Was the killing of the Dean Candidacy why we lost?

[ecoalex]

As I watched the Dean candidacy torpedoed in Iowa, I knew down deep , no other candidate would win. With the interests of the DNC, DLC , for a corporate candidate, not a populist, ( too threatening to the corporations)I had a sinking feeling bush would steal the election again , and he did. The Dems will never out lite the repugs, Clinton did, he was lucky.The news of Dean maybe heading the party was what the party needs; new thinking, and a fighter like Dean. What is certain is : candidates that will not fight for us, and keep the repug propaganda checked at the start, will have another brainwashed public to try to convert to the truth. John Kerry had an elite aura complete with class , this will not win a Presidential election.

[Worst Username Ever]

1. I am really going to have to agree to disagree with you

Dean would have appealed to moderates much less than Kerry. There would not have been a Dean presidency.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. I don't know...My moderate cousin would have voted for him, but elected

to stay home instead. A friend of PassingFair's who worked on the Dean campaign ended up voting for Nader. So, I don't really think we would ever know. I think he would have at least have had as good a shot as Kerry.

[KurtNYC]

10. Karl Rove called Dean the 'Democratic Reagan'

"A Dean candidacy is a lot more realistic than people think Dean's appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan's than any other Democrat running today.... The Democratic Party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes, which they believed would marginalize him to the far-right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them.
...
They fear Governor Dean because Dean thrives on slams and bad press. They just make his support grow wider and deeper. Republicans need Democratic disunity but Dean brings together all corners of the Democratic Party -- even those who defected to Nader in 2000 -- with unmatched passion and intensity. Dean does this without alienating independent "swing voters." Republican pollsters and consultants used to dismiss that as impossible, but Dean is doing it. Already the emerging issues favor Dean as well.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2003/11/03-11-13b.shtml

Edit to add one more line from that: Rove fears Dean will lead Democrats to rousing victory.

[Malikshah]

14. Brilliant Post-- proves the Brer Rabbit tactics of Rove

In july 2003-- stating he'd "love" a Dean Candidacy, knowing that the DNC/DLC puppets would dance to those strings and drag other MOTS CW types along with them.

[n2mark]

26. Thanks for sending this

the pukes were afraid of Dean... the pukes worked the media against Dean. Rove feared Dean. Oh well, maybe this is a way karma will handle things.

[Quixote1818]

41. ROTFL!!!! I heard on Meet the Press Rove was praying for Dean to win.

It absolutly amazes me how out of touch with reality his followers are.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Malikshah]

50. Careful-- That's quixotic DA to supporters of Dean

i.e. the tilting at windmills kinds. How delightfully ironic that the accusations are thrown at Dean's supporters...

MOTS CW -- will do us all in again if we're not careful.

Some people cannot accept that they were wrong during the primary season and have yet to remove the strings from their backs....

Cut the cord folks-- Rove's had his way.

[regnaD kciN]

96. "Rove's had his way"...because we did the DLC's bidding!

Somehow, it's hard for me to see how nominating Kerry means that we lost because of Dean...

:crazy:

[Quixote1818]

132. Give me a Break, Dean Was the Front Runner and Blew It!

[Malikshah]

143. No break, no quarter given

The MoreOfTheSame ConventionalWisdom (MOTS-CW) crowd can whine all they want-- they were wrong and did every last thing in their power to be given the opportunity to prove they were wrong.

The problem with the MOTS-CW crowd is that they appear to be unable to believe that there is the remote possibility that they were wrong--or that their thinking is faulty. Sure sign of "flat-earth" thinking.

They missed the key ingredient in the entire electoral process and that was passion--wait-- they did have passion-- passion against anyone who disagreed with them--passion to show that they were the smartest of all. Too bad that sort of passion was misplaced.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. What Rove actually said was the opposite

he stated he was glad he didn't have to run against Dean. It absolutely amazes at how out of touch with reality supporters of other candidates were.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. Once Dean was knocked out, Rove said he was glad he didn't

have to run against him. Before he was knocked out he said that Dean would be the easiest to beat, guaranteeing that Dems would run away from him.

Standard tactics.

[KurtNYC]

145. 'Rove was praying for Dean to win'? Really?

Is that why the corporate media played the edited scream clip wall to wall for 3 days AFTER Iowa?

Seems more likely that they didn't want Dean to make a come back. They didn't even want a drawn out battle between Dean and that other guy. Seems like they got what they wanted.

[Nicholas_J]

153. Any obseravtion on thepart of Rove Regarding the democratic party

Must be viewd from the point of vire that he is attempting to lead the party to select a candidate that they want to run against,and not be advising us the direction tat would be best for Democrats.

The future of Democratic presidential candidates who can win lies completely in another direction. Hillary Clinton whiole a divisive canadidate in some ways, is the direction the party needs to take. If there is one weakess in a Clinton campaign,it is the fact that the Clintons fail to attract one group that was the main reason Kerry lost. Democrats simply have lost the votes of low income voters, blue collar workers. Strange to say, it is this group who are most adversely effected by Republican programs, but vote more on their socially conservative values. Many times during the run up to the nomination I pointed out that Dean could not do well in the south or the heartland because he was a fiscal conservative and a social libral. It was social conservatism that won this election, the areas of Deans greatest weakenesses. He was far weaker in this critical area than Kerry or any other major candidate. This nation in large doews not want social liberalism.

The most obvious person for the nomination in 2008 is someone who was passed up for the VP nomination .A modeate Democrat who continaully wins his seat in the heart of one of the most Republican States in the union. A Democrat who can win his seat over and over again in Indiana knows something thatDean does not and certainly Kerry failed to do when he was told to because it went so clearly against Kerry's personal beleifs. Evan Bayh is a centrists dream.He uis a fresh face to which the tag of liberal cannot be applied. First a Governor, and now in the national legislature, hit is Bayh who is closer to the heart of those red states than either Kerry or Dean. Dean would need to totally rework his image in order to have a hope in 2008, and this would risk loising the base he already has established, His record would still hod agfaint him Bayhs record would easily play well in those midwestern states that were so critical to Kerry. Bayh would have had a better chance attaking both Ohio and Iowa than the candidates who ran this time.
As I always said this election would copme down to the rust belt. Dean didnt have much of a chance there, as Iowa proved. Kerry did much better but not well enough. Again I pointed out that Phio would be the most likely state to effect the election in the midwest. I suggested that either Gephardt or Bayh would have maximized the chance for Kerry to win. Edwards was a good choice but not enough to win the south in any great way. From the start, Kerry discussed the many ways it would be possible to win the presidency without the south, but in the end did not hold to that strategy, while Edwards was a good choice, he just was not good enough. A focus on doing anything that could have bought more votes in the midwest was critical. In the end Kerry let the polls interfere with his judgement. Edwards popularity bought him the vice presidency, but it was not enough to win the election.

Dean was essentially running a 1960's campaign. IN order to get a base nationally, which he did not have, he did what everyone who has no base does, and he runs with the youth vote. Doing thisis pretty well what has kept Democrats from being able to win control over the last 40 years. Democrats only won as a result of unusual political circumstances. Carter beat Ford becasue Ford wasially an unelected president riding on the wrong coat tails. Nixon's. Clinton won in 1992 because was a very rich candidate who designed a camapign only to spoil the chances for Republicans. Clinton won 1996 by the barest of margins because he had some support in the south. But he lost Congress for the Democrats.

The only way Democrats can win in 20008 is to make headway in the midwest. The soiuth is simply lost to Democratic candidates. The vote was far closer in the midwest. To win there, we need midwestern candidates, not Northeasterners. My monoey in 2008 is on Evan Bayh and no-one else, even thoug I dont think much of centrists.

Even now, Dean's stance, his web sites, and his positioning is bad for Democratic possbilities. In fact, it would be wiser to put someone more like Even Bayh in charge of the party, rather than Dean.

Dean had his shot at leadership of the Democratic Governors Association, anmd his leadership cost the Democratic party a lot of Governors elections. He just did not make good choices. This does not bode well for his leadership of the DNC.

In fact in 2008, any number of candidates would be better than Dean.

New Mexico's Bill Richardson, Iowa's Tom Vilsack and Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. These people have a bult in regional advantage and all can be kept free of the Norteastern Liberal title that Republicans relied heavily upon to beat Kerry. While Kerry could be called the most liberal Senator in COngress, Dean supffered from being considered even more liberal, due to hois own campaign. AS Governor Dena was fiercely economicallt conservative. Yet thiselection showed that among the group whose votes won the election . Social Conservatism is far more critical than Economic Conservatism The fact that Bush's deficit bustin policies had no effect on the election at all is a clra indication where the majority of the public's allegiances lie. If they must choose between economics and values, they seem to have chosen their values. A Dea nomination in 2008 would be worse than Kerry's nomination in 2004. IN fact it is a tribute to the view that much of the public had f Kerry that is indicative that Kerry was the most powerful candidate on the slate to choose from. His New England Libealism did not harm him. Questions about Vietnam did not harm him. The only thing that harmed him was his assoiciation with right to choose and issues of gay marriage. This brougt conservatives out in record numbers. Withouyt those two issues we would not even be discussing why Kerry lsot, or if Dean would have won. Dean was even more firmly on the losing side of both of those issues. Deans stance on abortion and gay rights were even more New England Liberal than Kerry's Thats what we lost on. One out of five states do not put amendments defiining marriage on the ballot duruing a presidential electio unless it is an issue at the very heart of the campaign. I think Clinton was correct. Had Lerry come out in favor of a national amendment defining marriage, there is a very good chance that al this monday morning quarterbacking ewould be unnecessary. It again is a tribute to Kerry's honoesty that he stated that he vcould not compromise his principals on civil rights even to win an election. Dean was not so honest in this arena. flipping from opposing gay marriage in December, to atacking Kerry and demanding that Democrats support nationally approving og full gay marriage. This alone would likely have caused an even larger Bush win than Kerry's states rights stance.

