Dean sank the Dean campaign....

[trumad]

A Boxer fights and loses... It's his fault.
A Tennis player gets beat 6 love, 6 love, 6 love, it's his fault.
A Golfer misses the cut. it's his fault.
A Chess player has Checkmate called against him, it's his fault.
A Nascar driver banks too hard in a turn and crashes, it's his fault.
A Poker player bluffs with an empty hand but gets beat by a pair, it's his fault.

The point is, is, that Howard Dean lost in the primaries fair and square to John Kerry. Heck, J. Edwards has more than 350 delegates than Doc. Dean.

Blaming others for Deans loss is kind of silly. Dean, albeit one of the great guys in American Politics just wasn't ready for those folks who sit in the middle.

MHOP

[Nlighten1]

1. Nader sank the Dean campaign.

Didn't you get the memo?

:)

[JohnKleeb]

3. no it was me

;)
ok I know thats loungey :).

[Eloriel]

2. I wouldn't call it "fair and square" -- unless, of course, you

approve of dirty tricks and backroom deals or a system specifically set up in its timing so that the Big Players still have considerable control over the primary process.

NONE of the mistakes Dean or his campaign made could have alone sunk his campaign. It was an inside job (inside the DLC/DNC, that is, with a lot of help from Repugs and the corporate media).

[blm]

5. The same repugs and media who declared Kerry's candidacy dead for months

to assure his campaign funds dried up?

The same DLC heads who personally supported Lieberman and Edwards were forced to settle for the too left for that taste Kerry. They did NOT do squat to help his campaign.

Kerry toughed em all out. He took all their punches, including yours. He didn't fold.

[Alerter_]

43. Kerry never had a grassroots organization

Kerry always had a fan base - among Democratic activist and bureacracy. But Dean built up a grassroots that Kerry never had.

No question that the media tried to kill Kerry early on, I think they were pulling for Clark, Lieberman, or Edwards (to win the primary and lose to Bush). Kerry is a hell of a lot savvier than anyone gives him credit for.

[JI7]

67. i did a lot of grassroots campaigning for Kerry

[blm]

91. Dean tapped into the Moveon activists who already existed.

He didn't create Moveon activism OR Meetups. The movement was in place ready to get behind the first candidate they believed to be antiwar.

People truly believed he was always against the Iraq War, not knowing he was FOR Biden-Lugar at the time which was much the same resolution as the IWR, with the same basic bottom line allowing Bush to determine the need for war.

[freetobegay]

8. Hate rears it ugly head once again.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. yup.....

Oh well, I guess people think a good way to bring Dean people into voting for Kerry is spouting more nonsense about the primaries. Do they think we were out of country during the race?

Trumad, we know exactly what happened. What is the purpose of this thread? Do you thinking you are convincing people to vote for Kerry with this?

[Alerter_]

27. with all of Dean's grassroots organization and fundraising

he still couldn't overpower the establishment and the corporate media, who at some point decided he was a risk and must be taken down. If Dean and Gore and Kucinich, Move On, True Majority, and the other grassroots groups, keep organizing, keep fundraising, and NOT sell out to Soros or some other rich guy for quick cash, we'll inheirit the future.

Dean's organization was amazing, historic, and I certainly hope he keeps it up. Truly democracy in action.

[WilliamPitt]

63. Proof?

[Voltaire]

76. Proof <snicker>

that is the same thing the Bush supporters say when we speak of his presidency...you have no PROOF that he lied. Sometimes you just gotta know you know. No matter what proof you have or conspiracy one believes the facts are these? Dean was running a campaign that endeavored to empower the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Such a campaign would be disturbing to entrenched interests of both parties who have no intention of EVER granting such a....Constitutionally mandated idea like that one. So, he had to be taken down. Its really that simple. Dean supporters are angry because they see that very clearly and resent being told to shutup about the truth. Like Red Pollard said in the movie Seabiscuit.....THEY FOULED US!!!!! And we are goddamned mad about it. I hope President Kerry is ready for me and all the rest of the Deaniacs pinging on his ass 24/7.

[WilliamPitt]

79. Um...I have mountains of proof that Bush has lied

You appear to be alleging (and correct me if I am wrong) that Dean was taken down nefariously. If you believe the media had a huge hand in it, I don't need to ask for further proof because I watched them chop him down with my own eyes.

But if you go further and allege other candidates had a hand in it, that is when asking for proof becomes legitimate...and offering it becomes necessary.

If you allege these things repeatedly but offer no proof ever, it is no small wonder that people tell you to shut up.

Just my 2 cents.

[Voltaire]

83. Oh no no...I know you have proof that Bush lied

I'm just repeating what the mouthbreathers say. We are in agreement that the media worked mightly to take Dean down. I cannot say that any particular campaign took him down, it is my strong belief that the DLC/DNC took him down largely because politicians of both parties are largely not interested in having the common American particpate in the process of governance. Dean was a threat to the entire system that keeps us weak and he had to be gundecked.

[blm]

93. Yeah, it couldn't have been months of internal state polling numbers

that showed that Dean was the greater deathkiss for the Dem candidates lower on the ticket running for Senate and Congress. Who needs those few piddly percentage points in the contested districts?

