Gingrichesque who advised fellow Republicans to go negative on thier opponents by using words like weak, pathetic etcetera.

[Wonder]

20. Okay perhaps you are right -- you are up on Dean -- Quick Question

Perhaps you can nip this in the bud and clear this up for me.


Is Steven Grossman still Dean's campaign's chief fundraiser and what were Dean's main thoughts upon his return from his AIPAC-sponsored trip to Israel?

Or is all this a no thing - just stressed by anti-democratic muslim groups?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Dean Has Reportedly Said

that his position on the Middle East is close to that of AIPAC.

[Wonder]

28. thank you for clarifying that for me

Dean never sat right with me. I always felt of all the dem candidates he reeks of the status quo more so than any of them, except for perhaps Lieberman. I felt this before I discovered the AIPAC affiliations, but you know how those anti-democratic smears can be... so I wanted to run it by DU and see what others thought. Thanks for responding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. In Fairness To Dean

there is little room on the Israeli-Palestinian question between Bush and all the Democratic presidential candidates save Sharpton and Kucinich. I don't know Carol Mosely Braun's position but I would suspect as a main stream Democrat she's fairly close to AIPAC's position.

Lieberman gets slammed on this board but his views on the Israeli-Palestinian question are indistinguishable from his primary competitors.

For the record I am pro-peace, pro Israel, pro two state solution. and in favor of replacing Sharon with a Labour candidate.

[Wonder]

40. Yes I understand that

I am pro peace, anti occupation, anti judea and samaria, pro two state solution, pro palestinian sovereignty, pro reparation for right to return (which I believe the Palestinains should not back down on and Israel should be made to address with right to return taken off final status), In other words, I believe this is just Oslo revisited and it seems a waste of money considering many of America's domestic issue that could use the money. Especially if Sharon is not made to stop his stalling and not make good on his side of those concessions like outposts, and dismantling of settlements -- the issue is filled with irony and to me another round and round eye roller.

However from a pragmatic standpoint I believe your assessment is correct. Without going into too much more detail... I feel Israel needs some monetary cutting off at this point to get Sharon to play ball... and cow towing to AIPAC is not going to help in terms of putting pressure on Sharon...

I believe it is fair to say that Sharon's anti-terrorist propaganda has helped dupe the Israeli populace much in the same way the US DOD propaganda has duped the American populace, with the obvious difference being the suicide attacks on Israeli citizens, which I feel has much to do with Sharon's election as PM.

It also seems to me DOD may rely on Israeli Intelligence and all these decades of financial military investment in Israel makes for cutting them off almost an impossibility... it will not happen... and the truth really is that any candidate that veers from that position too much will never get the democratic party nomination.

ON EDIT:

considering Israel's political history I am not sure the Arab policies of Labour are that much more palestinian friendly either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The Right Of Return Is A Big Sticking Point

as well as the final status of Jerusalem but without going into the history Bill Clinton had some good ideas on how to solve those problems such as the sovereignty of The Temple Mount as the Jews call it and the Dome of the Rock as the Muslims call it.

As for the Right of Return I support a token return of, say, 10,000 Palestinians to their ancestral homes with the rest receiving reparations.

As you know between 600,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were displaced with the birth of Israel. Their progency has grown anywhere from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 according to published reports. Those that favor the return of all of them are really arguing for the dismantling of the Jewsih state.

In the final analysis both sides need to make compromises.

The only alternative is bloodshed.

[Wonder]

52. Yes I am familiar with the history

I tend to agree with Edward Said on this... it is not really so much a matter of taking right to return literally... but more that the issue is addressed. TO DATE Israel has been allowed to avoid the issue almost completely... to the degree that even al nakba, tantura, etc. remain a matter of denial. The Palestinians are not even allowed their account of this history. But for the Israeli Revisionists (and some American Dissidents on the I/P confict and criticisms of Israel/US doctrine here), they have been deprived of their own accounts which interferes with them even counting their own dead.

Right of Return is symbolic in many ways and is the HEART of the Palestinian cause... and this misnomer that they they must have full return to Israel proper is just that: a misnomer just more AIPAC and Pro-likud propaganda...

The Palestinains want their past acknowledged and I am of the opinion that they will take monetary compensation as long as Israel is made to admit their part in, for the most part, created the refugee problem which was created due to the Zionist Nationalist project, another issue Israeli General's refuse to acknowledge, but instead their propaganda remains focused on blurring this history...

but we are off topic now and I have gone round and round on this in I/P... It is no longer worth the time...

