Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Anointed front-runner Kerry struggles in N.H.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 03:58 PM
Original message
Anointed front-runner Kerry struggles in N.H.

Yet by the pond the next morning, when a reporter asked the Massachusetts senator why he had assailed Dean's electability, he turned his craggy visage toward the questioner and insisted, "I don't believe I said that" - thereby demonstrating anew why this rich, articulate, experienced lawmaker and war hero has stumbled on the campaign trail, sagging like a bad souffle.

His critics put it this way: At a time when Democrats crave straight talk, Kerry offers circumlocutions.

At the pond Thursday morning, Kerry was quickly confronted with his own words. On the radio, he had said: "Howard Dean will not be able to beat George Bush; I believe that very strongly." Wasn't he saying that Dean was unelectable?

"Well, it's a synonym," he replied. "I'll accept that. I didn't say he was 'unelectable.' I just said he couldn't beat George Bush." Moments later, he tried again: "I wasn't trying to be cute... . I do remember saying it's hard to beat George Bush, that's all I'm saying."

Kerry's penchant for wordy revisionism - commonly known as "Senate-speak" - has greased a downhill slide in New Hampshire, where defeat in the Jan. 27 primary could spell doom for his candidacy. And he's still laboring to explain his vote for Bush's Iraqi war resolution, offering a variety of explanations to antiwar Democratic voters who think ill of any candidate who gave aid and comfort to the Republican President.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. This strikes at the heart of Kerry's problem
He tries to walk a fine line and it comes off as being overly political. It brands him as an insider. He comes off as the type of guy who politely ignores a big steaming pile of crap in the room out of fear of offending someone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
helleborient Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. He's embracing being an insider now...
He's claiming that is exactly the problem with Howard Dean...he's not an insider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. It is a good strategy
People may respond to the 'experience' element, but doublespeak like this will be a big turnoff. It reminds people WHY they dislike Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. 30-60 days and invade,
but claiming to be anti-war, not important. This, this is really important. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. What a great chance to bring up my list of Dean quotes about Iraq!
Where does Dean get his crystal ball? Kerry could use one!

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that theres evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So wheres the threat? We need to see that evidence."


"We also have to be honest about how long were going to be there. Were going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If were not honest about that, then I dont think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what thats going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

He needs to first make the case and he has not done that, Dean said. He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.


"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, were going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean.


"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "Its not going to Afghanistan and its not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we dont stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then its stupid to go in there."

September 04, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think theres a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"Theres no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, Is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that weve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think its got to be gone about in a very different way."


While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"Its not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people were going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"Whats the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isnt any. Its hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."
October 6, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Husseins Iraq.


"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasnt made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."


"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I dont think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.
Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bushs argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I dont think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.
March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.


MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the Presidents unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"Im certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I dont see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What Ive said is, Im not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldnt make any sense. I havent altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. And ignore everything else he said
Exactly my point. Then make a big deal about a totally unimportant unelectable comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. You can't distill what Dean has said about Iraq into:
"Give him 30-60 days then bomb" Which was an answer given to a hypothetical scenario which has never come to pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
southpaw72 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kerry is great...
... as a senator. I've proudly voted for him twice, and have enormous respect for his war record and his political career.

But he just doesn't grab me as presidential material. He comes off as a well-meaning brahmin, rather aloof, afraid to get his hands dirty. All the publicity photos of him on a motorcycle or out hunting make him look worse, too.

Sorry if I've offended any die-hard Kerryites out there. Just my feelings about the man.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. How young are you? Never heard of BCCI, IranContra, CIA drugrunning?
Kerry took on EVERY one of those and investigated and EXPOSED some of the DIRTIEST dealings of government corruption and more than ANY lawmaker in modern history.

You could put ALL the other candidates together and not come up with half the amount of DIRTY work that Kerry took upon himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kerry couldn't outwit a ficus plant
Don't get mad Kerry supporters, I wasn't calling him stupid...

It's a synonym, I'll accept that. I didn't call him stupid, I just said he couldn't outwit a ficus plant.

I'm not trying to be cute, but i do remember saying it's hard to outwit a ficus plant...

How's that for some nuance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Real story: media ignores Kerry's criticism of Bush environmental policy
The Philadelphia Inquirer comes through for Bush with another story about how Kerry is 'struggling'. But this is what Kerry was actually talking about on the day in question. This is the story the media doesn't want to get out:

Kerry Takes on the Top Ten Bush Polluter Pleasers

John Kerry today promised to protect the environment and take on the Bush administrations cozy relationship with corporate polluters and special interests. Fresh off an appearance on late-night television, Kerry released his own top ten list: George Bush's Top Ten Polluter Pleasers.

1. New roadblocks to improving fuel economy in automobiles. Reducing the transportation sectors reliance on oil is clearly the key to improving our nation's energy security, yet Bushs energy plan adds new requirements to the fuel efficiency standard setting process.

2. Does not decrease American dependence on foreign oil. Bushs energy plan even strips out an agreement supported by Democrats and Republicans to reduce oil consumption by at least one million barrels per day by 2013.

3. Does not include accountability for developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Bushs energy plan provides billions of research dollars for hydrogen with no accountability for actually developing a fuel cell vehicle or achieving oil savings or pollution reductions.

4. Delays new protections from mercury pollution. Bushs energy plan delays a new EPA rule that will set mercury thresholds for coal and oil-fired power plants putting public health for children and adults at further risk.

5. Letting polluters off the hook. Bushs energy plan gives polluters a free pass for contaminating groundwater with MTBE and other fuel additives. This would mean that states and thousands of communities around the country will have no legal means of holding MTBE manufacturers responsible for the massive water pollution they have caused.