[Eloriel]

95. There's one thing I sometimes remember to remind myself

At least they took him out before they had to kill him. As you said, Voltaire, he was far too dangerous to entrenched interests on all sides.

[Voltaire]

119. That's why

The whole mantra of "The Primary Voters Made The Choice" is pure unadulterated bullshit. The Primary voters had not clue one what went on behind the scenes. All that had to go on was the meme that Kerry was "electable", whatever the fuck that meant. I ain't gonna lie, I am going to vote for Kerry and all that happy horseshit because I want Bush out more than any goddamned thing I ever wanted in my life. But to listen to this crap from the "winners" gets to be a bit much at times. Kerry won. But you will not get me to say that he won fair and square because that is NOT the case. And I already said why three times. Because the powers that be do not want YOU as part of the process. Plain and simple as that.

[wryter2000]

I have no problem with that

I'm a Deaniac, but I think he was too unusual for many folks. People like to ridicule the idea of "electability," but if you translate that to "Can he beat Bush?" you can see that it's important. I think any doubt that a candidate can beat Bush makes him/her pretty iffy.

FWIW, I'm not sure Dean expected to do as well as he did. The huge early success was a surprise for everyone. For now, I think he's in the best place possible. He can speak his mind in support of Kerry and other democrats without worrying about looking angry or making "gaffes." I'm sure his wife didn't want to be First Lady, anyway.

[He loved Big Brother]

4. He lost because he said he was going to dismantle the media

Or something to that effect. It IS his own fault for saying it a month before the primaries. On Hardball, no less.

The media took it from there and brought him down, naturally. He should have NOT said that until AFTER he won a few states.
_______________________________________

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

By David Podvin

On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, “We're going to break up the giant media enterprises.” This pronouncement went far beyond the governor’s previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.

It was an extraordinarily noble and dangerous thing to do: when he advocated a truly free press, Dr. Dean was provoking the corrupt media conglomerates that control what most Americans see and hear and read, and thereby control what most Americans think.

The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease. This time, they didn’t even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word “unelectable” at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo.

(more at link...)

[Seabiscuit]

11. The Media Sunk Dean

You're absolutely right about that. And you're right that Dean also brought it on himself. He (1)was too outspoken at times - i.e. he often said things off the top of his head without careful choice of words, or reflection on how his words might be perceived, warped, and used against him, and (2) made some major gaffes - as in his stubbornness and refusal to apologize/retract his pickup truck/confederate flag reference, his poor choice of words in his Q&A session following his foreign policy speech where he used the phrase "ask the permission of the U.N." (the only portion of his entire foreign policy discussion the media pounced on), his remarks about "I wear cheap suits", and of course, his "scream speech". There are numerous other examples. The problem is, he is a wonderful man of great principles who led the way in challenging Bush on Iraq, on challenging "beltway" Democrats to grow a spine, and who had good ideas, but was unfortunately, stubborn, somewhat dyslexic, and paid too little heed to the nature of the right-wing media and the way they would go after him after he attacked them. Finally, Gephardt's negative ads in Iowa also contributed to his fall. Gephardt ran a very dirty campaign against Dean.

I worked my but off and contributed the max to Dean's campaign, but in the end realized he had emotional/personality quirks which simply made him unelectable. That doesn't mean I don't still have enormous respect for him, his courage, and his ideas.

[Lorien]

70. Dean was Gored, Gore was Deaned

Kerry will be both Gored and Deaned by the media once the timing is "right". You can place every dime you have on it; it's a wager no one here wants to win, but it's absolutely a sure thing.

[babzilla]

so predictable

as I said on another thread.

First they gored Gore, then they Gored Dean, now they are Deaning Gore.

Just wait, next they will Gore-Dean Kerry. All Democrats must be characterized as unstable, unpatriotic and unpresidential.

[Eloriel]

100. No, Kerry offers plenty of other material wihtout them having to

make anything up.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

92. Wisdom from the mountaintop.

The only question is "Will Bush be Kerryed?" Or Deaned. Or Gored. Or Cartered? Politics hates a vacuum.

[no name no slogan]

99. As long as Shrub is Goldwatered, I don't give a rat's ass! (n/t)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

106. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,....

As long as he's pushing up "daisies."








There's 10 seconds to raise objections though, isn't there?

[babzilla]

6. 6 against 1 isn't exactly a fair fight.

All of the other democratic candidate campaigns, except for CMB, piled on against him.

Dean cannot be faulted for the circular firing squad turned against him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. There were other players as well.

The DLC.
The RNC.
The media.


I like to use this example: Remember when Dean was the undisputed leader? How much criticism, or how much of a focus, was he in the debates by the other candidates? A lot. After Iowa/New Hampshire Kerry became the leader. How much did he become the focus of the debates? How much criticism did he receive? Bordering on none.

And there you have it. Check the C-Span archived debates, pre/post New Hampshire, if you don't believe me.

[JHBowden]

26. The X-files stuff is lame.

Dean was unable to retain a large following, given he was to the right of the party on many issues, and did a lot of stuff to scare away centrists (rolling back the child-tax credit, confederates, the yeeargh, etc.)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. You've already reviewed the debates I spoke of?