If you are curious of my frame of reference...

you can have a look in the Right To Return thread in I/P (to name one). Generally the issue is so polarized I have ceased participating in passion... changing minds tends to be an exercise in futility and there are many issues that require vigiliant attention...in addition to this one...

anyway nice chatting again.

[wheresthemind]

42. heres an article...

its not the most flattering but I found it while looking for a qoute.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

"Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees ... the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state."

(NOTE I FOUND THIS ARTICLE AND WAS REPLYING THE ABOVES QUESTION, DON'T TAKE THIS AS BASHING)

[Wonder]

44. I am aware of this article

I just placed it in another one of the Dean threads. And however my curiousity and concern may be preceived, I am not bashing him either, but what, am I not suppose to wonder?

scrutiny is warranted. And in my opinion Israel has been given much to much latitude here. I am not happy with the AIPAC anti-arab propaganda, nor am I fond of my countries message which seems to ask me to hate a whole culture, because they happen to have their money in arms and oil...

this is not bashing this is freedom of scrutiny...

so no I do not take this as bashing though I can not account for others on forum... so I am only speaking for myself.

ON EDIT: Thanks for responding though.

[Cha]

65. "Perhaps for lieberman"? You really are paying attention

aren't you?

[aquart]

33. He has a Jew on his staff?

How worried should I be?

[Eloriel]

45. I don't know about Grossman, or who he is

If you want Dean's more complex position on I/P issues, I'd suggest you check out his Issues pages on the official website.

Eloriel

[tjdee]

91. Steve Grossman, former president of AIPAC. And the DNC. n/t

[hedda_foil]

80. I'm still looking for the answer to your question but in the meantime ....

Somewhere in my files is an excellent response to your questions, but I haven't been able to find it (though I'll keep looking). Here's what I recall, however. Grossman is, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, which means he's a heavy hitter in Democratic circles. (Not the DLC -- the DNC.) That's his biggest credential. He worked in foreign policy in the first (much more liberal than the 2nd) Clinton admin.

He was briefly appointed to the AIPAC presidency after the then-current president was involved in some kind of scandal. Apparently he was tapped because he was Mr. Clean. However, his (Grossman's)association with Israel has been in connection with a liberal, peace-and civil rights oriented group. I'm quite sure of this because when I first learned of it, before I committed to Dean, I looked Grossman up to see just what his position has been and who he had worked for. And I went to the website of the organization itself to see just what it stood for.

Dean isn't an Israeli Hawk like Lieberman and * cabal by any stretch of the imagination.

Tamara Baker of American Politics Journal did a very good job on many of the Israel/AIPAC questions in their mailbag on July 11.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/Letters.html

<snip>

Yeah, Dean's dealt with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and he has AIPAC members who support him, just like virtually every other US elected official of prominence. But Dean isn't afraid to tell AIPAC when he disagrees with them on deal-breaking issues like invading Iraq, even if it means that he has to brave a harsh reception from them:

The liberal Dean, who was ferried about the Aipac parley
by a high-profile supporter, former Aipac president
Steven Grossman, drew a good crowd there, even if his
anti-war stance was generally unpopular with the hawkish
group. He defended it forcefully, telling the Forward
that "Iran is more dangerous to Israel than Iraq is...
I don't think you have to be pro-war or pro-unilateral
intervention to be pro-Israel."

Not exactly the behavior of an AIPAC tool, eh? And the AIPACers in attendance gave Dean a coolish reception, nowhere near the love-bombing they reserved for Joe Lieberman. (That's OK: Dean, whose favorite novel is Ken Kesey's *Sometimes a Great Notion*, has never been afraid to talk to people who disagree with him on fundamental issues. Preaching solely to the converted isn't his style.)

But when Dean talked to a more liberal group of Jewish leaders and activists, he was greeted far more warmly:

At the Reform gathering, however, Dean's trademark cheeky,
shoot-from-the-hip manner electrified the crowd, which
heartily applauded his platform to make health insurance a
right for all Americans. "We have had enough in this
country of blaming government for what goes wrong," he
said. "Let's lift up government and not be afraid to be
Democrats!"

Leaving the gathering, Dean practically had to beat back a
number of young people who eagerly volunteered for his
campaign. "It would be an honor to work for you," gushed
one youth, a leader of the Reform movement's National
Federation of Temple Youth.

