Dean and the real buyer's remorse

I agree entirely with Kos about the relative prospects of Dean and Kerry and Edwards, though I doubt Edwards will be able to catch Kerry - yet continue to hope that somehow he can.

And as the saying goes, if you can't beat `em, join `em. Which is why I also happen to agree with what the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg, who was here in Manchester tonight, sees coming next: a Kerry-Edwards ticket. Hertzberg thinks so because "there's no draft-dodger" problem anywhere on that ticket, given Kerry's Vietnam service and Edwards' too-young-for-Vietnam status.

This war talk made me rethink my views on the significance of Dean's contraposition on Iraq to everybody except Clark. And I now believe that Dean's war opposition cost him the nomination - but not because his position is out of synch with Democrats right now. Rather, it has to do with the evolution of the candidates' position, and how closely they mirror the evolution of many Democrats' feelings about Iraq.

Let's recap a bit: The war issue last summer gave Dean separation from the rest of the pack. My initial read of the impact of Iraq in the battle for the nomination was that many Democrats realized Dean was right, thereby giving him a niche of differentiation to exploit. By autumn, the question was whether this niche was sufficient for Dean to run the table to the nomination.

The answer now appears to be a resounding "no." And thus, the reflexive and convenient conclusion is that either (a) Democrats are actually not where Dean is on the war; or (b) Democrats simply care more about the economy than Iraq, so differences in the candidates' war positions don't really matter that much. (Or, of course, some combination of "a" and "b".)

But (a) cannot be true; if it were, Kerry and Edwards and the others who voted for the war would be shouting about how proud they are to have voted for the Iraq resolution. They aren't. (Well, Lieberman is, but look where he's headed.)

Nor can (b) be true; if it were, Kerry's vague domestic promises and jumbled stump material would never have allowed him to win Iowa and New Hampshire, and so easily at that. Besides, however packaged and re-packaged, there really isn't that much separation among the candidates on most domestic issues anyway. (With the lone, notable exception of repealing the tax cuts for the middle class.)

But then it struck me: Sure, the core Dean supporters who opposed the war all along have long backed him, and most likely remain with him. But many of the non-core Dean supporters within the Democratic Party evolved on the Iraq issue to the point where, although they may side with Dean now, they did not start where Dean started. In fact, they probably started where Kerry and Edwards started: supporting the invasion, albeit with a sense of unease. Because their transformation more closely mirrors Kerry than Dean, voting for Kerry is more affirming. (Sample internal monologue: "Hey, if John Kerry was fooled and feels betrayed, well, I can understand that because I feel the same way.") On the other hand, a vote for Dean is a reminder that you believed in the president and his plan all along.

A lot of pundits say Dean's collapse can be attributed to buyer's remorse among Democrats who initially "dated" Dean, but have since "married" Kerry. Correct concept, wrong application: Dean is folding because of buyer's remorse, all right - but because he reminds Democrats of what Bush sold them a year ago, not what Dean is trying to sell them now.

•  That would also

  That would also explain why Clark hasnt caught fire either.

  Dean, Victim of being the messenger?

  by tk421 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:51:53 AM PDT

  •  I knew this would happen!!!!

    Dean's war opposition cost him the nomination

    We all had better start getting used to this meme taken straight from the DNC/GOP talking points via Schaller's keyboard.

    Bush can NOT  win on Iraq and they know it. The ONLY person who can rip Bush apart on this issue is Dean.  Kerry will look like an idiot if goes after Bush on Iraq.

    What Schaller is saying and what we will be hearing more of from the SCLM is that Iraq is NOT such a big issue and Kerry will eventually take it off the table.

    Mr. Electable has NO AMMUNITION against Bush

    No Iraq position
    No NCLB position
    No Tax-cut position

    Instead of standing up to Bush, here we go again, Democrats rolling over and playing dead.

    by Chicken Little on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:38:41 AM PDT

    •  Allow me to add that . . . .

      You hit one of many fatal nails to a Kerry candidacy right on the head.

      When it comes to a general election debate between Bush and Kerry, what the hell is Kerry going to criticize Bush about, since Kerry's voted for so many of the egregious things Bush has done?  The Iraq War (oh yeah, Kerry's latest meme is that Bush didn't have an adequate exit strategy)?  The Patriot Act?  Bush's irresponsible tax and fiscal policies?

      Someone, please tell me what he's gonna be able to say against Bush?  Somehow, I don't think that "Vote for me because I'm the 'real deal'"  is gonna cut it.

      Thus, we'll have another bland and compromised Democrat who stands for nothing (Mondale?  Dukakis?) and who's ability to deliver knock-out punches to his foe is completely neutralized, debating a dangerous right-wing SOB who will be selling himself  to the American people by sugaring over and lying about the evil of his political agenda (can anyone say "kinder, gentler nation?")

      Once again, Republican-Lite against Republican-for-Real.  

      Once, again, another replay of the 2000 and 2002 election fiascos.

      I understand the desperation behind ABB, but realize people, that it is a false and illusory hope.  In the end, it is no hope.