In 2008. the only chance Democrats have is to take back the midwest entirely. And win Indiana. it is possible but only with a regional candidate. The South will continuee to go Republican.. The norteast andwest, Democrat. The midwest will make the election as it did this year. The only choise is to shift the Geogfraphical center of the Democratic Party.

[CarbonDate]

163. I respectfully disagree

You completely ignore Wes Clark, a social liberal who appealed not only to moderates, but to many conservatives, as well.

I'm from Wisconsin, and I've never even heard of Evan Bayh. While I agree with your assessment that the Democrats need to focus more on the midwest, as the south is a lost cause, I think our best bet is still Wes Clark, at this point. He appeals to midwestern values, and he is able to sell progressive values as true American values; progressive patriotism to contrast with the neo-fascism of our current regime.

Absent Wes Clark's continued presence, I'd give Evan Bayh a look. But why settle for a centrist like Bayh when we can have a true progressive like Clark? Food for thought.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Lets look at the reasons that the "value voters"

Voted For Bush

1. abortion

2 Gay marraige.

3. Ability to handle the war in Iraq.

4. The war on terrorism

Dean would not have done any bettter than Kerry on the issue of abortion.

He would have been a better target on the issue of homosexual rights.

He certainly would have failed on the issue of handling the war in Iraq.

And would have crapped out on the ability to keep the country safe from terrorism.

The truth of the matters is irrelevant, THe percetption is the only thing that mattered.

The idea that Dean could have beatend Bush and the events in Iowa being the result of anything other than Deans own campaignis responsible for all of the speculation that somehow Dean, who was more out of touch with the voters than Kerry or the other candidates is the only thing that is responsible forthis speculation. In the end, wat cost Dean the election was that the base he relied on was not reliable. The voters who supported Deans campaign, when it can right down to it, didnt turn up at the voting booth.

No experience of any kind during a time of war in matters military. The candidate who was the first one to apss legislation regarding civil unions. These were large factors in the election.

[JNelson6563]

22. Dean sure as hell wouldn't have waited

three endless weeks to respond to the first big attack like somebody else I know who is a little slower off the mark.

That sort of delayed reaction is practicallly suicidal, especially now.

Julie

[Nicholas_J]

28. The info that Gephardt used to point out Deans record

would have been just as effective in Bus's hands as it was in Gephardts. And Gephardt did little attacking based on the information he simply published it and it was enough to have a fatal effect on Dean's bid for the nomination. Deans status in polls began to plunge withn days of the release of the record of numerous deficions he made as Governor.

[JNelson6563]

56. Dean wouldn't have taken 3 weeks to respond

like somebody else I know.

The point stands, changing the subject won't work.

Julie

[AmyStrange]

77. Besides Kerry lost...

and so it doesn't really matter who ran. Dean would have been more interesting and more fun to watch and might even have done better.

I heard for months here how Kerry had a better chance and well so what, Kerry lost anyway even with all the positive articles and opinion pieces and polls and exit polls.

End of story,

d

[Cheswick2.0]

84. Gephardt and Kerry came up with the Osama adds

Both ultimately LOST. Karma's a bitch and your candidate couldn't win against a president with a 47 percent approval rating and the majority of americans who thought we needed change....while conservative papers all over the country flocked to endorse him. Maybe you should consider the fact that Kerry LOST Gore states even after most Nader folks came home to the party and the rest of us killed ourselves to drag him across the finish line. I would be a little less arrogant if I were you.

Gephardt didn't damage Dean, it took creeps from both parties and the media to stop him.

[AmyStrange]

107. well said (n/t)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

61. Yes you are correct

Dean's inexperience with the military would have done him in. Thank God Kerry had a war record, that helped him tremendously. Oh wait......

Wake the hell up people. All the bullshit about "war hero" this and that did not one damn bit of good. In fact it hurt like hell. Kerry made his vietnam service the focal point of his campaign and it kicked his ass all over the place. In fact, it gave the other side the opportunity to keep him defending it 99 percent of the time and he didn't really ever address ANYTHING but his service other than to say "I have a plan". As for the "he got more votes than anyone ever" comments. Well yeah, seeing as half or better of this country hates Bush's guts then I suspect a grape could have done about the same.

[Nicholas_J]

71. As it got closer to the elections

Polls finally had the voters either placing Kerry as being equally able to handle Iraq, or being better at it.

In the end the election came down to three things. terrorism, abortion, and gay marriage, all of which Dean had no way of getting around. Dean's abilities in all these areas wasnot only wanting. but clearly subjectable to attack. Who was it who elected Bush. Firmly people who beleived that Saddam Hussein was a clear threat to the U.S. regardles of whetther he was or not. Who said that the world was not better off because of Saddams capture...Dean. Who voted for Bush, People who clerly voted against the issue of Gay marraige. Who passed legislation in thie area...Dean. The only thing that even gave Kerry the slightest chance against the war time president was the experience he had, both militarily and in the seante, expereice that Dean had nothing of. In the end, the election results cameclose to the average of the polls over the last year. Had Dean been the nominee, the results in the national election would have marched the results in the polls year round. A Dean campaignwould have resulted pretty much in what the polls holding Dean up against Bush. These all showecd Bush winning against Dean with a 20 point margin.

In fact, there is one clear thing about the Bush campaign against Kerry. Most of it was based on Deans interpretation of the war in Iraq. Bush largely used Deans rhetoric against Kerry. It was Dean who spent the better part of the year making the statement that the vote on thwe War REsolution was a blank check for war, regardless of the reality of the act which was not a blank check for war. THe same media jumped on this, ran with it, and made the apppearance the reality. Ther is a lot of repsponsibility on the part of Dean for giving the Bush Administration the ammunition that they needed. The same public who Bush was able to convince of the falsehoods about WMD's Iraq, and all other parts of the democratic platform was able to beleive the same thing about the Iraq resolution after the media made Dean's politically useful interpretation of it a reality of appearance.

Dean would have been slaughtered running aginst Bush, and given Roves recent statements about Dean it appears that he is batining democrats to put Dean up in 2008 in order to make Republican jobs a whole lot easier in 2008. Beleiving Rove about who would have made a good democratic candidate is much like bleeiveing Bush about the validity of the reasons for going into Iraq.

[AmyStrange]

73. Kerry lost...

so in the long run, Dean COULD have done better than Kerry or atleast NO WORSE!

And nothing you or anyone else here could ever post could prove definitively that Dean couldn't have done better and maybe won and no matter how many polls or articles or opinion pieces you throw out there ain't gonna change a thing. There were just as many polls and articles and opinion pieces and even exit polls that said Kerry was going to win also - so that crap ain't as accurate as you want it to be either...

In short, we might as well went with Dean, because he couldn't have done any worse and ATLEAST it would have been more interesting,

d

[regnaD kciN]

97. ..."at least no worse!"

Well, let's be honest, there was another knock against Dean: that if he ran, he'd not only lose his own race but he would hurt Democrats running in the congressional races as well.

I think, in retrospect, we can see the wisdom of that point. I mean, sure, Kerry did lose the presidential popular vote (and, pending recounts to the contrary, the electoral vote). But at least in the Senate, Democrats...lost four seats. Oh. well. But, in the House, ah yes, in the House, Democrats...lost five seats.

Let's see: what was that argument again?

(Awaiting the unprovable but knee-jerk responses of "Oh, yeah? Dean would have lost even more" from the hard-core DLCers here. :eyes: )

[Forkboy]

101. hehe

:thumbsup:

[AmyStrange]

104. And you can prove that how?

good try, but hypotheticals don't prove Dean could have done worse.

d

[Nicholas_J]

151. Every poll prior to the nomination

THat compared all of the deopmcratic candidates to Bush and who said they would vote for who gave Deans BEST shjowing as 20 20 point behind Bush indicating that the finally election results would have ended up something like Bush getting 61 per ent of the vote and Dean getting 39 percent of it. At the time thisecs poll were taken on Kerry they indicated very close to the results that the election nended up showing with Bush brating Kerry by a few points.

FActs are that there were NO polls EVER which gave Dean a pobbiblity of winning the elections against Bush.The Bestshowing Dean ever had in ANY poll against Bush was 39 percent. THis was due to the incredicble fact that a Dean run showed polls in which Democreats states that they would abandon voting for the Democratic Party and switch over to Bush ion numbers twice that of any othef Democratic Candidate.

Given the statements made by large percentages of people when Dean was running, thinking that he would win is a far greater leap of faith, requireing far greeater speculation than thinkling the opposite. The proof of the pudding is in the noination process, and Dean could barely garner 18 percent of the people he was supposed to get to support him for the presidency in Iowa. THe best Dean could ever manage was to pull 18 perent of the voters, just about the level of voting shown by the youger voters in the General Election.

He failed, he could not even raise the support of his own partyHe had not shot at the presidency at all.

The statements about what Dean would have DONE, are even more speculation than the statements about Kerry. WE know that when Dean was failing in the primaries he did a major flip flop on the issue of gay marriage, staitng thatbhe totally suipported gay marraige, after a few moths earlier, he was wiggling around on it.This was tarhget one, one of the primary issues that gave Bush his win, accoring to the post election polls being take,. Two issue, defeated the democrats. Abortion and Gay Rights. Dean's position placed hin squartely out of the mainstream ov voters. As did his suggestions about eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts. In fact there is virtually no position thatr Dean took that in any way, shape of form seemed to be favored by the voters who showed up on November 2.