<snip>

Hopefully, you guys are aware that the vast majority of Jews are liberals and far more likely to be consistently antiwar (and particularly anti THIS war) than most Americans ... and even most Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

92. I hope we are not using AIPAC as the new "race card"

Notice the date on this article. Travelling to Israel is not a crime. I remember Dean saying something as to how moving the experience was for him and his family (his wife and children are Jewish).

If you want to talk about "AIPAC-sponsored" trips to Israel, you may find that Hillary has been there too, together with a lot of people with bona fide liberal credentials.

This "sinister AIPAC plot" of taking politicians to Israel to suck their brains and turn them into Sharonista automatons seems to be nothing more than an internet-based myth!

:tinfoilhat:

Governor primed for longshot bid for White House
December 11, 2002

By SALLY WEST JOHNSON Herald Correspondent

O’Connor also is counting a coup after signing up Steve Grossman, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and an unsuccessful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate in 2002. Grossman has volunteered to help Dean raise funds nationally and to help him meet potential supporters around the country, based on Grossman’s extensive political network.

Grossman has known Dean throughout his tenure as governor. What has impressed him most is that “Howard Dean is a guy for whom there are principles for which he is willing to lose his office. The Democratic Party is made up of inside-the-Beltway talking heads. Howard Dean offers a fresh, imaginative perspective on the nation’s problems. It’s a measure of my respect for Howard that I was willing to go to John Kerry, whom I’ve known for 32 years, and say, ‘Sorry, John. I¹m supporting Howard Dean.’”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/57517.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. It's more important to examine a candidates actual words and actions

It's more important to examine a candidate's actual words and actions over the course of their career and the campaign than just accepting the campaign's spin on things. Of course if you go to any of the candidates' websites etc., you will get a rosy picture of that candidate.

Saying "YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT DEAN" if all you are doing is reading transcripts of his speeches and news stories about his record in Vermont, and that - to get the 'true story' - you must listen to what is supporters say about him - it's like saying "If you want the real view of what is happening, you must put on these rose-colored glasses."

[Eloriel]

37. Ahhh, but that's not what I said at all -- why are you twisting it

Saying "YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT DEAN" if all you are doing is reading transcripts of his speeches and news stories about his record in Vermont,

Nooo, I said you don't know shit if you're reading and listening to the pundits. Yes, by all means read his speeches and transcripts. That, IMO, is going directly to the campaign, to the source.

News stories? It depends. Contemporaneous news articles while he was governor of VT ought to be pretty decent.

So please, don't twist my words.

Eloriel

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Im not twisting anything. Your exact words:

Im not twisting anything. Your exact words: "YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT DEAN if you're not tapping into and accessing his campaign directly."

I submit that it is not neccesary to get your news and views about Dean's positions by going to his campaign website or his supporters websites. http://vote-smart.org/ has good info on all the candidates, for example. When the candidates do interviews, the transcripts of those interviews are generally available from independent sources.

Yes, if you want the Dean campaign view of things, by all means go to the Dean website. If you want the Kerry campaign view, go to the Kerry website. If you want an independent view, go to an independent website.

(edit: spelling)

[Droopy]

25. I dig Dean, but I've got a question

And maybe you can help me out since you are more informed and involved than I am.

Dean is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. He has twenty years experience in Vermont politics including holding the office of governer and leuntinent governer. He did a fine job in as governer and as a result they are doing better now there than most of the country. All of this is cool.

Now we come to my question. It's about Dean's opposition to the war. I agree with him and it's one of the main reasons why I like him. But how is this going to play with mainstream America where we had at least 70% approval of the war? How do you think his position on this issue will affect his campaign? Good, bad or will it be a non-issue come '04? We'll probably still have troops in Iraq come election time so it's probably going to come into play in some form.

I'm not saying Dean is unelectable because of this, I'm just wondering how he's going to deal with this issue. You can bet the repukes are going to try to say he's weak on defense because of this. Will that message stick with the mainstream?

[ima_sinnic]

35. I truly feel that Dean can articulate the appropriate response to 9/11

and terrorists that the majority of American people can live with. Dean is NOT 100% anti-war; to be so in today's world, much as we'd like it, would just not be realistic. The possibility that war might be warranted--NOT pre-emptive war but defensive--is the only realistic position that can currently be taken.