X-Files, is that supposed to cow my opinion? Sometimes a "conspiracy" is just the uncomfortable truth.

[babzilla]

105. x-files stuff

the centrist truth is out there.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

121. "You can't handle the TRUTH!"

The Truth

[madfloridian]

38. All that does NOT happen in such a short period.

You know better than that.

[WilliamPitt]

41. Being the frontrunner is a hard road

Always has been, always will be. The sides of the political road are littered with the burned-out hulks of former frontrunners.

[eaprez]

7. He Lost

because more people voted for his rivals.

[trumad]

10. Exactly

[eaprez]

16. I thought that was...

quite profound :)

[madfloridian]

23. Iowa.

One state chose our nominee.

[Baltimoreboy]

52. Not exactly

Dean put all his eggs in that basket and spent too much money to do much else. It was an all-or-nothing gamble.

He got nothing.

[madfloridian]

54. No, you are wrong.

Denying other factors were there is dishonest.

Dean did get something. He got the satisfaction of being right about Saddam. And Kerry slammed him for it, said he was not fit to be president if he did not think we were safer with Saddam gone. That is a great satisfaction to have.

[Baltimoreboy]

77. So, glorious failure?

Is that what you are claiming is his victory?

[madfloridian]

80. His victory is having the knowledge he spoke the truth.

Are you saying that is not important? Please clarify.

[Baltimoreboy]

116. That and a couple bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks

[madfloridian]

126. Thanks for more condescension.

I am dead serious that insulting Dean and those who supported him is not funny.

[PassingFair]

127. Hey Baltimore Boy,

Your "ends justify the means" attitude might be more acceptable on other boards...

[gottaB]

90. Dean was not right

Analogy. New York was safer for the fact that David Berkowitz was apprehended. That doesn't mean that no homicides occurred after Berkowitz was arrested, or that the arrest of Berkowitz was a sufficient crime-fighting strategy for the next decade. It simply means that a homicidal maniac was taken into custody and as a result the citizens of New York were safer.

As far as I know these are Dean's actual words:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing, which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

The other things Dean was saying regarding Saddam's capture sounded reasonable, and his argument that Saddam's capture would not in itself engender greater national security was entirely correct. That statement there, however, is wrong on the face of it. It seems to be premised on the idea that Saddam Hussein wouldn't actively cause harm to US interests, including causing injury and death to non-military US citizens in Iraq. That's an unusual premise and ought to be explained if we aren't to dismiss it out of hand.

IMO, Dean's stubbornness in response to criticism turned a crudely worded argument into a minor gaffe. The fact that his supporters latched onto it and made it a rallying cry made it emblematic of something much more unelectable.

[madfloridian]

112. No, Dean was right.

He said he "hoped". Dean was right, the others bashed him. He was most definitely right. Spin it how you wish.

QUOTE from AP, Fournier:
SNIP.."The capture of Saddam posed a political problem for Dean, whose candidacy has been fueled by his opposition to the war. The former Vermont governor did not back away from his stance, and argued that Saddam's capture alone won't secure America unless Bush or the next president takes a broader approach to fighting terrorism.

"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer," Dean said. "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

Later, in a question-and-answer session, he added, "Saddam is a frightful person and I'm delighted that he's gone. But there are many frightful people in the world."

Kerry's reply:
""Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected," the Massachusetts senator said in a speech at Drake University."

Yesterday, Kerry used nearly the same words as Dean did. Go figure.

SO, you think Dean was stubborn when he refused to change his mind on that? He was right, why should he have changed his mind. This is just silly.

[gottaB]

125. No, Dean was wrong.

this is how I wish to spin it:

Analogy. New York was safer for the fact that David Berkowitz was apprehended. That doesn't mean that no homicides occurred after Berkowitz was arrested, or that the arrest of Berkowitz was a sufficient crime-fighting strategy for the next decade. It simply means that a homicidal maniac was taken into custody and as a result the citizens of New York were safer.

As far as I know these are Dean's actual words:


The capture of Saddam is a good thing, which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.



The other things Dean was saying regarding Saddam's capture sounded reasonable, and his argument that Saddam's capture would not in itself engender greater national security was entirely correct. That statement there, however, is wrong on the face of it. It seems to be premised on the idea that Saddam Hussein wouldn't actively cause harm to US interests, including causing injury and death to non-military US citizens in Iraq. That's an unusual premise and ought to be explained if we aren't to dismiss it out of hand.

IMO, Dean's stubbornness in response to criticism turned a crudely worded argument into a minor gaffe. The fact that his supporters latched onto it and made it a rallying cry made it emblematic of something much more unelectable.

He said he "hoped". Dean was right, the others bashed him. He was most definitely right. Spin it how you wish.

QUOTE from AP, Fournier:
SNIP.."The capture of Saddam posed a political problem for Dean, whose candidacy has been fueled by his opposition to the war. The former Vermont governor did not back away from his stance, and argued that Saddam's capture alone won't secure America unless Bush or the next president takes a broader approach to fighting terrorism.

"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer," Dean said. "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

Later, in a question-and-answer session, he added, "Saddam is a frightful person and I'm delighted that he's gone. But there are many frightful people in the world."