IN fact, after Wes Clark came in, polls showed only Clark and Kerry polling anywhere close enough to be conpetetive with Bush, witin the margin of error of beating Bush.And thats the best polls can do. They can tell you if can candidarte stands some percentage of a chance of beating Bush. Dean NEVER met the criteria in polls of even coming close to Bush. That is one thing\ that polls do remarkably well. They tell you when candidate does not have a nowballs chance in hell of even competing against a candidate. All polls showed that the democrats chanvce of winning the eledction of 2004 statistically approached zero. Dean never got to the point in which he could have been considered a threat of any lkind to Bush. Dean supporters can speak all they want about Dean running against Bush but they can provide not even the slightest empirical evidence that he could have won. All they can provide is more of what they provided during the campaighn for the nomination. The kind of behavior that Dean hoimself waswarned o in Iowa. Control your supporters of you will not win Iowa. And he lost Iowa big time. Not because of the media, not because of the attacks of other candidate, not because of anything except his record, and his campaign and those who wre supporting him. The represent only the tiniest of fraction of the wishes of the American people.

[AmyStrange]

154. Doesn't prove anything...

alot of the polls you posted said Kerry would win and let's see is Kerry President?

Good try but hypotheticals don't prove anything,

d

[dorktv]

173. 1/3 of Dean's candidates made in...

Some of the ones who lost, did so big time but others were not too bad. *points to her own numbers* Dean is going to have the national network that he will need in four years. And I am running again so...

[janx]

176. That's why I'd rather see Dean continue with DFA than

go for DNC chair.

DFA is raising some fine, representative government from the bottom up, people who actually represent the folks who elected them and who talk not in soundbytes but in genuine language.

[dorktv]

177. and then when we have Dean 08 we have season

troops on the ground everywhere to help him out. :)

[janx]

181. I don't know how many we can raise by 2008, but things would

be one heck of a lot better with at least some real, representative government by then.

[dorktv]

182. Of course and with all those Dean elected officals!

And I know that our local chapter of AZ vote is working to take the party over at as many levels as we can.

[RaleighNCDUer]

124. I beg to differ.

Terrorism -- Dean was first to draw a strong distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, how we abandoned the war on terror to fight a war of choice. Saddam was contained. Is the world better off with him gone? At the cost of our European alliances, the respect of the world, 1100 US soldiers killed, 100,000 Iraqis killed, Bin Laden still at large? I think it's safe to say the world would be a whole lot better off if we'd left Saddam alone and concentrated on Bin Laden.

Abortion -- who could speak more clearly about the medical realities of abortion than a doctor? His stand is clear, that it should be safe, rare and legal. Besides that, he didn't have the baggage of the Catholic church's feelings on the matter while for Kerry it was a no win scenario.

Gay marriage -- Dean made it clear that he opposed gay marriage, and mad a clear distinction between that and the civil union legislation he passed. He spoke unfavorably about the Massachusetts ruling. He could offer a clear alternative.

"Beleiving Rove about who would have made a good democratic candidate is much like bleeiveing Bush about the validity of the reasons for going into Iraq."

I agree. Which is why I don't believe Rove's claims that he most wanted to run against Dean.

[HFishbine]

148. You make a decent argument but...

your "key" issues are based on a portion of those who voted in this election as it was. If Dean had been the candidate, at least two other possibilities exist:

1) Dean may have been able to successfully frame the campaign so that the issues you mention were not the deciding factors. Exit polls may have revealed that Dean won because people cited other issues as the most important. You cannot make a valid comparison by theoretically inserting Dean in a paradigm created by the Bush/Kerry match-up. The most important issues in a Bush/Dean match-up may have been identical or they may have been different.

2) Dean may have turned out a different set of voters. It's only speculation, but as valid as any, that Dean may have appealed to people who did not vote in this election.

[BlueInRed]

108. actually

I know a lot of moderates and libertarian types who liked Dean a lot. They considered him kind of the Democratic version of John McCain -- straight talk and all. And they liked his record of fiscal discipline and delivery of health care. On defense, the liked the fact he supported Desert Storm in 91, but opposed Iraq as not a direct threat.

I thought that was best quality -- different parts of the spectrum saw different things to like in him. Moderates focused on his fiscal credentials and straight talk and background in medicine and investment banking. Progressives liked his civil union stand and Iraq stands. Populists liked his support for the working man.

[Fenris]

2. No.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. ok ok, in any other normal election you would have

a point

We could have run Chirst, or Atilla the Hun, did not matter... they rigged it.

Now repeat after me, they rigged it

This is not conspiracy, this is reality

Does not matter who we run... ok

[AmyStrange]

75. then why not run Dean...

he would have been more interesting in the long run,

d

[DemCam]

4. no and no

[KurtNYC]

5. I think Dean or Wes Clark would have been

tougher. When Dean did that plant the flag - "this is OUR flag..." I just knew the guy had great stuff. Dean had raw passion and that seems to count for a lot.

And, Kerry may have won (Ohio and Florida) -- I'm not sure we have the answer on that yet.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. I'd like to have seen Dean & Clark on the ticket. eom

[aquart]

6. And Bush couldn't steal from Dean?

Beyond delusional. Bush knocked Dean out in Iowa, it was THAT easy.

I voted for Dean, but I'm reality-based.

[AmyStrange]

79. Reality is Kerry lost...

don't forget that part,

d

[NYCGirl]

7. It's much more complex than that. (eom)

NT

[LostInAnomie]

9. I like Dean a lot but I don't think he would have won...

... he can give a good speech to the troops but it doesn't play well to the moderates.

Of course I don't think we ever truly had a chance. What I would have really liked to have seen it a incredibly well spoken demagogue for our side that would have blasted Bush, and blasted him hard at every chance.

[Strawman]

19. I agree completely

I was an early Dean supporter and I voted for him early through Internet voting in the MI Democratic primary before I changed my mind to support Kerry. I was probably one of the first people to send him money in Nov. of 2002, and I got a signed personal letter of thanks for my donation. But after the first couple debates I started to shift toward Kerry because it seemed that Dean was just not ready for the job of being the candidate and in my opnion he wasn't as ready as Kerry to do the job as President. His intensity and courage in voicing opposition to the war impressed me early, but his grasp of the issues was much less impressive to me than Kerry's once they were side by side on stage in those debates. Had Dean been the candidate, Bush could have won just on the issue of taxes. Dean was for rolling back the middle class tax cuts also and as much as I liked Howard, I thought that was a suicidal position. Beyond that after "the scream" the Republicans would have had ridicule to use as an effective weapon against Dean. As much as I liked Howard in my heart and my gut he never would have won. To me, the most impressive person in those debates was Carol Mosely Braun, but she had no chance at all. I don't think the Democrats made some tragic error in concluding that Kerry was more electable than the rest of the field.

[AmyStrange]

116. I liked Braun also...

she was the first candidate I ever sent money to in my life. I could only afford a dollar and she sent me back a real nice personally signed note.

She never attacked anyone and her and Dean got along famously in those debates. Plus, I really was impressed with her grasp of the health care issue and of her easily understandable explanations and especially her ideas on how to solve those problems,

d

[madfloridian]

29. It did play well to moderates...we have a lot of them here.

It DID until the DLC defined him as liberal and fringe, while they made fun of anti-war activists.

[IronLionZion]

38. I'm moderate and I supported him

and Republicans for Dean was a sizable group. Karl Rove stated he was soooooo glad whe Dean finally lost. He knew that energy and toughness would not compare well with limp-wristed nancy-boy George.

Come on, put Dean next to Bush and it's obvious who's the tougher leader. And Dean strongly supported the war against Al Qaeda.

[IronLionZion]

33. he is moderate

silly rabbit, the fact that the "liberal" media demonized him for being "too liberal" should have sent up some red flags. If he was a Republican, they would have called him way too conservative! The man was a Republican and was a proud supporter of Barry Goldwater's presidential run!

Howard on the issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm

and look at his extremely moderate actions as Vermont governor. 8 endorsements from the NRA and a solid A rating! Strong support for states' rights and personal freedom. He had to cut funding for some popular programs to provide health care for his people. There's nothing liberal or conservative about providing health care for your people, that's just plain human. balanced budgets and free trade are supposedly conservative too. He wants to export fair labor standards along with our products to save jobs here at home.

[AmyStrange]

78. and neither did Kerry...

seems to me the people in Iowa and NH didn't really know what they were doing. Maybe we should move the first dem caucuses to ohio?

d

[Cheswick2.0]

86. He sure as hell does play well to the moderates

half of my Dean meet-up regulars were moderate republicans.

[MGKrebs]

11. In hindsight, I don't think Dean would have won.

It is unfortunate that the best potential President isn't the same thing as the best candidate. I think Dean would be a great Pres., but although his campaign truly motivated me, apparently it just did not work for a lot of people.For many, Presidential qualifications are just not the criteria.

The spouse and I have been talking about how it almost doesn't matter about presidential qualifications. Shrub would seem to indicate that anybody could get elected if you get the right team around them. And the same for after the election. Does anybody really believe that Shrub is running things? He doesn't READ. He won't talk to other leaders. He has a 20 minute attention span. I guess the strategy is that you pick a candidate that you can work with. It's probably a DETRIMENT to have a candidate that thinks for themself.

[PhuLoi]

12. yes n/t

[WI_DEM]

13. We will really never know

but I do know a Democrat could have and should have won this year.

[Fovea]

16. Another poster said it was more complex than that.

And I agree.

Dean is the real enemy for some elements of the DLC. Their agenda is barely distinguishable from PaleoCons, and they somehow cannot understand why the PaleoCons won't jump ship.