By the time of the elections, if not well well before, the American people should have a very strong inkling that invading Iraq was not an appropriate response to 9/11 and that it in fact made us more resented and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not the other way around. As with all other aspects of his campaign and policies, I feel confident that Dean will articulate a foreign policy and a homeland security policy that are sensible--so sensible that they will be largely irresistable. He does in fact have the foundations of such policies expressed on his web site.

Dean is "just what the doctor ordered"

[Eloriel]

41. ima_sinnic

(I love your name, btw.)

I think the great majority of Americans are fair-minded, honest, and more or less peace-loving. I believe most of them have been misled about this war, AND that Howard Dean continuing to point that out -- the truth about the war -- will be decisive. Americans appreciate the truth. Uh, most of them. ;-) And when given the truth, they do the right thing with and about it.

Eloriel

[wheresthemind]

43. Dean won't rule out preemtive strikes?

"Dean even left open the possibility of preemptive strikes against that country in that interview, adding that 'we have to be very, very careful of Iran.'"

-http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

Didn't he make a similar comment about N. Korea?

He'd have my support if it weren't for stuff like this, I'm actually beginning to lean towards Kerry (behind Dennis of course!).

[Wonder]

47. dean is too much more the status quo

for my tastes... too bad... too... because my guess is ... he will take the nomination... but really ... so this is news? someone said last night politics on a good day is trudge through the sewer... I call it the pig sty... what more is there to really say... Dean IS NOT A BREAKAWAY CANDIDATE... while I haven't yet made up my mind (primarily because I am not significantly moved by any of them or the ones that move me haven't a chance in hell of garnering the nomination) I AM NOT in support of Howard Dean which has little to do with being misinformed.

[FubarFly]

50. Um, Kerry voted for a preemptive strike; Dean just wants to talk about it.

Dean talks a lot in hypotheticals. It's his pragmatist nature at work. He likes to consider all aspects of a potential policy, and then make an informed decision. This is what gets him in trouble with bashers, not so much the things he actually supports, but the things he is not opposed to considering and talking about. Usually I agree with the position he ends up taking, but not always. I am however ecstatic that he takes the time to think things through. A lot of good policy can come from an examination of controversial positions.

And who knows, might there be a possible situation where even you would support a preemptive strike?

[Wonder]

53. ah yes the virtues of pragmatic relativism

it has its merits and its disadvantages as well.

[FubarFly]

56. Agreed

but so does idealogical absolutism.

Dean would be better than b**h, no?

[wheresthemind]

58. hahahahahah

If you find someone in this board that disagrees with that, we need to suspend their acount! : )

There have been couple occasions where people have suggested people who do not like Dean would rather vote for Bush the Dean with the nomination

That make about as much sense as "Dean is another Nader".

[FubarFly]

61. Hmmm...

I'm trying to be civil and find ground that we can agree upon.

Thanks for meeting me half way.

Sheesh.

[wheresthemind]

68. I'm sorry... I might of come off wrong...

I defiantly think Dean would be better then Bush, and better then most of the candidates in this race!

I was just mentioning that because I think there was a thread not to long ago asking people if they would support Dean over Bush... on a board like this? How could you not? Given the absurdity of someone on this bored preferring Bush to Dean I compared it to the absurdity of the "Dean is another Nader" threads that kept popping up yesterday. I hope that explains it...

Like I always say, eventually we'll all be behined the same person and be united against Bush!

And I'm glad to see people behined Dean insted of say Leiberman!

[Wonder]

70. well now

I have completely lost the train of thought here... I guess Dean threads are those to reserve expressing any opinion at all... just reading the lead post will have to do... seems like judgement calls might just abound in dean threads like they do down in I/P... another polarized topic.... what a surprise. Of course I infer... it really is not that important in the scheme of things though.

[Wonder]

69. dean another nader hahahahahahah!

that's a laugh... what are you saying those strongly pro dean feel if you are not pro dean you are pro bush? Is that the logic with Dean supports... shit that is a bit myopic don't you think.

are these extreme polarities another flaw in human nature?

[wheresthemind]

73. I don't think it is a Dean supporter flaw...

I think at this point in the primary season we're all very polarized.

People have been saying to much that "Dennis supporters this..." or "Dean supporters that..." when it really is ALL supporters!

All supporters are critical of the other candidates. What everyone needs to do is be as critical as their own candidate in private as they are of any others.