      The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

      by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 08:53:58 AM PDT

      •  Did we really think this would be easy?

        Look, I haven't read through the entire thread yet,  I apologise for that.  Those who support Dean knew he was, in essence, a reformer.  (God knows we need one at this time in history.)  We know the powers-that-be, such as the corporate media and the corporations who hold such power in our government, would be alarmed and would go all out to discredit him.  This includes the DLC wing of the Party which has assumed prominence and has contempt for the historic working class/intellectual base of the Party.
        Did we think this was going to be a cake-walk?

        by barnowl on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:18:19 AM PDT

        •  Media v. Dean Not As Important in NH

          Let's not forget that NH voters have had a very long time to observe their neighbors, Kerry & Dean. Returns by county indicate that voters adjacent to Vermont preferred Dean.  Unfortunately, those in the southeast (closer to Boston), where most of NH's population resides, chose Kerry.

          Exit polls indicate that 57% of voters said the candidate's position on issues was most important. Dean and Kerry split those voters evenly 29%-29% (followed by Edwards 14%, Lieberman 13% and Clark 12%).

          But here's your key to victory:  33% of NH voters said the candidate's ability to beat George Bush was most important. Kerry took 56% of those voters. Clark followed way behind at 16%, then Dean 14%, Edwards 11% and Lieberman 2%.

          So the question in NH is, why did they believe Kerry was more electable? My theory is that, particularly in the southeast (Boston media market), voters have seen John Kerry rise from the dead several times in his political career, most notably when he defeated a very formidable MA governor, William Weld, in a bitterly contested Senate race.

          The lasting impression that Kerry has left with voters who have firsthand knowledge of his past political campaigns is that he is a tenacious fighter who somehow manages to find a way to win.

          Personally, I don't believe that he would be able to repeat his success in MA on the national level, but I can't blame NH voters for thinking (or hoping) that he might.

          In any event, however unfair the media treatment of Dean was leading up to yesterday's primary in NH, I rather doubt that it ultimately had much impact on the outcome.

          by gaycat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:42:01 AM PDT

          •  Media Coverage not important? LOL!!!

            They believed that Kerry was more electable because the media has been pushing this meme for the past several weeks and because people are sheep.

            And the replay of the "scream" over and over didn't help either.

            In fact, yesterday morning, Zogby released the final results of his tracking poll.  His conclusions were that people who were previously undecided were gonna go with Kerry.  Why?  The reasons they gave were that they felt safer with Kerry and they thought that he was "more presidential."

            Now, tell me again that media coverage of Dean had nothing to do with these conclusions.  

            I dare you.

            by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:56:08 AM PDT

            •  Funny

              Yesterday I saw a bit of traffic on this site suggesting darkly that Zogby was a tool of nefarious forces ("the establishment," perhaps - boy am I sick of hearing that term...would that the Dems HAD an establishment, we might at least win more elections) for suggesting that Dean's comeback had crested and undecideds were breaking for Kerry, and for making the ridiculous assertion that Kerry was now, um, 13 points ahead of Dean.  

              I said, 13 points.  Yes, the exact final margin of victory.  

              Anybody want to bash Zogby now?  

              by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:42:08 PM PDT

              •  Just a point, but

                  The only reason Zogby got that right was because he adjusted his polls at the last second. He was calling it a "close race" until late Monday night.

                  ARG had closer tracking, and without jiggling the numbers too much.

                by Morat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

                •  I suspect...

                  ...that the reason he called it a close race until Monday night... was that it was a close race, relatively speaking, until Monday night.  

                  Calling a race exactly right at the last minute is still calling it on the basis of poll numbers, and is rather impressive under any circumstances.  

                  I'm not carrying a brief for Zogby, whose long-term record of accuracy I'm not even familiar with.  I'm just pointing out that he's not some tool of anti-Dean forces.  Like all pollsters, the guy's job depends on getting it right as often as possible.  This time, he did.  With astonishing accuracy.

                  by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:57:27 PM PDT

                  •  Come on

                      You don't actually buy that Zogby crap?

                      In order to believe that, you have to believe he accurately polled a giant Dean surge that other pollsters only picked up a fraction of, then noticed that it suddenly reversed Monday evening, and ended up (by sheer coincidence) being what the other pollsters saw.

                       It's obvious Zogby's polls were overstating Dean's support, and Monday night he decided to rejigger them to put them more in line with the rest of the polls.

                       I don't need Zogby to be a "tool of anti-Dean forces". All I need is for Zogby's methodology to have overstated Dean's surge (it happens, even to the best pollsters) and then to have fixed it at the last minute to make his polls more in line with everyone else's.

                    by Morat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:51:10 PM PDT

                    •  My point....

                      Bottom line, he called the 1-2 margin dead right.  That is very difficult to do, won't you agree?  There were, what, five other tracking polls; none of the others managed it.  What he "rejiggered," if anything, and why, is beyond my knowledge and far beyond my interest.