They will not recognise that the PaleoCons are Repubs first, last and always. They want Terry to join them, after all, there were sitting on that bit of the spectrum first.

[bullimiami]

17. uh. we lost because of the fraud.

i dont know if dean would have done any different. i think we were already energized to the max by bushhate.

dean was my guy though.

[JuniperLea]

18. dean was more of a threat to bush than kerry

that's why he went down so soon. i've always thought that to be true from the very moment i started hearing the chatter about the scream. god forbid you be passionate; god forbid you be intelligent.

[Quixote1818]

40. Dean would have lost in a landslide! Sorry, just being honest.

[Cheswick2.0]

88. nonsense

he had broad spectrum appeal. He got longer and louder applause at the democratic convention than Kerry did. Third party voters loved him as did many moderate republicans. It is more likely he would have won in a landslide.

[Quixote1818]

119. Yah, Iowa and New Hampshire sure loved him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

89. Yes.

Your honest active imagination. How can an unknown be "honest?" :shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

44. The Media Took Dean Down Hard When He Threatened THEM!

The whole bit with the "scream" happened right after Dean said he
would do something about the media oligopolies!!

[BlueInRed]

112. I thought the same thing

Dean's big mistake was taking on the media consolidations. The second he started ragging on the media, they made sure he was toast. It took about two seconds.

[wiggs]

20. In hindsight, maybe.

Originally, I thought Dean was unelectable. Up until last week I though Kerry was playing it pretty close to right....not dirty, taking the high road, talking about his ideas, etc.

Election manipulation aside (I'm a believer than something odd happened...not confident we're ever going to know more details) the election made it clear that taking the low road worked. Further, dishonesty worked. There was never any signficant backlash to the campaign lies, distortions, and fear mongering. Sounds bites worked to.

I don't think Dean would be at all dishonest, but I do think he would have had no trouble calling it like he sees it in a clear manner. He would have talked about disastrous policies, the draft, environment, Plame, Edmons, Abu Ghraib, Enron, Halliburton, Harken, cocaine abuse, fear of horses, incompetence, dishonesty, 1000 soldiers dead, 100,000 Iraqis dead and far more wounded, displaced or ruined...the whole thing. And I have a feeling Dean is more adept than others at using a potent Rove tactic: ridicule.

If in a debate with Dean, bush had claimed that he never said he wasn't concerned with OBL, I'm thinking Dean would have been all over it and would not have let the statement just sit there.

I did not vote for Dean in the primaries, but now I ask: Would the media have let Dean's message through enough to make a difference? Bush was such an easy target, it seems we took it for granted that everyone saw what we saw. Would a better, more aggressive spokesperson have been able to point out the obvious? Or, was Dean too easily ridiculed, and with a compliant media would he have no chance?

In hindsight, it seems the risk would have been worth it.

[Kathleen04]

21. I disagree

Just look at the electoral map. Right now, the Democratic Party has major regional disparities up against it. I don't believe that Howard Dean from Vermont would have given us any states that we actually win.

Clinton didn't "out lite the repugs" nor was he "lucky", he was a Southern moderate who connected with voters in those regions. Thats what it takes for us to win.

I mean, just look at the Democratic Presidents we've had since 1960--Kennedy (only Northeasterner, very close election), Lyndon Johnson from Texas, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, Bill Clinton from Arkansas. Al Gore from Tennesee (technically!).

Now I don't say all of this to diss on Dean and I personally think it sucks that voters can't get past geography, but they can't and if we want to win, we have to play to it.

[demnan]

23. There were a lot of Dean supporters here at DU

Including me. But that's water under the bridge now. One thing is certain. We should never let the machine of the Democratic party declare our candidate again. We should all get involved in the grass roots of politics. That's why Kerry won the nomination. His supporters had a better organization than the Dean people did. We should not look back on the "could 'ves" or condemn people for who they supported. If Dean taught us anything, he taught us to become active locally and remain a part of the system. That can only help us in the future.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. Dean's populism was Rover's biggest fear.

People can say he would have McGovern's, but I didn't see it. He wasn't too left - he was a TRUE centrist - and he knew how to speak to ordinary people in a way that didn't sound like a dissimulating careerist.

He could fire up the base and had tremendous cross-over appeal. So yeah, he had to be torpedoed. He was too dangerous to both the RNC and its fifth column, the DLC.

[emulatorloo]

25. Would the media filter Dean? Would Bush Lie about his Positions? Would

Rove Smear Him? If not, he might have won.

On the other hand, Kerry was a great candidate and all three things I listed happened.

Media summarized him - never let him speak directly
Bush outright misrepresented Kerry's positions - BALD FACED LIES
Dick Cheney painted a decorated war hero as weak.
Karl Rove got his Swifties to Lie.

Dean was vulnerable to the same kind of treatment or worse. . .

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

27. Dean killed his own candidacy. But...Anyway...No.

[Kazak]

30. Uh...no...

Fraud was.

:shrug:

[IronLionZion]

31. Dean will be a fantastic DNC chairman

What can we do to make it happen?

If he doesn't get it, he will still be very effective with DFA. Those guys helped elect fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates to local offices all across this fine country but the "liberal" media will never let you know that.

[Quixote1818]

46. Sorry but Dean's Scream Follows Him Everywhere! Would rather see Clinton

as DNC Chairman

[IronLionZion]

51. that would be a step down

Clinton can be UN secretary general. And I hope his wife stays in NY for a long, long time. God knows I love Hillary, but we don't need such a polarizing figure to run for president in the near future.

[madfloridian]

100. Clinton's oval office escapade follows him. Which is morally worse?

?

[Quixote1818]

118. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of popularity and who can

best help out the Democratic Party. While I like Dean he has become the Dan Quail of the Democratic Party. Fair or unfair those are the facts.

[madfloridian]

121. You are so wrong. When we no longer care about morality...not good.

No more discussion with someone who just detests one man. That is just unreal.

[Quixote1818]

129. I agree about morality being more important but again thats not the point

We are all dare I say "Sinners" and according to Jesus we are suppose to forgive one another for those sins. I think people have forgiven Clinton for what he did especially since he had his heart problems. But honestly, honestly, honestly Dean has a stigma attached to him that will probably last the rest of his political career. To tell you the truth I am absolutely fascinated with this thread because I am trying to understand how peoples perceptions can be so far off from reality. I promise you I am about the nicest person you will ever meet I am just interested in you all thats all. You all have fascinated me since the beginning.

I have a Republican friend and we both use to talk about Howard Dean and yes, my friend Matt loved the idea of Bush running against Dean and he was right. Do you want to know why Dean would have lost? Because he was running a campaign on Anger not hope! OK! That would have NEVER played in Peoria. In fact no Anger campaigns have ever been successfull! Yes, they get the base riled up but ultimately they fall flat. People want someone who leads with hope and vision not hate and Anger. Thats why Dean was doomed! You can call me insincere but the fact is I am really just fascinated with you all. :hi:

[eridani]

136. Dean angrier than Repukes? You're kidding, right?

Bush did not run on hope, he ran on fear, terror and negative campaigning.

[Quixote1818]

159. Well, to be truthfully Bush ran on a little bit of everything

You can't tell me Bush's RNC speech was about fear. Sure his TV ads used fear but when ever Bush talked he talked about everything being great and we are moving in the right direction and of course tried to scare people away from John Kerry. Also, a lot of Bush's ads were very positive. Their is a difference here. Dean out right looked angry and sounded angry much like Bush did in the first Debate. Look how people reacted to Bush being angry in the debate!!!! He took a nose dive.

Look back at all the bloggers and their take on Dean and you will see that all this is common knowledge. The bloggers like Donkey Rising, Talking Points Memo, Don Connelly and a number of others were petrified of Dean winning. They were all talking about how we were going to have to re-shape his image if he won the nomination.

[eridani]

166. I though Bush was more petulant than angry in the 1st debate

Plus, I would hardly call Dean's You Have the Power slogan negative.

[Quixote1818]

167. I thought it was Take Back America?

[madfloridian]

149. You are just trying to push buttons. Won't work.

Sorry, but you are just too obviously trying to make me angry. I'm not.

[Quixote1818]

162. I am not trying to push buttons, I am defending myself from your character

assassination. You are trying to make this personal and all along I have simply been giving you my honest feelings.

[madfloridian]

169. Please quote my "assassination" of you. If I did, I will apologize.

Don't accuse if you can't prove.

[quaker bill]

32. Yes, it was a factor.

He was the strongest candidate we had and the biggest threat. He was so much a threat that the "Club for Growth" began running ads against him in Iowa.

Dean did not "see the same intelligence" and vote for IWR. This argument was used effectively by Bush against Kerry to largely stifle our criticism of his Iraq policy.

It also would have been hard to label Dean as a "liberal". He ran a fiscally conservative administration.

Dean did not have a 20 year senate voting record to pick apart. Because of this it would have been much harder for them to hang any label on him. This is why governors have a far higher success rate when running for the Presidency.

Dean had no problem speaking to values issues in simple terms.

Dean's record in Vietnam was very little different than Shrub's. The swifties would never have arisen and the debate about Vietnam service records would not have occurred. This was a major distraction from the issues at hand and even though it was entirely rebutted, in the long run it served the Republicans well as it took the focus off of their failures.

I do not know if Dean would have won. The results of an experiment never tried cannot be predicted. However, Dean did not suffer from several of the weaknesses that were exploited against Kerry.

[PretzelWarrior]

34. dumb. we would have been torched at the polls

you guys would be reduced to arguing that the 8 million voter difference in the polls and 49-1 electoral landslide was merely a massive fraud.