They're might be some veryyyy strong Dean supporters who believe if you are not pro-Dean you are pro-bush, but their might be Kerry supporters, Dennis supporters who feel and say the exact same thing!

NONE of the probs with candidates supporters are limited to one candidate.

The only thing I take grudge with is the Dean Defense Force. I got a nice e-mail from them the other day telling me that the Kucinich campaign was spreading lies about Dean. Those guys need to cool down a little.

[Wonder]

85. well I only notice the polarity

and some of the cattiness I guess because once again I am not sold on any of them really... and truely who I finally settle on I won't feel the need to hardsell them to rest of the nation... that is not my thing... I don't need across the board agreement... nor do I slight anyone for narrowing in on their chosen candidate... pissing contests have never been a hobby of mine.

On edit:

in fact this is the first time I even entered in to the candidate threads where I vocalized an opinion... and mostly it was a question about the candidate. I do not believe I bashed him. I just commented on his affiliations and as another poster pointed out... his affiliations are not that much different from the others for the most part... but of course that remains debatable as well.

I will refrain from expressing any further opinions on the dem candidates... because you know I don't need the grief nor the presumption nor the misunderstanding... live and learn.

[Wonder]

59. so it's the lesser of all evils - eh?

I haven't made my decision yet on democratic nominee, I am not hot to trot on dean... now if he ends up the nominee will I vote democrat? YES... I do not feel a third party candidate would take it... whoever that might be... (even though I do feel the time is ripe for an official third party - the dems and repubs many times are just other sides of the same coin)... I have to get off the computer now...

[FubarFly]

62. It's not an evil at all. Those are your words not mine. n/t.

[Wonder]

67. hah I know! They are my words not yours.

I did not mean to imply they were yours... just my take or response to your question, is all. It seems you are sold on Dean. I respect that. but I am hardly sold on Dean...and I am not naive enough to expect that another should mouth my words ... if they are in disagreement with them... my motives have little to do with changing many minds... most here seem up on events and topics. That's a good thing in and of itself and is also kind of a relief as well.

[FubarFly]

72. So what are your motives then?

I am in no mood to participate in a flame fest. My respect for you would increase greatly if you could post something positive about what you would like to see happen. Not that I'm implying that you need my respect.
I'm just curious.

[wheresthemind]

76. Wonders motives seem to be....

curiosity... he has been very respectful and curious this whole time, I don't think anyones looking for a fight.

[Wonder]

84. thank you

wheresthemind... I am glad someone has read the situation correctly. sheesh... it seems expressing ones opinion is not a freedom one can expect across the board... I was just falsely accused of being an anti-semite as well... I have been quite contentedly pretty much anonymous on this board THAT IS until today... and mostly (but for the Kobe bryant thread) I have had very little dialogue with others... generally I read, put my two cents in and very very few are the wiser...

curiosity is a good call on your part... and as I have admitted... I am not overly enthused with any of the candidates at this time...

I was hoping for a real breakaway candidate... the only candidate that seems to be that would need to broaden his platform to include all of the working class rather than just one race... but of course entertaining sharpton is unrealistic I do not believe he will get the nomination ... which is a shame because if he broadened his message a bit a sharpton braun ticket might (I say might) be the breakaway I was looking for (then of course I am not sure I believe that conclusively either) and like everyone else on the dias he too still requires the appropriate research...

Gephardt is another candidate I am looking into but It does not seem he is much talked about... anyway... your take is accurate.

[Wonder]

82. good source of information

would be my primary motive... I am a registered democrat...

a flame fest certainly was not my motive... would you prefer I just agree with you. Let me know. I will see what I can do about that in the future. As far as respect goes... beyond the common courtesy of the benefit of the doubt I would guess should be extended to all (rather than snap judgements) respect is generally earned.

[FubarFly]

89. Thanks for an honest answer

:hi:

It is very easy to get thin-skinned around here. A good portion of all disagreement results from simple miscommunication. I asked for your motives because I wanted to understand where you where coming from. Admittedly, I misinterpreted some of your prior comments. You have my humble apologies. Peace.

[Wonder]

90. thanks FubarFly

I am kind of an iconclast and very very unhappy with the status quo... the whole presidental campaign leaves me still very indecisive... I an neither wholeheartedly for or wholeheartedly against any candidate on the dias... I feel the one issue that is the most important is not even on the stump and that is MAJOR POLITICAL REFORMATION...

especially in the high cost campaigning really is... I feel if we really want a government for the PEOPLE some very strident rules have to pulled together to equalize the cost of campaigning wherein all who run has equal funds... this corporate hold on capital hill has got to go...

what I am talking about is NEITHER in the real world or terribly PRAGMATIC I realize this... I THINK on both sides there is much fixing that is needed.