Kerry's reply:
""Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected," the Massachusetts senator said in a speech at Drake University."

Yesterday, Kerry used nearly the same words as Dean did. Go figure.

SO, you think Dean was stubborn when he refused to change his mind on that? He was right, why should he have changed his mind. This is just silly.

Okay, to be honest instead of merely sarcastic. You didn't answer my criticisms. You quoted the same passage that I quoted, emphasized the word "hope," but you didn't address the problem that was raised by Dean's conclusion. You didn't acknowledge that I had ceded the point that Dean had a reasonable argument to make. You merely insisted, in the manner of devoted follower, that Dean was right, that you were right, that you were right to repeat that the both of you were right, and that "this," by which I assume you mean my argument which brings to light the nagging truth that the electorate does not share your faith, was silly. That's not really persuasive. In fact, as a style of political argument it's kind of scary and assuredly offputting.

Furthermore, your criticisms of Kerry are way offbase. Kerry's statements at the time were factual, reasonable, and politically useful. Yes, he exploited a weakness of the front-runner, as did Lieberman and Gephardt. There was nothing conspiratorial about that. There were eight other candidates making statements about Saddam's capture, which was a big story in the media at the time. Only Howard Dean said that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." That had the makings of a gaffe. Those who had the most to gain by exploiting Dean's weaknesses on this question took advantage, notably Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt, though Clark as well had some words of wisdom which we're not as harsh, but indicated a contrary view.

SO, you see, I think I have a pretty good idea of what Dean's view was, and in fact I tend to agree with it. I strongly disagree with his wording of that particular statement, and I don't see why he or his supporters would want to insist upon its correctness. Not the hope bit, mind you, but the not safer bit. That seems pretty irrational. If you want to acknowledge my argument, fine, I'll debate it. Otherwise, peace be with you.

[madfloridian]

129. You are putting forth false premises, so I won't address them.

Bottom line:
The world is more dangerous. Dean was right to say it. Kerry said he was unfit to be president, then he said the same thing Dean said in December yesterday, without admitting he had been wrong about Dean.

Dean was right. You are just rationalizing all over the place rather than admit it. This thread is being followed by some folks in our area who are really angry today. I have been trying to get them in the Kerry camp....this thread is not helping.

[Eloriel]

101. What you're missing is WHY did that happen?

It wasn't just that suddenly Kerry became much more exciting. There was a Perfect Storm in Iowa, all right, and it had many facets. As I said in my first post, the NOT "fair and square" part involved dirty tricks and backroom deals.

[maxanne]

12. a pity

that you persist in bringing up this kind of malignant tripe, when Dean is working so hard on behalf of YOUR candidate.

[freetobegay]

15. In my opinion it's the Dean supporters on this site

That cause a post like this.

I happen to like dean & have always wished him the best of luck, but there are alot of Dean supporters here at DU that post so much tripe that it gives the appearance of Dean being bad.

This would be a case of Shoot the messenger & not the message.

[madfloridian]

21. All we have asked is not to be insulted.

That is all.

[Eloriel]

107. Yeah, some people have no gratitude

and not much more sense.

I despise Kerry and I despair of thinking of him being in the White House for 4 years. The ONLY saving grace is that I despise Bush more, and find him more dangerous and destructive. But there's not and never will be any joy for either voting for kerry (if I do) or seeing HIM in the White House. Kerry's only real drawing point for an awful lot of people on the left is "At least he's not Bush." Some candidate we've got there, huh?

What I can't understand is why people persist in bashing Dean? Do they or do they not want Deaniacs to vote for their miserable candidate? Howard Dean has me nearly persuaded, but it's a real damn thin commitment, and it won't take much to push me in another direction.

[Terry_M]

13. And in the same way

Nader didn't make Gore lose, Gore lost on his own.

[maxanne]

14. I guess that means

Gore didn't lose because of Nader? bwaaaahahahahahah!!!!

I'll be resurrecting this post for sure, if Kerry loses the election, when the blame game starts.

[WilliamPitt]

28. Gore didn't lose because of Nader

Gore lost because of Choicepoint, the 2000 beta version of BBV, and because 100 million people didn't vote. Blaming Nader is a foolish, albeit all too common, way to ignore the facts.

Dean lost because of Dean...and because the media decided to end him in a day. He gave them the opening, and they boned him like a fish. So who's fault is that, exactly?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. "...and because the media decided to end him in a day."

Not an insignificant point.

I crashed my car because it was my fault...and somebody cut my brake lines.

[maxanne]

58. actually, Will

I don't blame Nader for Gore losing - but plenty of folks around here do - and they blame Nader for running against Kerry now.

Interesting that Gore gets excuses, though, and Dean does not.

Around here Gore = Good and Dean = Bad. What a sophisticated political analysis.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Today is my day for misunderstanding other posters

:(

Gore = Good. Kerry = Good. Dean = Good. Nader = Feh.

[Cheswick2.0]

62. nader was part of it

two or even three different reasons can contribute to a loss. Nader was part of the reason why Gore was not able to take office.

[WilliamPitt]

65. So was the moon's gravitational pull

Like him or lump him, Nader was a legitimate and legal candidate who is allowed to get as many votes as possible without having to play by 'special rules', i.e. he can run but it's naughty for him to make an impact.