[hiphopnation]

36. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[Quixote1818]

53. ROTFL!!!!! OH MY GOD YOU ARE FUNNY!

[CTLawGuy]

146. sigh

Oh you're right!

somehow having Dean as a candidate would have caused the 55 million people who HATED bush to vote for Bush.

:eyes: :eyes:

[hiphopnation]

35. hindsight is 20/20

no way of knowing for sure. entertaining the idea is act of frivolity at this point.

[Quixote1818]

37. Dean will become President when Hell Freezes Over

It absolutly amazes me how out of touch with reality some of his followers are????:crazy: :boring: :puffpiece: :puke:

[mzmolly]

39. As a Dean supporter in the primaries, NO.

:hi:

We lost because of fraud or ignorance ... Dean would not have conquered either. He didn't get through the primaries for whatever reason. If the media took him out so easlilly, we would never have survived the election process.

He'll try again in 08 (with more knowledge) or run for DNC chair, I'll be pleased either way.

[Quixote1818]

It amazes me how absolutly out of touch with reality Dean supporters are??

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[madfloridian]

45. Do you feel better now? LOL

You got it all out of your system.

[Quixote1818]

47. Not yet. I am still amazed!

[madfloridian]

52. It is ok, we are used to it.

Heck, I was a moderate here at DU in 2002. People often were shocked at my "moderate" views on topics. I have not changed. I am still the same.

However I am now considered a lefty, fringy, fanatic type liberal...Twas the DLC defined us so at the first.

I am no different. Perception is everything. Oh, trying to shame us does not work...been tried a lot.

BTW, Dean would been attacked and blasted just as much, no doubt of that. But then, he had the disadvantage of having his own party after him.

[Quixote1818]

72. I admire Dean supporters for their heart but as Benjamin Franklin said

If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.

I have to be honest and tell you that I knew Dean was doomed from the start! It's absolutely so clear to me and yet I really like Howard Dean. I would love to have Dean as President!!!! But it's not going to happen. Dennis Kucinich or what ever his name is has as much chance than Dean to win. But if he ever does! AWESOME! But it ain't going to happen.

[madfloridian]

91. Well, dear friend, it looks like electable didn't win either.

I find it offensive for you to question my reason. I spent my life being reasonable and practical. Now my husband and I will lead with our passion.

We will no longer put up with a party that caters to corporations. We just won't.

There are a lot more like us as well. It will either stop being Republican or the battle will be hard.

[Quixote1818]

117. I apologize. This issue is not worth hurting people. I admire your

holding your ground and we can agree to disagree about the elect ability of Howard Dean.

[Quixote1818]

42. Self Delete

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[ecoalex]

43. The Differences

Between Kerry and Dean are few , and many. We all were sparked by his passion, directness, and honesty. If he had a reason, he would explain.His positions were similar to Kerry's , and much different , I saw a fighter in him, one who would address lies immediately, the Achilles heel of Kerry. Dean was closer to all people,he was intelligent, and could speak very well to laborers , and the elites. He had a populists zeal, and opposed the Iraqi war, was for the Afghani war.I don't think attempting to convert the red states, when the margins are wide will work. I do think the morals argument is unsupportable for the repugs . Dean would of hammered them on the hypocrisy of their "morals". He also would of explained the civil rights argument in the marriage contract, marriage is a legal contract,not sometimes just a religious covenant.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. IMO, This Thread Is Counter-Productive and Meaningless

And I said the exact same thing in another thread that raised the same questions about Clark.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

54. Dean was a wonder candidate.

He was against the Iraqi war, but for every other war. So he's kind of a hawk, but a dove, too -- whatever is needed at the time.

No foreign policy experience? Hey, that's an advantage. By running a guy with no foreign policy experience, we are saying to the country, "See? Here's what we think of Bush's foreign policy strength: we're running this guy against him." (An actual pro-Dean argument made right here on D.U. and elsewhere).

He was the liberal savior -- the "True Democrat" running against all the Republican Lites -- who actually governed Vermont as a moderate Republican would. So again, he's whatever you want him to be.

You need rural votes? Dean is from a rural state. Yeah, he lost in rural Iowa, but that was because of a nefarious plot by various factions terrified of Dean -- pay that no mind. He really has wide appeal to rural voters outside of tiny, ultra-liberal Vermont -- trust me on that.

You want urban votes? Dean had a black roommate in college. In 1969. Again, he had all the bases covered.

Dean's hostile demeanor fires up his opponents? Hey, he fires up the base, too, and besides, Republicans love him -- he had a website, "Republicans for Dean" to prove it. Of course, that was when they weren't "terrified" of him.

Gay marriage as an issue? Nonsense -- he signed the civil unions bill in private, so the Republicans wouldn't be able to attack him on it.

Voters are turned off by angry candidates? Hey, Dean's anger will energize the base, and we have to have that to win. Didn't work in Iowa, but again, that was because of a conspiracy.


As I said, a wonder candidate, a once in a lifetime guy. He had all the bases covered, no weaknesses, all strengths -- is it any wonder that such a powerhouse was victimized by the DLC/Rove/Clinton/media/corporatist conspiracy?

[madfloridian]

57. What a damned shame, Billy Bunter, to hate one man so much.

It is like a serious issue with you, that hatred.

[Julien Sorel]

59. It's like a disease, or better, a fire. It burns me up.

:grr:

[GodHelpUsAll2]

63. kinda reminds me

of the Republicans obsession with Clinton. In a sense, all the outright hostility proves the case don't ya think? Do you find it interesting that all throughout the campaign, after Kerry was nominated, you kept hearing Dean all over the media? Did you fid it odd he was envoked during the debates between Bush and Kerry? And do you find it again odd that he is the ONLY one you are hearing from now? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Malikshah]

94. SHhhhhh..be careful now

If it smells like duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Duck! (goes for cover) ;)

What a great last line, btw.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. LOL...the only that changed was the name :)

[Forkboy]

67. unfortunately

[AmyStrange]

80. So tell me again how good Kerry did?

talk about wonder candidates hahahahahaha,

d

[Julien Sorel]

111. Better than Dean.

A whole lot better.

Ha ha ha ha ha?


Hilarious.

[Forkboy]

133. Yep,Kerry was our top loser

[AmyStrange]

155. and Bush did better than Kerry...

Now THAT's hilarious



NOT

d

[Cheswick2.0]

90. what you lack in knowledge and reason you make up with in hateful

zealotry.

[Julien Sorel]

114. Nobody's perfect.

:/

[rniel]

158. I don't like it when people say

people are turned off by angry candidates...

Bush certainly is an angry out of control candidate and it got him elected.

I want a candidate with a short temper that doesn't take shit from anyone. But at the same time believes in truth, justice and does the right thing.

One progressive populist example along those lines I can think of is Teddy Rosevelt. We need a guy like that.

[reddogbluedog]

55. If dean won BUSH WOULD OF KILLED HIM!

[Bush was AWOL]

60. Dean would've been destroyed

and that's why most Democrats like myself bailed on him.

[candy331]

65. Democrats are about to be a non issue and all you find here is

the same old lines being pushed for hatred of one candidate, the only one who gave Democrats even a chance to win. In 2006 and 2008 expect the complete melt down and demise of the Democratic party if drastic changes are not made starting now. Stop pushing the same old thing expecting different results.It may eventually turn out that Dean has to go where he is wanted,seems a lot of Democrats prefer the old losing way.

[madfloridian]

69. Yes, I think you are right. A painful parting of various elements.

Not just Dean, but others. It is sad. As he said, we can not have two Republican parties in this country...he is right.

It is like Groundhog Day.

[AmyStrange]

74. So what? He couldn't have done any worse?

and that's why I finally backed Kerry 100% because I was ABB. I think in the long run, he wouldn't have done any worse and might have done better. No one can definitively prove any different and besides it would have been a lot more interesting,

d

[madfloridian]

62. When you start a thread like this, you bring out the hatred.

It is usually the same people, mostly supporters of a certain candidate.

It is silly to do this. There is going to be a huge problem with the party anyway, because of the hatred and bitterness toward people who want to change the party. Starting threads like this don't help.

It will be painful anyway, but no need to make it worse.

[leesa]

64. I believe so. Kerry was picked as our candidate by the corporate media

They had no intention of allowing him to win.

[Lorien]

123. Exactly

they'll never let a non-DLCer run. For that matter, they'll never let another Dem win unless he's a bigger corporate whore than the repug option. The corporate media will kill every Dean and McCain that try to buck their system, it's just a pity that so many are willing to believe that "the people" really have a hand in choosing the candidates.

[LoZoccolo]

66. Kerry was polling better against Bush* than Dean was during the primaries.

I really don't think he could have done better than Kerry, and I was a Dean supporter.

[kolya]

68. I love Hilary, but

Howard Dean should run again in 2008. We need someone who says the truth and points out the destructivness of the repugnants. Screw being the nice guy. Go after the repugnant throat.

Take care

Kolya

[Forkboy]

70. It's no one thing (other than fraud)

No one really knows if Dean would hae done better or worse than Kerry because we never got to find out.The saddest part of the whole affair was watching the Dem Party aparatchiks tear him down.For all the cries of unity we heard during the election the New Dems proved that that is not at all what they really want.When a Dem came along that fired up millions of people,was a centrist (repeat after me...a CENTRIST),and drove the grassroots efforts up big time for Dems they broke his legs then asked him to say Thank You when they handed him crutches.

[killbotfactory]

141. Yep...

They saw his supporters and fundraising ability and decided they wanted a piece of that action... but without Dean. Didn't quite work.

[Uzybone]

76. Stop these foolish dreams.

No. Dean lost becasue he could not convince voters to vote for him. Simple. All the delusional conspiracy theories not withstanding, Dean lost because he was not ready for prime time.