I have voiced this view before... but certainly it is clear every single DU participant has not read my views. which to tell you the truth I don't mind... I like the anonymity... I crack jokes... sometimes I get goofy... mostly DU pulls together a lot of news in one place... for the most part I am kind of apolitical... but for my disgust with the corruption of this current administration... they should all be indicted. Bush should be impeached.

[ryharrin]

94. Well, one thing that Dean is a lot less status quo on is voting reform.

He has said he is wholeheartedly for IRV. If he could actually get that implemented in any fashion, it would a massive step in the right direction.

[acerbic]

96. Huh? Do you mean instant runoff voting?

Doesn't that mean that it would make great sense for all Greens and other non- Dems/Repukes to support him now so that they would get much better chances for their own candidates later?

[wheresthemind]

55. there might be...

but then again I'm not sure.

Look at the Cuban Missle Crisis. To some that might have looked like a sure situation for a preemtive strike, but Kennedy didn't give in, he fought with diplomicy to the last minute and in turn saved millions of lives.

I could be very wrong here, but I think that if Dean had been forced to make that vote in Congress, he would have voted with many of the Democrats. Again I could be wrong and if anyone has a link to something he said maybe right after the vote denoucing it I'd like that alot. I WANT to be proved wrong.

For me its tougher to support a Govener because they can get away with more talk then a Congressman or a Senator.

[FubarFly]

57. I guess it comes down to trust.

I trust that Dean will make what he believes is the right decision.I also trust that more often than not, that decision will be the best one for Americans.
I base this trust on my analysis of all of the information available to me about Dean. It is not blind trust.
I'm not arguing for blind trust from you, but I will respectfully ask you to keep an open mind.

Peace.

[wheresthemind]

64. I always try and keep an open mind... : )

My support for DK right now is due to the fact we line up on EVERY issue. That and I want to believe that nothing is impossible in this country and that anyone can be president if they have the right message. Also, he reminds me so much of Paul Wellstone. I'm getting worried as of late that some people are exploiting Paul's memory.

If Dennis were to drop out I would have to spend a LONG time thinking about who I was going to get behind next. I might even just wait to see who got the nod.

There are so many candidates, so many issues, so many stances... I would again probably find the person I lined most closely up with. That will be though because there are things I like a lot better about Dean (Iraq, grassroots campaign, etc) and things I like a lot better about Kerry (Environment, guns, death penalty, etc).

This is real tough... so here to hopping Dennis gets the nod in 2004 so I won't have to look for a backup!

[DagmarK]

75. If there is a REAL Imminent Threat to the USA, I hope to GOD

ANY president of this country chooses to strike.

Imminent threat being the standard...... and that IS within international law......

[wheresthemind]

78. Imminent threat?

Do you think the Cuban missle crisis would have counted?

I'd like to think that the president would take every path, every option, and be compleatly sure of the threat before acting on it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Kennedy Masterfully Handled The Cuban Missile Crisis

but had the missiles stayed he would have been justified in taking out the missiles in a surgical strike.

However, I would not have supported an all out invasion.

[Larkspur]

95. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows pre-emptive strikes but only

conditionally, that is if a threat of attack is proven to be imminent. Al Gore said this in his Sep. 23, 2002 speech on Iraq.

An historic example of this article's usage was the 1967 6-Day war when Arab forces literally were surrounding Israel and Israel launced a pre-emptive strike on those forces. That pre-emptive strike is the major reason why Israel won that war.

Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine wants to give ONLY the US the power to decide when to pre-emptively strike.

No President of the United States or leader of any foreign country, who really cares about his/her people, will sit idle when a foe is actually preparing to attack their country. There are legitamite times for pre-emptive strikes, but they should be few and far between because diplomacy and trade, fair trade, should lesson those volitile instances.

[dansolo]

86. That 70% number is misleading

Most people wanted to have the UN involved, and were responding to the alleged threat. As more and more people realize that the threat never existed, they will slowly realize that they were duped to forward the Bush/PNAC agenda. I don't believe that the 70% number will still be valid as the election gets closer and more facts come out. As more money gets spent and more soldiers get killed, the support for the war will rapidly deteriorate. Dean will be on the right side of the issue then.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. the polls ask misleading questions

the polls ask misleading questions. 70% of the public probably would have voted for the war resolution in Congress, but many of those were opposed to our unprovoked invasion without the support of the UN.