6. Rolls back clean air protections. Bushs energy plan will waive anti-smog requirements in polluted cities that missed clean air requirements.

7. Exempts big oil from the Clean Water Act. Bushs energy plan includes an exemption of oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act putting our drinking water supplies at risk.

8. Support for dirty energy sources, not renewables. Bushs energy plan supports more than twice as many direct subsidies for dirty energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, and nuclear as for clean renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

9. No incentives to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Bushs energy plan fails to provide adequate tax breaks to help consumers buy fuel efficient vehicles.

10. Opening up sensitive lands to drilling by waiving environmental regulations. Bush wants to speed up energy exploration and development at the expense of environmental review and public participation putting our health of our environment at risk.

Kerry is busy attacking Bush, but the press doesn't want to report that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. The media just doing BushInc.'s bidding.
What would Bush do to keep these men silenced?

John Kerry assembled a team to confront Bush on the issues Rove wants to take to the American people in 2004. National security and the fear of terrorism. No doubt, the last thing Rove needs are experts in those areas speaking out during the general election against Bush and for the Democratic opponent.

Gary Hart, knows more about national security and antiterrorism measures than any national figure. He is the author of the Hart-Rudman report which was delivered to Bush in Jan. 2001 after a 2 1/2 year study commissioned by Clinton. The report wasn't dealt with at all prior to 9-11.

Rand Beers, former National Security Official, knows the inner workings of the Bush team's post 9-11 efforts, of which he observed mostly inertia and incompetence.

Max Cleland, 9-11 commission, knows the Bush team is trying to pull a fast one on the American people by covering up crucial information of dealings that led to 9-11. Has been speaking out to groups across the country, and swinging the AWOLSTICK as a bonus

Gen. William Perry, Clinton's expert on nuclear arms proliferation and N. Korea, knows Bush's failures on the serious Korea issue and his incompetence in dealing with its threat.

Joe Wilson, the man who knows TOO much. Exposed Cheney's office as the source for cooked intelligence reports on Iraq. Also alerted public to treasonous acts by White House in exposing his wife, an undercover CIA agent. Many in intel community aligning with Wilson and his wife against the WH.

The media is loathe to give these men the airtime at this point because they are too damaging to Bush on his perceived strengths. They can afford to ignore them and the substance of their case against Bush because they are selling the American people the "process" of the primary horserace as entertainment. If Kerry were the nominee, the media would have no choice but to feature his spokespeople on the various issues.

Kerry assembled a team to TAKE BUSH DOWN, while some others assembled a team to take Kerry down. Democrats need to take this into consideration. BushInc. NEEDS these men and their message muted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
helleborient Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. If they really want their voices heard...
Why not support the candidate who is leading and looks like having the best chance to win the nomination?

I've not heard of Howard Dean telling them he does not want to hear them, and does not want them as part of his team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. What are Dean's environmental proposals?
What does he say about Bush's environmental policy? All I ever seem to hear is that people should vote for him because Kerry voted 'Yea' on a question that Dean didn't have to weigh in on. Is there more to Dean than the fact that he gave rousing speeches over a year ago? Dean's environmental record is nothing to brag about, is he trying to make up for it with bold proposals? Let's hear them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Hart says Dean has no grasp of foreign policy.
I think he knows Dean better than you.

You also can't tell nonpartisan intel guys to trust someone. They aligned with Kerry because they know his integrity and they know he knows what he's talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
southpaw72 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. takings down etc.
Sure Bush needs to be called into account.

But just being against Bush is not going to win anyone the general election. There are a lot of Americans who aren't ABB but aren't Bushco brand Faux-TVniks either. They will actually be chosing between two candidates.

I just don't think Kerry has the personality. Actually, he probably has a great personality. But he doesn't have the ability to communicate it to people. He just looks unhappy all the time.

Like I said above, I have nothing against him, he's just not electable, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I'm a Kucinich supporter but I'd like to judge Kerry's positions and

personality for myself, instead of having the media tell me what to think. And that applies to all the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
southpaw72 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. that's true...
... i totally agree that the media's coverage is unfavorable and unfair.

but it's not going to get better in the general election, imho.

for better or for worse, television is the medium that most americans get their ideas from. ok, for worse. but that's how it is, and we dems need a candidate who comes across to the voters in an appealing.

once again, i will say that kerry is my senator and i really like him. where he is....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. It's sad how Kerry's message and Kucinich's message aren't

getting out there. It's sad that the media won't help the people get EVERY candidate's message and make their own choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Why did Kucinich turn down a Hardball appearance?
if he needs exposure (not like he is getting interviewed by Rolling Stone or anything) shouldn't he be doing everything he can to get it?

McCain opened up his campaign and turned it into a nonstop Q&A.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Because Chris Matthews doesn't give any Democrat fair treatment
Edited on Mon Nov-17-03 04:46 PM by DemBones DemBones
and every Dem who goes on the show enables him to continue doing just that. It's a stand on principle.

Here's the link to Dennis Kucinich's Rolling Stone interview:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I read the RS interview.. that was my point, he isn't being ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
helleborient Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yes, I've seen a really nice spread on DK
In the Chicago Tribune...and posted a great quote from it here...

They've given full page excellent coverage to all of the candidates.

NPR has also done a great job of interviewing all of the candidates on the air...I caught Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. One potential reason
is Kucinich's message just isn't 'sticky.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-03 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. Well, Kerry is a lawyer
and you can't put words in his mouth. Sounds a lot like Clinton to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 18th 2017, 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC