LA Times reporting Dean will end his campaign

[DaisyUCSB]

at least informally, and keep his name on the ballot

For Dean, Loss Marks End of Road
By Matea Gold
After another decisive defeat, the ex-Vermont governor decides to stop campaigning, though he is not formally quitting the race, a top aide says.
- - http://www.latimes.com/

I don't have a subscription, if someone does, please post the article

[Frederic Bastiat]

1. Wise move n/t

[patricia92243]

2. Will he be able to be in any more debates?

[dansolo]

8. I suspect it means that he will be cutting back on campaigning

Until he formally withdraws, he should be able to still participate in the debates. I like this move. At this point, he can use the money that we have given towards other goals (i.e. Congress) Remember, his campaign was not just about him, it was about changing the Democratic Party. He still has more work to do.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Classy move

Dean was never my choice, but no discounting his remarkable contributions. As evidence, the number of DU threads with "Dean" in the header has been astounding, more than the other candidates combined. Not theory, I counted several times and it always held up.

OK, it's finally playground hoops time:

One-on-one

[tobius]

4. deleted because I forgot to think

before posting

[opihimoimoi]

5. Tis a sad day for me.... sigh....

Come, we go surf

[liberalnurse]

6. It looks like Edwards may reep the support of Dean

into his camp if he plays his cards right. Look at the power that will give Edwards! You can measure that by adding in the Dean/Edwards % of votes per Primary/Caucus.......

[Skip Intro]

7. I really hope not

There are many reasons bush should be held accountable for his lies and the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and one effect of Dean endorsing Edwards - unapologetically STILL pro-invasion - would be to take the issue of bush's lies right off the table.

Morally, this would be a tragedy - the moron escapes accountability again. Politically this would be insane. The Iraq invasion that bush lied us into is a huge losing issue for the repukes, and a huge winning issue for us.

I fail to understand how someone who is against the illegal invasion of Iraq can endorse someone who not only voted for it, but continues to support it. Clark lost me when endorsed Kerry, tho Kerry is somewhat less pro-invasion (currently) than Edwards.

And I don't understand why this issue, which had practically the entire DU community in a frothing outrage just a few short months ago, now seems to be the least talked about. What does that say?

If Dean endorses Edwards, he will not be speaking for me.

[dansolo]

9. He doesn't have to endorse Edwards to help him

And Edwards is a much better choice than Kerry.

[Skip Intro]

11. Serious question - how is Edwards better than Kerry?

I would really like to hear your take on that, since you also support Dean, as I do.

Although Kerry hasn't said invading Iraq was a mistake, he has said bush mislead him, and did not follow the provisions of the IWR.

Edwards has said that he was not mislead, and seems to say that invading Iraq was necessary.

We were lied into an invasion, and of the myriad of consequences - tens of thousands of deaths and maimings have occurred. I can't just ignore the issue, and it is one of the reasons I support Dean.

I'm curious how you see Edwards as better than Kerry, given this. Do you know something more about Edwards/Kerry positions on this issue, or is this an issue you are willing to set aside?

[DaisyUCSB]

12. Edwards never said "it was necessary"

he's always said that It needed to be a matter of last resort, after all diplomacy was exausted, through the UN and NATO.

[mikehiggins]

10. people opposed to the war can endorse Kerry because

they believe he is the strongest candidate to take on Bush in November. Kerry may have supported the Iraq war BUT it is Bush's War, first and foremost. None of the mainstream politicians in Congress were willing to take the lead to oppose Bush during the run up to the war because they didn't have the balls to do it.

Politicians believe that their reelection is the most important consideration in politics, for the greater good of the Universe, so they do their best to stay in office, even if it means holding their noses and voting for a resolution that simply covers their asses when the chickens come home to roost. "He was supposed to go to the UN and stuff..."

Kerry is a politician, first and foremost. He may have been a brave opponent to the VietNam War but that was a long time ago. He is now a self-referential Patrician deigning to work for the common folk, like some Roman Senator looking to the plebes for support.

Be that as it may, he is still preferable to George Bush and if he is the Democratic candidate, as offensive as it may be to walk into the voting booth and press the GOP touch screen for him, that's the way it is. The consequences of even toying with a Bush reelection are just too dire to even entertain after sitting in a bar all night drinking Heineken's.

Bush must go. If we end up with Kerry instead of him we can always deal with that problem in 2008. At least we will likely still have a country in which he can be dealt with. I'm not at all sure that will be the case if BushCo gets back into office in November.

Sure, that may be voting out of fear but this time we have a whole lot to be afraid of.

I miss Nixon. He broke the rules, but at least he knew there were rules. When he was caught, he quit. Bush has to be kicked out.

[tishaLA]

13. CNN just said so too

I hope he stays in to raise hell--right to the end.

[RetroLounge]

14. Must follow Media Script