Nader's 2-3% on one side of the scale...

Between 90,000 and 200,000 African American voters purged from the rolls in a state where the difference was 527, in an election where African Americans went for Gore by a 9-1 margin, on the other side of the scale.

Hm.

[genius]

18. True true

I used to work on the Dean campaign and I left because I found out where Dean stood on the issues - mostly to the right of the Republicans in Congress.

[babzilla]

20. I thought you left the Dean campaign

because the Dean supporter's liked to shove little children around.

Say hey to Natasha for me.

[madfloridian]

19. It is working. Buying into the "wackadoo" stuff. I belong to that wing

They have now identified the "wackadoo wing" of the Democratic party as Gore and Dean.

It is really sad to see so many fall for this.

We belong to that wing, BTW. If it be true that the Kerry bunch disapproves of the Gore speech, and that Democrats as a group, DLC in particular, keep up the bashing of the wackadoos.... then there is trouble ahead for the party.

I proudly belong to that wing as the GOP defines it. I just find it sad that folks here are falling for all this stuff.

[Voltaire]

49. Proud member of the Wackadoo Wing of the Democratic Party

More Dean bashing I see. It always amuses me how Dean is continually ridiculed here there and everywhere. I take solace in the fact that because he remains a popular pincushion, he and his supporters, of which I am proudly in that number, were most likely right all along.

But in America you cannot show any sort of emotion, lest you be considered crazy.

To those who doubt the machinations of the DLC, the Media and the RNC in Dean's demise. . .

who's being naive Kay?

[madfloridian]

55. I would love to have a "wackadoo" avatar.

It would make me very happy. The sad part is that I don't know if all wackadoos look alike or think alike. Do you know? I don't. I just know that is where I belong.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. And the folks who sit in the middle just aren't ready for their time

in the hot seat.

[shance]

24. Your point neglects the reality of a cheating opponent(s)

Of course there are actions and results from the election which are Deans *fault*....

And, to answer simplistically, which makes a lot of people feel more comfortable, yes, most definitely he has a role and a responsibility in the outcome.....

HOWEVER

Politics and campaigns, (as much as you would like to compare this to a sport and in some ways it could be viewed that way)

are not sports that abide by transparent rules and accurate/honest supervision, so you cannot have accurate and honest results, SO you cannot have a valid conclusion of whos to blame and/or whos not to blame

Cheaters can and DO prosper. Media can and most definitely distorts, lies, paints pictures to distract and inaccurately portray things.....

Your comparison fails to take in the more important factors in determining a valid conclusion.

There ya have it.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Proof?

That may be the forty billionth time I've heard candidates accused of cheating Dean. I have never, not once, not ever seen proof.

Nasty commercials don't count as 'cheating.'

[shance]

31. Man, you have it out for Dean dont you? Wassup with that?

Trumad issued a broadly based hypothetical. I responded with an omission he failed to consider.

I have no idea what the reality is. Nor do you.

Whats your business will and the name of a publication you write for?

Truthout? Isnt that what asking questions and posing questions is about. Or are you more conditional depending on the topic addressed?

[WilliamPitt]

34. I don't have it out for Dean

I have it out for people flinging accusations without being able to provide proof.

You said, "Your point neglects the reality of a cheating opponent(s)." The phrase "reality of cheating opponents" isn't you posing a hypothetical, but asserting something as fact, i.e. "reality."

I have nothing against Dean, and would have supported him 100% had he won. Put your strawman back out into the hayfield and answer my question. Do you have proof of what you claim?

[shance]

46. As far as false claims about Dean in the media...you bet

As far as opponents go, there are many opponents to any one candidate.

Media is one of them.

Take a look at the scream...what was omitted....what was blown to hell and back...etc.

If you want to pin all the blame and responsibility on Dean....do it if it makes you feel better.

Works for me.

[WilliamPitt]

50. OK then

If you count the media as an opponent, I will accept that as totally true. I took 'opponent' to mean Clark, Kerry, Edwards, etc., understandably so. There was a lot of talk about different campaigns cheating during the primaries, to the detriment of Dean. I never saw any proof of that.

[babzilla]

78. compare the debates

pre and post-Iowa.

Pre-Iowa debates when Dean was the presumed frontrunner all candidates, except for CMB, piling the criticism on Dean.

Post-Iowa when Kerry was the frontrunner, no challenge to Kerry at all.

Not cheating, just an incredible bias.

[no name no slogan]

104. That is not uncommon in primary races

They did the same stuff to Clinton in 1992 after his first "bimbo eruption" with Gennifer Flowers. Before the eruption, he was polling single-digits, and NOBODY attacked him, because there was no point.

Post-Flowers, Clinton's numbers skyrocketed, and they ALL piled on his ass, taking a hunk out of it as they went along.

Criticizing the campaigns for showing bias against the frontrunner is a lot like criticizing the sky for being blue. It's the nature of the game, and it always has been, going back long before anybody had ever heard of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or even George Washington for that matter.

[babzilla]

113. the difference being

that once Dean got quashed and Kerry became the presumed frontrunner, nobody said squat against him. How common is that?