[AmyStrange]

87. don't forget that kerry lost also...

are you saying that Kerry was a foolish dream also?

Deam would have been a more interesting foolish dream in my opinion,

d

[madfloridian]

92. No. we won't.

This time the party has got to stop the direction they are going. Sorry but that is the reality now. You think it is just us crazed Deaniacs...nope, guess again.

The "not ready for prime time" meme has outlived its usefulness. That is reality.

[Cheswick2.0]

93. nope sorry

Dean was taken down by dirty tricks of his own party and the help of the media and republicans choosing Kerry as the easiest candidate to beat (so they caucased for Kerry and voted for him in open primaries).

BTW...Kerry lost the election because he couldn't convince people to vote for him even after Bush imploded.

[OnionPatch]

81. I have to add that

my right-leaning brother in law, who was going to vote for Bush (but was too lazy to get to the polls) told me he would have voted for Howard Dean!

There was something about Dean that got respect from all sectors. He had a bit of teflon in his persona. With a straight-shooting candidate like him, I think people will go out on a limb a little more.

One of the things my sister said she didn't like about Kerry (she voted for him anyway) was the way he spoke with a sort of old-timey politican cadence. Dean talked like a real person.

I think he would have had a better chance than a lot of you say. Just my opinion.

[pilgrimm]

83. I knew Kerry couldn't win

But, people just kept voting for him in the primaries, cause he was a vet and they thought that could win it. I like him alright, he had some good policies, but he's an old school type of politician. His campaign Sucked, he never defined himself in the beginning and he became a sitting duck for Bushes attacks

[Columbia]

85. I think Dean would have beat Bush had he run

[regnaD kciN]

102. Well, we'll never know...

But what we do know is that the man I once dubbed "Senator Electable<tm>" and "The Everything Candidate for Everybody<tm>" did get the nod to be "our champion" in the showdown. And, despite all of us uniting behind him (some of us despite our serious misgivings earlier on) and working, contributing, and voting for him...he still lost.

How Dean would have done against the Boy King is a question not unlike how the 1927 Yankees would have done against the 1984 Tigers...an interesting topic for coffee-table debate, but nothing we'll ever get to find out in the real world.

[Columbia]

106. Truly an exercise in futility

Oh well, look forward to '08.

[KurtNYC]

147. Futility?

We should just stumble forward WITHOUT thinking about what went wrong or right? I don't think so.

We MUST learn from our mistakes -- the alternative is futile.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. No.

But it sure as hell didn't help.

[Cleita]

98. There's a report on Frontline about everyone being marketed

to. Kerry came to the forefront because he targeted the Iowa primaries, according to the report, knocking Dean and everyone else out of the running. The Bush faction did the same by targeting all the southern voters who were mostly apathetic about voting by targeting their concerns, morals. So I do believe that Dean and Kucinich got knocked off by marketing techniques. However, Kerry's marketeers apparently weren't as good as Bush's if this theory is true.

[Sleepysage]

110. I saw that too

And it makes me wonder what happened to all of his whizz-bang marketing when the Swifties gutted him over the summer. Why didn't the Kerry camp respond sooner? Yarg.

[goforit]

99. Yes everyone of those candidates ATTACKED DEAN..ON Record!!!

And yes we WILL remember!!!!

[zulchzulu]

103. Ask Joe Trippi why he never returned Dean's phone calls in Iowa

Let me say I think Howard Dean is a great man.

But his campaign was all net hype and the media bought it. Trippi spent nearly $39 million in Iowa, even though he thought Dean was going to lose. Granted, Trippi has probably learned a few things from this past race, but I don't think I'd hire him if I were running. He wanted his job more than he wanted Dean to win.

Kerry lost the election because of Diebold and the GOP had a better ground game. I always thought that Kerry was going to need 6-10% padding to win...and it didn't happen.

Granted, the lies and distortions of Rove et al helped keep Kerry from trouncing Bush too.

[Sleepysage]

105. I just don't know...

I'm not sure if it's a useful question. Anyone who got the nomination would have faced a mountain of Rove's slime, and considering the apparent credulity of the public, I don't know who could have won. Even candidates I personally thought had a better chance while the primaries were going on like Clark or Gephardt... now I'm not so sure. At this point, I think the public just needs to learn some hard lessons to snap out of their torpor. That's about the only thing that can make a difference.

[AmyStrange]

109. The thing is if he runs again will the same people say...

that their candidate has a better chance? No Vietnam vet has ever won the presidency. Mostly, those who chose not to go have won instead...

d

[Toucano]

113. This has been discussed SO MANY TIMES.

Dean only won ONE primary. He didn't earn the nomination.

Clinton didn't "out lite" the repugs. The anti-Dem vote was divided by Ross Perot. John Kerry got more votes than Clinton ever did. Kerry got more votes than Reagan ever did.

I didn't see anything in the exit polls that suggested Kerry's "elite aura" had anything to do with people's decision to vote for Bush.

I didn't see anything in the real world that indicated Dems didn't support Kerry. I saw thousands and thousands of people stand for hours and hours all across the country to see him. No one stayed home because Dean wasn't the nominee.

[SoCalDem]

115. The New Assassins

I wrote this back in Feb, but it's not hard to see that it still "fits".. The repubes have just added Kerry to the "list".. Some have said that he is coming back to the senate stronger, but I don't think so.. The ruinous character assassination ploys of the campaigm are hung around his neck like a buring tire.. He will get little or no respect from any of the repubes he will HAVE to deal with..

________




SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-07-04 04:19 PM
Original message
The "New" Assassins!


Poor Jack Kennedy, Poor Martin Luther King, Poor James Meredith, Poor Malcolm X, Poor Bobby Kennedy...and so many others who were "under the radar", and we never even knew ..

People who dare to speak out are always in fear for their lives, and those named paid the ultimate price for their "free speech".

Had they lived now, in a more "evolved" time, they might have never had to die for their audacity. People who made waves back then were just "dealt with" in the crudest, but most effective way of the day......elimination.. Everyday people were stunned, shocked, saddened, outraged, and then they moved on. Daily life has a way of taking over, and except for a poignant "anniversary" acknowledgment, or the recurring "conspiracy talk", these people just passed into history as tragic figures.

Those assassinations did serve a purpose though. The message sent was loud and clear. Say the Wrong thing, and you are DONE.

In the "modern" world, although there are still assassination attempts here and there, the "serious" ones are not as common . A more efficient way of handling "rogue elements" is the new and improved way...Assassination by Media is the more accepted way now. If one looks back to the period following the Bobby Kennedy assassination, you can see it taking root. Bobby's slaying might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, in that people were ready to say..ENOUGH!!. People took to the streets and things got too "messy" for the old ways to ever work again.

Flash forward to the Watergate era. At first the story dribbled out and people did not pay a lot of attention, but the Washington Post knew they had a story and they kept at it like a junkyard dog. They challenged BIG GOVERNMENT, and they never quit. When the story finally got the attention of the general public, and Nixon was taken down, the press was bolder than ever before.

This was the era of the "white paper".... 60 Minutes was the very embodiment of "make them accountable".. They went after sleazy business practices and governmental screw-ups, and they hit hard.The show they do today is more "individual driven", and is pure tabloid journalism when compared to the way they started. The targets of their "investigation" are often beleaguered people who are already overextended financially by lawsuits or other problems, so they are probably less likely to sue, or they are the pathetic , sympathy-inducing people who have been "done wrong".

Behind the scenes though, there was a group of people who were seething with anger over what had just happened, and they were determined to get things "under control again". This was the beginning of media consolidation. Towns that had once had 2 or 3 competing newspapers, now had only one, television was still the "big three", Republican Think Tanks were sprouting up like toadstools after rain.

Jimmy Carter's tenure was the "test case" for what would come later. This gentle man was attacked in the press for every little thing. The Nixon hangover may have been partly to blame, since people were genuinely more interested in what went on "behind the curtain", but the things that Carter was berated about were just plain silly..Who remembers the "lusting in his heart" episode...or the "attack of the killer bunny".. or the "he wears sweaters in the oval office".."turn down your thermostats"...or "Amy is so ugly".. Those were the memes of the day.. The press chose to amplify these things to make this man appear to be a lightweight. The real problems he encounters as president were things not of his making, and It think he did try to solve them, but with only one term, and the difficulties of the first "oil crisis", and the "hostage thing", he was doomed..

Nightline was born out of the frustration of the hostage crisis. That show started as a one hour news program with a daily update on the hostages.

A rootin-tootin Dubya would have just saddled up (other people's kids) and attacked Iran, and if the hostages were killed, it would have been "collateral damage", but Carter thought he could negotiate them home. This was our first real experience with the "new middle east". They were radical.. They were mad.. They were Bad.The old ways would never work again. Oddly enough, we now know that some of the very same people we associate with the Reagan/Bush , Bush # 1, and Bush # 2 regimes were involved , behind-the scenes , in the Iran Hostage issue.. At the time, I do not recall hearing their names mentioned when Nightline went on night after night, enumerating the "days since....".

The press attacked Carter relentlessly, and I do not recall much rallying on his behalf from anyone, and the hostage crisis did him in. It was not accidental that the hostages were released at the exact moment of Reagan's swearing in. Bush 1 had CIA connections, and the Bush loyalists (the same ones we have now) choreographed the incident masterfully, and the press ate it up. People love a winner, and Reagan came in as a winner. It was also no accident that doing away with the fairness doctrine was high on the list of "things to do".

The republicans were riding high, awash with money, and the public gaze was averted. Inflation was rampant,unemployment was high,there had been wage & price freezes and gas shortages... All in all, people were willing to "be taken care of", and they trusted the grandfatherly guy they had seen in the movies. It was not long before the doctrine was gone, and without that, it was easy for very rich ideologues to start buying up media , and they did it with a vengeance.