[calimary]

27. Bless you Eloriel! You wouldn't believe the flame-fest going on

among some of the Cal Dem groups. SHEESH! One guy emailed a fellow Kerry supporter slamming Dean as a liar and marveling at those who flock to him - who must obvioiusly be "birds of a feather."

How HOW THE HELL is crap like that going to promote party unity? A I viewed it, even if that particular writer were correct, it would have pissed me off so much (and, actually it did piss me off - I couldn't help taking it a at least little personally) that I'd have been MOST unwilling to consider any points this person might try to make - that might otherwise be legitimate. It left me feeling like just telling this person to go stuff it.

SHOOT! We need to be coming together! Not sniping at each other's candidates AND at each other for support of same. JEEZ, aren't we already under fire enough from the bushies? Bad enough we have to start eating our own.

Thanks for putting this one forward. Because ultimately, ALL OF US HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND ONE GUY! (Yes, it's gonna be a GUY, Carol Moseley-Braun isn't gonna go far, I'm afraid.)

I still think Dean can do that. He sure speaks to me. I took a friend to this past week's Dean Meetup and she collected a bunch of literature to pass around at her office. Since she and I had been trading emails about Dean, some of her coworkers got the impression that she was also a Dean expert and had started asking for more info. Not only that, but there were GREENS at this Dean Meetup and they seemed pretty enthusiastic. THEY certainly seemed to recognize what damage devisiveness can do.

On edit - corrected the title - I can, too, spell "bless!"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I respectfully submit

to you that Howard Dean is not the first candidate to "reinvent" politics.

Go back to Gary Hart's 1984 campaign where he campaingned on the theme of creating a "New Politics"

Anybody familiar would see in Gary Hart's "New Politics" the genesis of the third way movement.

What distinguishes the Dean movement from the Hart movement in 84 was there was no war and no internet.

Gary Hart campaigned as a non ideological problem solver. Like Dean his foil was the establishment candidates.

By the way I was a huge Hart supporter in 84 and in 88 till he imploded with the Donna Rice scandle.

[Eloriel]

49. Just so you know

The Dean Campaign isn't particularly claiming to be "reinventing politics," tho they DO notice and comment on some of the changes. I'm the one claiming that.

Gary Hart is the candidate who first got me to register to vote, in my early 30s. (Before that, I not only hated politics but felt it was nigh on impossible to be an "informed voter," so took a pass. I also wanted more direct democracy -- more say in the goings on between elections and more accountability.)

Eloriel

[DagmarK]

77. Difference betw Dean and Hart.......(and it's a big one)

Dean is motivating the silent majority of people who don't normally vote. That's a first. And you can see the dem party big whigs tremblin in their shoes......

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Why would

the Dem bigwigs be trembling in their shoes if Dean is attracting all these outsiders who will carry them to victory.


Also, Gary Hart had the so called big wigs trembling in 84 cuz he almost upset the annointed candidate, Walter Mondale.

There has not been one primary or caucus so where is the evidence beyond anecdotal that suggests non voters in significant numbers are gravitating towards Dean.

[Cha]

36. Thanks, Eloriel, for these handy links to "bookmark" for all

the Dean sites.

I know it really gets frustrating to have so much misinformation come down the pike on DU regarding Govenor Dean!

[wtmusic]

38. Yaooo! El comes out swinging!

I'm going to link to this the next time I see "Dean can't win with that attitude..."

[Dover]

39. Eloriel and other Dean supporters....will you help me answer some

questions I have regarding Dean?

I'm interested in knowing once and for all what his position is on both NAFTA and WTO....as well as domestic/international trade in general. This would include his position on privatization, open WTO meetings, IMF's role, etc. I think this is an important issue because our policies have bred so much mistrust and anger from global partners, sucked jobs out of this country and have exploited others.

Also I read that post yesterday about his flip-flop answer on social security and wonder what the straight scoop is on that.

I'm concerned because Dean is my second choice in candidates and these issues are important to me.

Thanks.