[mitchum]

25. No, Dean supporters sank the Dean campaign...

he didn't have enough of them. It's really that simple.

He was not my candidate in the primaries, but I would have worked my fingers bloody for him if he had won. No sour grapes for me.

[hedda_foil]

30. What. Is. The. Point.???

You won. We lost. What is the point of continuing to rub it in? It certainly does nothing to help the Democrats in general or John Kerry in particular.

Frankly, this kind of sneering is downright nasty and unbecoming to a member of this forum.

Don't you think we all have way too much work to do to continue to play childish games of gotcha with each other?

[madfloridian]

35. Yes, Hedda. Kerry won, but they want to be sure we are more humiliated.

.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Why would you be humiliated about Dean losing?

Did you lose it for him? No.

Does Dean embarrass you in any way, shape or form? No.

Does the fact that Dean lost embarrass you? It shouldn't.

So where is the embarrassment?

[Upfront]

73. Just When

I had about convenced myself to vote for Kerry then the attacks on Dean start again. Dean was right in everything he said about the war and you people know it. He took on Bush when most of the spinless Democrats were positioning to be on his good side. I saw Dean lose and I know who did it and I know why. I won't forget, ever!

[WilliamPitt]

75. Um...

"I saw Dean lose and I know who did it and I know why."

Could you explain it to me, with proof provided?

And btw, if you allow anonymous people on an internet forum to decide how you're going to vote in 2004, you give both the anonymous people and the forum way more credit than either deserves.

[blm]

97. Try advising those who continue to attack Kerry and his supporters

and smear us as if we are mindless sheep.

Hell, it would have been alot easier for us to jump on the Dean bandwagon back when we were being told he was invincible. But, some of us never trusted the media reports and stuck with Kerry.

Now, some of the aggrieved Dean supporters intend to perpetuate the smears against Kerry forcing us to reply so the smears die their deserved death. You don't, madf, and some others, but, there are plenty who do come here to perpetuate the bullshit. Wouldn't you expect the Kerry supporters to be tired of it after the last two years? It's not enough that we have to fight the rightwingers?

I sure as hell would never attack Dean if he had won. I'd be using all the info I had on Dean to help him effectively counter the rightwingers.

[madfloridian]

114. I will vote for Kerry, but many have concerns about his stances.

I can not tell people how to vote, blm. This is America. Kerry just said he thought his vote was right, he stands behind it. Ok, that is fine. That is his choice. He as much as says in the Salon interview that he might have gone into Iraq a different way.....even though there was no reason to do so at all.

I can not tell others what to do. My husband is off board now, as well as my neighbor. They believe the news....that the Kerry advisors did not like Gore's speech.

I can not change their mind either. I am only one person. Perhaps others could quit insulting us.

[WilliamPitt]

37. "You won. We lost." THAT is the point

The fact that this continues to be a divisive situation is the point. You didn't lose anything. You still have a candidate. So do I. So do we.

Or am I wrong?

[madfloridian]

32. This is all scaring me to death.

I am stunned at the hatred here toward us, and I am shocked at the criticism here of Gore's speech. I can not believe it is necessary to insult these two guys.

I have spent the day trying to convince my husband that Maureen Dowd's column is ugly spin. He is angry that she said that Kerry's advisors hated Gore's speech. Then he heard it on TV....and I can NOT convince otherwise. Then to see this attempt to divide all of us is just too much.

Yeh, just an internet forum. Sure. It is the state of our country right now. We are in grave danger in this country both economically and just plain safety. Yet speaking out with passion is forbidden and made fun of.

I don't give a hoot why Dean lost, but I do very much care that people here try to make sure we are put in our place. Then I read Salon's interview with Kerry on top of that, where he defends his Iraq vote and says he was right. I remember at Franken's meeting with press he was quoted as rather apologizing.

Why is it necessary to continue this kind of stuff? Why are our Democrats so afraid to clarify things? Why are they running, IF they are, from Gore's speech. Speak out, clarify. The press is so powerful that I can not even convince my hubby it is spin anymore. He says if it is not true, then someone should say it.

[JHBowden]

36. Dean supporters often act like victims.

Trumad's point is that we aren't; our campaign lost fair and square.

[madfloridian]

42. No, that is not his point. Point is to be sure we know our place.

I have never acted like a victim, just was honest enough to know he did not lose on his own.

I am tired of this condescension. Now I have to convince hubby that Kerry PROBABLY likes Gore's speech ok....NOW how the heck do I do that? Huh? Should I ask Kerry himself? No, he would not answer.

[mitchum]

44. You are a gracious person, JHBowden...

and it seems that the majority of Dean supporters share your point of view (and willingness to support the presumptive nominee) I assume that trumad is annoyed by that shrill, persistent minority of Dean supporters (I know that I am)

[madfloridian]

51. Would you like us to go quietly away?

There are two sides to that coin, you know.

Right now, I am voting for Kerry. As of this morning, reading Dowd's column in our paper....hubby and neighbor will not now.

Would it just be better if we went quietly?

I have said many times that all I want to do is post what Dean is doing and accomplishing, that I don't bash Kerry. Well, my hubby is so mad today, that I am worried. He fell for Dowd's wackadoo spin big time. There is nothing I can do.