Looking back, it's not hard to see how effective it was. The things that have been attributed to Reagan/Bush 1 would have never been tolerated by a Democratic administration.The Clinton years showed us that , in spades.

The switchover was seamless too. Local radio stations had mostly been music, with local hosts who did silly home town pranks, held local contests for their listeners, and had news on the hour. Somewhere during this time frame, "talk/opinion" formats started really emerging, and more and more stations gave up their music formats altogether.

What better way is there to ensure that a particular opinion saturates the public, than to have local radio stations all under the same corporate ownership?. If station ABCD in Omaha is owned by the same parent company as most of the others in the area, the "movement" between stations will not happen. In the past, a radio host could get into a jam with his bosses, and the next week, he was on a competing station in a nearby town, taking a lot of his listeners with him, but when the same people own all the stations, and a host goes against the wishes of his bosses, there is NOWHERE for him to go. The atmosphere of "go-along-to-get-along" stifles any real discussion of opposing ideas.

When the major source of information of a population only airs ONE viewpoint, it's easy to demonize the opposition. The "media people" had , and still have, easy access to their own "facts" that are regularly churned out by the think tanks, they have access to all the "professional speakers/pundits" that they could ever use (also cheerfully provided by the think tanks). These same people are often editorial columnists for the papers , who just happen to be owned by the same people who own/operate the radio & TV stations.. .

There was a time when, once an election was over, people just licked their wounds, accepted that they had lost and then vowed to try again. The "new assassins" in the media cannot ever allow the "quiet time" between elections, because the fires must always be stoked. The potential adversaries must be ridiculed,belittled,scorned, accused and abused, well in advance of the next election so that the "right" people win. The unusual aspect of this , is that since the Fairness Doctrine went by the wayside, it's usually the Democratic candidates who are put through the grinder, while republican candidates with more "baggage" are treated with kid gloves. Any misgivings about a republican candidate can be explained away as a "youthful indiscretion", or a "cute colloquialism" ,or a "miscalculation", or "getting inaccurate advice", and so many more.

A candidate who has all the qualities necessary for office, is attacked mercilessly from the moment they announce they are running for office. The 24/7 media of today is expert at the art of "linguistic assassination", and they have the time to do the job well.

Election 2000 is a prime example of assassination by media. Al Gore was a vice president. He did not wield the power that our current vice president does. He had impeccable credentials, was eloquent, had a squeaky clean family life, and lived modestly considering his position. He was actually considered dull. He never presented himself as a "life-of-the-party" guy.He was the studious guy, who read bills before he voted. He was the guy who did research. He was the guy who actually went to Viet Nam , even though he was not a Green Beret with a bayonet between his teeth, singlehandedly wiping out a division of Viet Cong.The fact is ..He went.

They hammered at him about his wardrobe. Every little gaffe, was portrayed as a LIE. His opponent was secretive, smart-assed, sullen, and unknowledgeable, yet HE was portrayed as "a bit rough", "a nice guy that you would like to have a beer with", " a friendly "people-person", and too many others to list. By implication, HE was the guy with the white hat, the Good Guy, and poor old Gore was the liar with the bad fashion sense, who was dull. The daily indictment and litany of his "sins" was impossible to ignore, and every interview started and finished with him trying to refute the smears aimed at him, and him alone.

The assassins have taken aim this election season, and again they have taken aim and have wounded, if not killed, a few of the possible candidates. The media has moved from a position of watching what happens, and then reporting on it, to MAKING it happen, and then tweaking it to make an ever-better "story"..

The little known governor from a small state ..hmm that sounds familiar... is such a good story. Howard Dean was this cycle's John McCain. The press loved him.....until they had built him up to almost rock-star status, and then the only thing for them to do to get more ratings, was to "kill" him. And so they did.. They report with childlike wonder at why "he's not doing better in the polls", and then they laugh and giggle and "cue up the tape".. Then they put on their scrunched up worried face and wonder if the campaign is broke.. They are "so concerned".. They cluck-cluck to each other about how disappointing it is to see him not doing well, and yet they have already reloaded for the next victim.

Now on to the next willing contestant, John "Botox" Kerry.




By the time the election actually occurs, the candidate has been hopelessly smeared, and politically assassinated.. It not only can remove a candidate from the prospect of elected office, but it effectively silences them as well.

Assassination by media is so much more effective, since the whole "martyr thing" is eliminated and it's not nearly as "untidy" as the old way..

[lilfroggy]

122. sorry

I just don't think Dean would have been any better against' Bush...at least not when it came to criticizing Dean on the war and how he says he's antiwar and Bush would say he's not supporting troops

Also, some guy on CSPAN said Bush had already had prepaired a HUGE binder of stuff on Dean and an ad with a crying baby and Dean screaming on TV, and then Bush on TV and the baby gets quiet...

Yeah, sick.

[Clarkie1]

125. I honestly don't believe Dean could have won

This election was all about national security. I think he would have lost worse than Kerry. Nothing personally against Dean, just the political reality as I see it.

[Quixote1818]

160. You are absolutly right!

[janx]

171. The Bushies framed it to be about "national security," and they

scared the bejesus out of the electorate to make sure that it stayed that way.

As Howard Deans says, we can't win elections by allowing the radical right to frame the debate. Not even with John Kerry and his uniform, and not with Wes Clark and his (though I admire both men).

The more we go along with the debate as it is framed by people who want to retain power, the more we lose. And that's exactly what we did.

[HuskerDem]

126. Dean would have cost our party a decade at least

Kryptonite baby.

[Quixote1818]

131. How is it that you and I and others see this so clear, yet Dean people

are still convinced he is God????? I tell you this is absolutely fascinating!

[Forkboy]

134. How is it that you think you have a lock on the truth

in an unknowable situation?

Psychics better look out...there's a new medium in town!

[Citizen Kang]

175. You know what else is fascinating....

Your irrational hatred of Dean and his followers. Why?

[killbotfactory]

138. Yeah, if Dean was elected, we might have lost!

Oh wait... nevermind.

[Cadence]

128. If only....

He hadn't made that sound that nobody had ever heard before...maybe we'd know. :wow:

[Quixote1818]

130. Dean Lost Because He Ran A Campaign Based On Anger!

It's that simple! If you look back over history every ANGRY campaign has lost and lost big. People want to be inspired with hope and vision not be ruled by negative emotion. Thats why this election was so close. Both Bush and Kerry ran campaigns based on Hope while at the same time attacking their opponent.

[ever_green]

135. I agree Dean would've WON! He had passion, Kerry was unconscious

Kerry was boring and people couldn't relate to him. Dean was personable and very likable. He didn't have anger, he had passion, there's a difference. Kerry had none of that, just look how easily he gave up! I didn't get the feeling that Kerry disliked Bush like we do.

[Clarkie1]

139. Dean would have won the base.....(keep reading)

But lost the election.

BIG TIME

[killbotfactory]

140. He had Bush nailed on almost every issue

From defecits to the war.

Nobody knows what would have happened.

[Nicholas_J]

152. Dean did not conect with anything but a very small number of

people. This was proved in Iowa. He did not lose because of some insideous campaign against him He self destructed. Dean visited Iowa more than all of the other candidates put together. And the last thing that he was warned of on the evening of the causus by the Iowa media was to get his orange hatted supporters under control. The Iowa television statio n that was chosen by C=Span to be re-broadcast was asked to give advice to each candidate and thie stations advice was for Dean to get his supporters to stop annoying Iowans. That his campaign staff were out of touch with the values of touch people of Iowa. The public didnt like anger or pasion they liked what appeared to them to be strength. Dean had no answers for any of the concerns that were addressed by the voters in this campaign. That was faith based values.THe fact thaty he switched churches over what was essentuially a political \issue would have gone over very wll amont the fanatics who won this election for Bush. Dean's stance on Iraq, a loser. Even though the american public have massive concerns about the direction the country is takeing thety still supported Bush because of Iraq, terrorism, and their moral values. Dean was on the wrong side of every one of those issues from the standpoint of those who voted for Bush. Those who voted for Bush frimly beleive that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden were linked and both involved with Spetember 11th. They all beleve that he had WMD's they all beleive that Saddam and his regime posed a direct and iminent threat to the U.S.They do not beleive in eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts. They do not beleive in a large government run national helth system. On all issues.They do not beleive in abortion, they do not beleive in homosexual Marriage, in fact, they do not beleive in civil unions, tey largely passed legislation that deneid bvoth Gay marriage and civil unions. On all ofd these issues, Dean's platform srtood clearly in opposition to what people voted on., They did not vote on pasion or anger. They voted on what they perceived as strength. And that was based on the stand Bush has taken IN IRAQ. A position that Dean completely opposed. The largest mistake made by Dean and even more by his supporters is that blind passion could win the election. In fact it is more than likely that blind passion cost Dean the nomination, and would have been a disaster for the presidential run.

The very prtemise of the post is incorrect. Thje idea that Deans campign was killed is in error. The campaign committed suicide. The value of passion in politics was shown to have been a total failure in the Iowa scream on the part of Dean.

When you finally examine Dean total campaign platform it all boiled down to "It worked in Vewrmont". It crertainly did. Very well for Republicans. Vermont, a state whoch should most certainly be in the hands of Democrats, accoring to the presidential election results, is firmly controlled by Republicans. Dean's terms as governmor had the result of firmly splitting Democrats and Progressives givinf a minority party, the Republicans, the ability to control the governorship and the legislature with a minority of 41 poercent ofthe voters. Dean's tenure as Governor, was a clear forerunner of the problems that the Democratic party was to face in te 2004 election.