[Eloriel]

60. I'd much prefer you read his own issues pages, but

in brief, he believes that trade is important because it creates middle classes in other countries, and countries with nice large middle classes don't go to war. So it's a national defense issue. BUT he also is very strong -- adamant! -- about building in worker, environmental and human rights into all the trade agreements, new ones and old ones. (He's very pro-labor.) To more or less quote him, he said the other day, "If an auto manufacturer can take its plant to Mexico, then the auto workers get the right to go down there and organize."

He said he would impose trade restrictions where those treaties wouldn't include those protections.

This will not only stem the tide of outflowing jobs ('cause it won't be that much cheaper to take jobs overseas!!), it will protect other countries and help build prosperity for the entire world, not just multinational corporations' owners.

I think I read that he said about WTO the other day that we have to get them off the backs of poor countries (or something very similar).

One of the things that's so important to notice about Dean is that he is very pragmatic. IMO it's easy for candidates to promise to throw away NAFTA, but it would be impossible for them to actually do it. Reforming it, however, is doable. AND I think he has a good point about trade being important for defense reasons.

I didn't see his answers on Social Security as a flip flop, tho I was sorry to see him say he had "misspoken" on the subject in the forum the other day because I think in doing so he (or his campaign) shied away from clarifying what was NOT IMO misspeaking. There were quite a few threads where the claim was made that Dean had lied in that forum where he corrected Dennis Kucinich. I don't think that's the case at all, but the clarification may have sounded to some ears a little too like "what the definition of is is."

In brief, what he said on Meet the Press recently was that he might consider the idea of raising the retirement age to 68 (and did he also say 70?). It's my understanding that it's currently at 67. But that he preferred raising the annual salary caps (currently at $85,000 -- everyone pays FICA until the point in the year their salary paid to date goes above that, and then no more FICA deductions til next year). Please note that CONSIDERING is not the same thing as favoring. Many, many DUers chose not to bother with actually comprehending the English language.

HOWEVER, he had been on record back in 1995, a different time and place and him in a different office also talking about "considering" raising the retirement age to 68, even 70. When he called Kucinich on saying he favored raising the retirement age, he probably forgot about 1995 -- but even then, I don't think he was in favor of it but mentioned it as something to consider.

Something else people have to understand about Dean: he really does say what he thinks, and when he hasn't arrived at a firm position on something, he says that too. SOME people want to nail him to the wall on his public thinking out loud. Some of us understand what he's doing and appreciate that about him, esp. since it represents an opportunity to actually affect which way he goes in his deliberations.

Eloriel

[Dover]

79. Thanks for that info and explanation Eloriel.

It's hard to keep up with all the posts and
opinions here. I prefer to go to the source first, but don't always stay ahead of the pack. I'll check out his issue pages.

[DagmarK]

66. All hail Eloriel!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!

People seem to forget that 50% of all eligible voters in this country FAIL to show up to vote. 1/2 the country. and this has been the case for decades......if not since the beginning!

And DEAN is bringing them in.

So all the naysayers who want to say that Dean can only attract 34% of the democratic party........can do the math. He will easily bring in 25% of that historically silent 50%.

That means -- provided voting is fair (big IF) -- he WINS.............

Or whatever numbers people want to use. This is a movement all right. And the biggest wakeup call will be to the party faithfuls (from all the parties) who are going to be a little shocked when they realize that the OTHER HALF of the country is standing up to be counted for a change. And guess what that means? All you folks thinking you are going to be in charge of everything (demsand repukes), you can just move the hell over. The other half is moving in.

And that must scare the bejesus out of a lot of you guys (dems and repubs).

**I bet when women got the right to vote.....there was similar backlash and much worry!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Sounds Like Fuzzy Math

Let me quote from the seminal work on preferences of voters versus non voters" Taken as a whole, nonvoters appear well represented by those who vote" In other words registering new voters will only make a difference at the margins.

Here's the link to the seminal work on voter and non voter preferences -

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/July1999/HightonWolfinger/html

This work by renowned Berkeley political scientists has been confirmed by numerous other studies.

[ryharrin]

97. That's bad logic.

Those non-voters may have the same views as voters in general, but if there is a single candidate that brings a lot of new voters in, these voters will obviously vote for that candidate. It might not create a new "democratic renaissance" that will keep us in power for years to come, but will definitely give that candidate a distinct advantage in that race.

[wheresthemind]

74. CHEERS EVERYONE FOR LACK OF FLAME FEST HERE!

I think we all kept very cool, even if we were struggling at times.

Drinks all around! (just a coke for me)

Lets beat Bush!