[shance]

60. Of course those of his shrilling calibre would *dahling*......

I guess Mitchum thinks we have amnesia for half of the anti-Dean posts he wrote.

He calls us shrills? I guess that makes him a shriek.

(get ready, I feel a Mitchum alert coming my way......)

[mitchum]

108. Don't worry about any alert from me (it's not my style)

And I find it gratifying that you do remember my posts. One does hope that one's work is memorable.

BTW: Thanks for coming in and pissing on a post where I was sincerely praising, and expressing gratitude to, JHBowden and the majority of Dean supporters.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. yes I am sure you would like us to pretend Kerry and Gephardt

didn't use scumbag tactics, but they did. You don't like my saying that...life sucks huh?

[mitchum]

109. You left out Simon Barsinister's Mind Control Ray...

"Simon says...KERRY!"

[Eloriel]

110. Tough shit, mitchum

SOME of us Shrill Dean Supporters wouldn't have a fucking word to say were it not for constant provocation, like this egregiously flame-bait, Dean-bashing, dishonest thread.

I don't even GO to the GD2004 forum because I HATE KERRY and want to stay away from having to even see threads saying anything about him, pro OR con.

I hope someday Dean exposes all the shit that the Kerry and other campaigns did against him. It amazes me and sometimes infuriates me that he supports Kerry at all -- he's a better person than I am, that's for sure. But I really would like him to speak the truth on THIS issue some day.

[mitchum]

120. There is certainly one statement in your post...

with which I wholeheartedly agree. I trust you know which one.
Carry on...

[shance]

53. Using a Republican tactic to shame Dean supporters from

saying it like it is. Some things ocurred that were dishonest and bad for the overall election tone, but Deaners have long gotten over it.

We didnt start this thread by the way.

We wouldnt dream of crying in our Wheaties.

Some of you guys, however, are doing everything in your power to inspire hatred among fellow Dems and attempting what you can to divide the Democratic party.

Why keep rehashing this stuff? Why keep opening up a sore wound. Are some of you sadistically inclined or what?

Stop it.

I wont stop responding and saying how biased, divisive and rude it is. And I wont stop defending any candidate I believe is being unfairly bashed.

That includes all of the candidates.

[madfloridian]

56. Applause. That is what they are doing. GOP tactics to humiliate.

And thus divide. I will keep responding as well.

[shance]

39. Spot on. It doesnt matter now what happened, what matters now

is working together and looking ahead.

[madfloridian]

47. We can NOT work together with the constant put-downs.

It is wrong, and it is unnecessary. I know our DFA group is pretty active, and some folks are trying to get the Florida for Democracy up and running. We are working actively in that way, and it will eventually help our country get back to where it belongs.

Meanwhile, I am forced to hear people repeating the right wing spin here. Gore and Dean are showing passion, and just how many times will they be destroyed for it? That is my point.

AND if someone does not convince my hubby, and now our neighbor (who just called me after reading Mo Dowd's column today in our paper)....that Kerry is not disapproving of Gore's speech then two votes are lost. I give up. I can not fight the spin.

[babzilla]

45. Edwards sunk the Edwards campaign

Clark sunk the Clark campaign
CMB sunk the CMB campaign
Kucinich sunk the Kucinich campaign
Gephardt sunk the Gephardt campaign
Sharpton sunk the Sharpton campaign
Lieberman sunk the Lieberman campaign

Kerry is solely responsible for rising all ships.

[candy331]

69. Was not Kerry quoted in the NYT today

that Bush had not made it safer? I wonder where he borrowed that line from since he had the most venomous comments when it was said. Dean told the truth and that helped to do him in. Of course since it was never intended for a nothing out of nowhere to rise and certainly not to shine he got slapped back in his place. Dean has moved on and has a life so perhaps it is time for some others to do the same. I wonder what would happen if information came out that was so damaging that the Repugs would have to dump Bush? Can't happen? Who knows at this point,the movie is still being written and even the script writer does not know because the ending he has predetermined is fastly falling apart...

[babzilla]

96. why yes Kerry did say that on friday

of course back when Dean was saying it, it was an unpresidential gaffe.

Now that Kerry is saying it, is is characterized as issuing a broadside against the administrations security policy. Now that sounds downright presidential right there.

Funny, back when Dean was saying it I seem to recall Kerry stating that Dean was unfit to be commander-in-chief because of his comments.

:shrug:

"Issuing a new broadside against President Bush's national security policy, Senator John Kerry said that Mr. Bush's "almost myopic" focus on Iraq had made Americans "less safe" by giving North Korea and Iran the time and opportunity to speed toward the construction of nuclear weapons.

In an hourlong interview Friday on foreign policy, Mr. Kerry covered pre-emptive military strikes and a range of other issues. He termed the administration's approach to remaking Iraq a "crapshoot." And Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, touched on a series of proposals he will make next week to limit the spread of nuclear materials, arguing all the while that Mr. Bush's assessments of threats to America were riddled with misjudgments."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/politics/campaign/30KERR.html?hp

[ibegurpard]

57. Be very careful

It is one thing to rag on Dean when he was a threat to your golden boy (whoever you were supporting); it's quite another now that he's speaking out on BEHALF of Kerry and Democrats. What you all are buying into here is the assumption being pushed by Republicans (and some in our own party) that anyone who speaks out with anger and/or passion is a loon and to be discounted. They're trying to paint Gore the same way they painted Dean because of his speech and the way he's been speaking out. Don't fall for it.