A party that has no strong central theme or cinnection to the main concerns of middle America. Dean had a health care plan that the vast majority of the American Voters seems to oppose. His platform onIraq. Opposite of the results of the election , even the hint tat Krerry was not going to stay the course in Iraq waw enough to turn some voters away. No real plan for dealing with terrorism. This concern was largely responsible for his loss in Iowa. His staments about Saddam Husein, clearly opposite to the beleifs of large numbers of voters, whether those beleifs are based on fact or not.


The main fact thing that Dean supporters claim he coul;d hqve won because of "X" is as based on the realities of this campaign as the beleifs of those who voted for Bush. Dean was clearly out of touch ewith the vast majority of those red blotches on the map. There was nothing in his campaignor certainly in his record, that was in touch with anyone except a rahter small percent of the population. If you google on the vords Dean and "nut" you come up with the a higher percentage of hits that if you do that with Kerry or any other candidate. The term 'nutjob" and Dean seem to be permanently interwoven in the minds of the average American voter all over middle America. It stilll goes on today in posts about the Democratic Party putting him in Charge when McAufliffs term is up. There are numberous articles calling Dean the "Barry Goldwater of the Democratic Party"

The arguments that Dean could have won are coming pretty much from the same people who could not get him selected as the party nominee. When the average America in Middle America was called on to look at Dean, they looked, and simply did not respond to him or his campaign in anything by the most adverse of responses. The fact is that Dean did even a worse job of explaining his platform, his position, outside of his base, than Any other candidate could.

While Kerry lost, there was a great Dean of evidence in Polls that Dean could not have broughtout anytihng like thenumber of voters than turned out in this election.

Exit polls in New Hamphire indicated that even those people who voited for Dean had the lowest faith in his ability to breat George Bush. While 56 percent of those who chose Kerry in New Hampsire stated that they though Kerry could win, only 22 percent of those who voted for Dean had any faith that he could defeat George Bush. Its tough when those who vote for you do not believve you can win in such overwhelming numbers. When that is in youro own political back yard it is even more intriguing.

The fact that Kerry was a war hero apprarantly did little harm The net results of the election, with 55 million peopl voting for Kerry indicate that this was not a factor either in helping Kerry or doing a great deal of harm. But in Iowa, one of theprime reasons give by people who were considering Dean and then decideing against him had a great deal to do with Dean's lack of military experience. THids didnt huty Clinton, as Clition was open about it. Deann continual efforts to fudge the issue of his deferment was kept him from even getting into the top grade when peopleactually had to cast their ballots.


There is virtually nothing in the cards that would indicate that Deab would have been considered anydifferent by voters in the General Election than he did in the primaries. He was as far out of touch with his pwn party as he would have been in the General Election. When it came doen to bass tacks, when it came doewn to actually getting into a voting booth and choosing, Dean never managed to muster a majority vote in even one state. In Iowa he piled only one ouit of five voters. The best he did outside of Vermont. The rest of the states rapidly had Dean pulling even less than that, in most cases in single digits. The idea that someone who has the support of less than ten percent of his party's support in the most critical states is the clearest indicattion. When a senator with less than a full term under their belt can defeat a five time elected governor, that Governor is out of touch.

In fact, out of all of the candidates, Kerry inclided. Dean had a many of the political characteristcis that should have guaranteed him a win in the nomnination process, as Deans supporters love to point out. A governor trumps a senator. Why then did democrats come out against Dean in overwhlming numbvers. Dean's own strategy. Dean had not natural base in the overall population so he simply relied on trying to tap a disengaged group of voters. The youth vote. Bad mistake. No mater how they respond in polls young voters notoriously do not end up voting. Polls are easy, they dont have to do anything but answer the telephone.IN this election where millions more young voters were registered than ever before, there was no increase whatsover in their turnout. Dean did not motivate. Anger and passion didnt bring out anyone.

[dorktv]

178. You have hated Dean since the day I first came on this

board (Dean was the guy who got me in touch with the persons getting the guy known as William Pitt to do a book signing thing who then told me about this place funny huh?). We could go over every single point but your mind is completely made up and has been since last year when Dean was getting his campaign off the ground.

My only question is: why do you still post on Dean threads? We get it! You do not like Dean, think he is the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party, and he would of course only gotten two or three votes in the general election. Sheesh.

[janx]

179. The "Stop Dean" idea worked perhaps too well

on some people, dtv. It still continues, a year later.

[dorktv]

183. No kidding...Heaven forbid anything in the Democratic party

changes.

[killbotfactory]

137. He's too angry and liberal

Being a fiscal conservative who balanced the budget every year as governer, passed no gun control laws and had an A rating from the NRA, and managed to cover almost all children in his state with health insurance while raising the minimum wage... and then opposed a stupid pointless war? Nah, American's would never go for that.

And that whole fundraising thing, relying on individuals and not special interests and raising a shitload of money in the process? Too niave.

</sarcasm>

[ever_green]

142. exactly!

this may be why Kerry was not as competitive as he should have been, people didn't see what he had to offer that was much different than Bush. Don't underestimate the people, they know a good candidate when they see one. People were turned off by Kerry.
Dean '08 :)

[depakid]

144. I pretty much thought that too

Dean had what it took to take these guys on and actually beat them by enough of a margin that they couldn't have stolen the election. Not to knowck Kerry too bad- but as Molly Ivins put it- the guy simply had no Elvis, and he listened to some VERY bad advice in July and August.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say he was dishonest with us- bccasue during the primaries he PROMISED not to run a Dukakis style campaign, and for two months, that's exactly what he did.

Dean would have kept the heat on- it would have been non-stop republican bashing on all fronts- which is exactly what was required, though the Kerry camp for whatever asinine reason, couldn't see that until the end.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

150. Not necessariliy, but

I think that progressive views were marginalized during the debate and primary period.

If youi think Dean was treated badly by the press, just look at how Kucinich was ignored. Even during the debates, he was given less time than anyone else, five minutes as opposed to an average of nine minutes for the other candidates in the first debate.

In Minnesota, where we had an amazing grassroots movement, Dennis managed to get sporadic press coverage, but in most places, he didn't exist, as far as the media were concerned. The meme was "he can't win." This was before any votes had been cast, while people like Lieberman and Graham were being treated as "serious" candidates.

Yet he had the most truly progressive platform and is an amazing speaker. I wish more people could have heard him, because those who did came away impressed. But I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said to me, "I love Kucinich, but he can't win."

The corporate media and the Democratic establishment could not stand for a candidate who questioned conventional wisdom and tried to bring the Democratic party back to its principles. Might scare the Bradley Foundation and the Koch Foundation, you know. :eyes:

By the time the Minnesota caucuses came around, Dean was already out of the race, and the Dean supporters mostly threw their votes to Edwards. At the beginning of the caucus, one of the long-time DFL insiders stood up and told us that a vote for anyone other than Kerry or Edwards was "wasted." I stood up and objected, saying that the caucus was our best opportunity to express our true opinions, and that Kerry was nearly over the top anyway. My precinct went 20% for Kucinich, and he got 27% in the Twin Cities as a whole.

[TrogL]

156. No. This is why the election was lost

Demonization of LGBT's.

Demonization of women (aka "abortion").

Demonization of "liberal eleteism" (whatever that means).

[rniel]

157. Dean was the first one targeted by the press

for removal. That tells me they didn't want nothing to do with him in this election.

[RUTalking2me]

161. I really enjoyed Howard Dean! Goo HD in 08!

He was a true liberal.
I wish he had been the D candidate.

[CarbonDate]

164. No

I don't know why the hell we lost, but I don't think Dean would have done any better.

If Dean comes on strong and more polished in 2008, I'll give him a look. Until then, I'll be holding a candle for Clark.

[LittleClarkie]

165. One more time. If Dean couldn't make it out of the primaries

He sure as hell wasn't going to make it to the end of the race.

God love him, but he was politically naive. I've heard him say this on "Meet the Press."

Stop with the woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's not productive.

[madfloridian]

170. If you start about that , I will have something to say.

If you want to talk about what was going on in the background before Iowa, let me know.

Your man played a big role, so let's not go there. Ok?

[LittleClarkie]

174. Cough it up

If you have something to say, say it.

[godblessthebeastinme]

168. dean

dean was slimed.

remember when kerry implied he was anti-iowa because dean said the caucuses were undemocratic.

what a mess.

[janx]

172. Undemocratic was being kind. The caucuses were utter chaos!

Geppy threw his votes to Kerry...? And then Kucinich tossed his over to Edwards, I think. Then there was the freelance, baseball card kind of swapping going on and some young woman running around crying.

I've never seen anything like it.

[hollowdweller]

180. Bill Moyers did the definitave commentary on Dean's assasination

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript304_full.html

"The media want penitence, Doctor — penitence, served up with a dash of tact and deference — with cultural cool. I don't know Howard Dean, have never met him. I don't have a horse in this race. But I've been around long enough to know that on Monday night he did violate the 11th commandment of the medium-as-message: Thou shalt not be intemperate before a microphone. Unless, of course, you are intemperate on talk radio, or cable television, where fortune smiles on the bully and fame rewards excess.

A lot of people are gloating over Howard Dean's foot-in-the-mouth disease. Among them, says Tina Brown in THE WASHINGTON POST, are establishment Democrats — the big-money guys — who are breathing easier now that Vermont's Don Quixote has crashed his noble Rocinante into the windmill. With all that money raised from the internet rabble, with malcontents and idealists rallying to his side, with so much pent-up rage at a system that allows you to pick the public's pockets as long as you do it with a smile and hurrah and good manners. Well, Howard Dean was just too unfashionably independent and unpredictable for comfort inside the beltway."