Skip to main content

View Diary: Dean leads DNC race (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How could anyone... (3.50)
    ...not want Dean to lead this thing?
    •  because (none)
      he is, however unjustly, perceived as an anti-war, left-wing extremist.  I don't see how anyone can actually think he is good for the party at this point.  he is a spent force outside the left-wing base.
      •  I might have said a few months ago but now.. (4.00)
        I might have said the same thing a few months ago.
        But after seeing Bush pull of a win by courting the most right wing part of his base..who knows,..maybe we should do the same thing. As I stated above, I agreed with your thinking and kept thinking the Democrats were losing going too far left but I was wrong and I will gladly admit that. I am a Clintonista no more..LOL..going too conservative to win just does not work anymore. Clinton did it but that does not mean it can happen again running as a moderate.
        •  you are CORRECT (4.00)
          remember, Clinton only got 43 percent in 1992, and 49 percent in 1996, against two geriatric, dull candidates.
          Kerry and Gore on the other hand got a solid 48 percent in 2000 and in 2004.
          I would put forward that by running a true progressive who sticks to his/her guns - you will make up that three percent.
          People decided to pass on Kerry not because he was "too left wing" but because he, like Gore, was too "blah"

          You go to war with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have.

          by Bill Blanc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 02:48:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, there was a certain Texan running... (none)
            ...against Clinton as well as the boring Republican canidate in each race.  And Perot is anything but dull.
            •  Exactly (none)
              and Perot took Republican support away, giving Clinton the victory despite his poor support.  Gore was running against Nader, who took Democratic support away, but he damn near won anyway.  Gore's performance was better than Clinton's, not worse, and so was Kerry's, and what little damage they suffered was because they were:

              a) outvoted by a turnout of extreme right-wingers who are never going to vote for the Democrat, no matter how far toward the "center" (read: right) they go, and,

              b) undervoted by a peelaway toward the left, who prefer the Green manifesto.

              The evidence of the last three Democratic presidential nominees' performances just doesn't support the myth that "the Democratic party needs to move right to appeal to the voters"; it supports the opposite view.  

      •  More than 50% of Americans... (none)
        ... think the war was a mistake.  And that number will continue to grow.

        So what's your point?

      •  The only perceptions (none)
        that matter this time 'round are the ones casting the votes on Feb. 12.  
        •  I never see this sentiment (none)
          expressed in threads where Dean gushing is non-stop.

          "For all his flaws...I have yet to see any Democrat that I trust more, or who has taken more shit without flinching." - Wintermule on John Kerry

          by OxyLiberal on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:36:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site