[Cheswick2.0]

64. are you auditioning for Fox News?

your tactics are similar.

[freetobegay]

66. Back to reality!

Does anyone here remember who the real clear and present danger is to the United States is?

Lets take some of this energy & go after Bush & his cabal of lying cheating stealing gang of marauders!

[madfloridian]

71. We are doing that. Just stop the insults.

Against Dean and Gore. Simple request.

[freetobegay]

72. Could have fooled me!

[madfloridian]

74. Do a search on my posts. Go ahead. Don't do generic blame, please.

I very much resent that. The insults keep flowing. I have written several posts previously trying to make some form of peace here, and they were turned in Dean-bashing threads which insulted us. Tired of it, should not happen.

Winners should be more gracious.

[dsc]

81. You need to put up here

That poster never posts negative stuff. You owe him a citation proving he did or an apology for saying he did when he didn't.

[freetobegay]

82. Not directed at the poster, was directed as in general.

[madfloridian]

84. Then don't make generic criticisms. Not fair.

.

[freetobegay]

89. Then see my original post that started here.

[stickdog]

68. The refs. They suck. They really, really suck.

In this case, the refs were the media and the state party machines.

[johncoby2]

85. Dean didnt sink Dean. WE did!

Last I saw, the Democratic party, ie all of us, sunk Dean, as well as Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich, etc, etc,

It is what some folks in the party call a primary.

[madfloridian]

86. I don't see the others getting so many insults, though.

That is a lot of what my point is about. I feel the supporters of the deceased candidates should post about what they are doing. I don't think they should be criticized, nor should we.

[curse10]

87. I know this

you know this. It's just a few people who can't get over themselves that would like to blame everyone but the man himself. It's the media! It's skulls & bones! It's the DLC! It's the man on the grassy knoll!

[NoPasaran]

88. Wait! Wait! It was all my fault!

I've been hiding it up until now.

I was a day late mailing my letters to Iowa.

It was all downhill from there.

I could fucking shoot myself.

[mzmolly]

94. And stiring this shit up again is helpful because........

......................... :freak:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

98. ....bitterness and lack of acknowledgment....

remains. <cue music>

[mzmolly]

103. Ahhh, what song is playing?

;)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. This one:

This one.

[kaitykaity]

102. It's not that simple.

Yes he lost and yes it's his fault.

But it doesn't say much for our system that a guy
with passion, 'clarity of vision,' and huevos
the size of the grand canyon is so scary to the folks
in the middle.

Howard Dean gave the Democrats a spine transplant, and
for that I will be forever grateful. I wish we could
leave it at that, but I'm also glad people who believed
in Dean don't like it when others try to minimize his
contribution.

[Eloriel]

122. The only guys in the middle who were frightened

were the Powers That Be.

[kaitykaity]

123. TPTB didn't pull all the levers, did they?

I guess Democratic primary voters were just brain dead
automatons who did what they were told.

NOT!!!!!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

130. They did in Iowa.

Caucus politics.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way it is. Do you really think that TPTB wouldn't leave themselves some wriggle room?

[President Jesus]

111. It's US presidential politics...there IS no such thing as 'fair & square'

The best person does not always win...otherwise we'd have President Bradley at this moment.

For as slighted as Dean supporters feel (mostly justified), please don't forget you were dishin' it bigtime to Kerry and others for pretty much all of 2003. It's good that you did...it made Kerry tougher, but much of theat dishin' was unfair.

IMHO, the Dean camp blew it when they really started whining about the media. Right or wrong, Americans are simply not going to elect a whiner.
Kerry couldn't BUY a positive story from April to December of 2003, but I don't recall him ever blaming the press. He rode it out

[LizW]

115. Mmmmmm...flame-bait......

/Homer Simpson.

[slinkerwink]

117. stop flogging a dead horse, ok? this isn't helping our unity

[trumad]

124. I don't know...Maybe I've been reading it wrong

but it sure seems to me that Folks who back Dean can't move on and continue to strike out against those who have. I love Dean and I think he'll be a force for years to come... But how about using some of that pent up anger for the greater cause..?..

[madfloridian]

128. Most of us have moved on. I just hate being insulted.

I will respond when someone does it.

I have said a thousand times I will vote for Kerry. Hubby is mad now that he believes Kerry does not like Gore's speech. Do you have a clue how I can convince him of what Kerry thinks about it....I don't know.

How the heck do you know what I use my "pent-up anger" for?????

You do not have a clue that we are large donors to the DFA org, and that we support many candidates financially. Save your insults for someone who deserves them.

We donated to Kerry, a rather large sum, in March. Check has not cleared. Must not be too needy.

[Moderator]

131. Locking.

This thread has degenerated into flames and personal attacks.

I'd like to thank those who have participated in this discussion a constructive manner but it's time to seek other topics. Nothing further can be resolved here.