                      Whoever had a surge, or didn't, and how big it was, or wasn't, is now immaterial.  The final outcome matters.  My problem is with those who suggested that Zogby was - as stated in my original post - a "tool of nefarious forces" before the results were in.  If that wasn't you, as I take it from your post it wasn't, I don't think we really disagree.  

                      by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:31:52 PM PDT

                      •  Hello?

                          ARG's last daily tracker was 35-25, with a MOE of 4. That's "dead on".
                        

                        by Morat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 06:25:58 PM PDT

                        •  What, exactly, are we arguing about at this point?

                          Just want to clarify.  Because, as indicated above, I don't think it's anything at all.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  

                          by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:05:25 PM PDT

                          •  Me?

                             I'm arguing because Zogby pissed me off, and more or less proved one of two things: Either he's too arrogant to admit to suffering the same flaws as other pollsters, or he habitually screws with his models to make a race more exciting (and thus sell more polls).

                              Either way, his last second adjustment to his poll to make it reflect ARG's totals, as well as his dumbass explanation, just irritated the shit out of me.
                            

                            by Morat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:22:13 PM PDT

                            •  OK, fair enough.

                              Just trying to clarify: I'm not contesting that point.  I really just don't have an opinion about that.  You may well be right for all I know.  

                              by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:28:08 PM PDT

            •  Huh?

              Now, tell me again that media coverage of Dean had nothing to do with these conclusions.

              If you actually read what I wrote, I did not say that.  But if you find my analysis to be ridiculous and highly amusing, I'm glad I entertained you.

              by gaycat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:46:23 PM PDT

      •  Plea for info

        I'm a solid Dean supporter.  He makes sense to me. I can look at his record and see a solid foundation for what I would like for our country.

        I used to think I was ABB, but the thought of having to vote for Kerry makes my stomach churn.

        Can someone out there who is a Kerry supporter please make a good, logical case for him?

        I look at him, and I see no real accomplishments as a senator.  I see no backbone.  I see no energy.  I see someone who voted with Bush so many times, or didn't vote at all.  I see someone who has nothing to "hang his hat on".  I don't buy into the "electibility" nonsense.  I need some logical facts to make me respect and want to vote for the man.

        Please convince me why Kerry is a good choice.

        by gdesignr on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:19:26 AM PDT

      •  allow me to add to that

        agree totally with the two posts
        Kerry will get creamed by bush.  He has nothing to win on when he debates bush. Not only did he vote with the republicans on most issues, but he was happy when the republicans took over congress, noted in many articles.  My question is who wrote the newsweek article?  It seems like that was the nail in the coffin. It wasn't about electability until that article of how he could beat bush came out.  Also noted is that the founders of Newsweek are part of skull and bones, which is very interesting.
        I think not only is this an inside job by McAuliff but someone in newsweek.  A couple of aricles today have McAuliffe telling Kerry , go get em John.  Very telling.

        by cali on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

        •  creeping me out

          And now I hear that Newsweek was founded by Skull&Bones men? I can't remember the name but wasn't one of NPR's news producers, a Republican that recently gave money (and fawning coverage) to Kerry also a Skull&Bones man?

          I know that fraternal societies are probably a stupid non-issue to even bring up, but isn't Skull&Bones slightly more than just another fraternal order? Should we even be concerned with the issue of who else in the media is a member of Skull&Bones and how that will influence their coverage of a fellow establishment Bonesman (though with both Bush and Kerry fraternal Bones brothers Skull & Bones wouldn't lose either way)? And if it is a concern, how would any of us even know who in our media echelon was a member, or even what it means to be Skull&Bones?

          And, of course, assuming Greens run back to Nader, wouldn't having two Skull&Bones candidates running for president (not to mention all the important votes Kerry sided with his brother Bonesman on) only fuel their contention that there's not enough difference between the candidates?* Ironically, if [when] this issue breaks out it, assuming it has any effect, it would hurt Kerry much more than Bush. Personally I could vote for an old sweatsock for president (which is looking like a possibility) but this whole Skull&Bones thing is seriously creeping me out.

          *A sentiment I wholly disagree with but I fear will be lost on a significant number of voters who will vote green or sit this one out, again, as an anti-establishment protest.

          by Thumb on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:20:17 AM PDT

        •  Newsweek

          Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post company.

          Howard Fineman (who is a notorious media whore and shill for the GOP) wrote the piece on Dean.

          Dana Millbank, writer for the Post, is "skull and bones."  I don't know about others in the organization, but Millbank (who covers the WH for the Post by the way) is.

          The WaPost Company is run by the Graham family.  Senator Graham of Florida is a cousin of the family.

          Since matriarch Katherine Graham died, her son Donnie took over.  Donnie is rumored to be a hard core Republican and Bush supporter.  Since that occurred, the editorial pages of the WaPost have become increasingly right wing.

          Draw your own conclusions.  However, I suggest that you do your research on the Internet to find out more about all of these subjects.

          by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:51:25 AM PDT

        •  re. skull and bones

          ...and whatever happenned to Connie Chung?
          

          by windsngr on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:16:40 PM PDT

    •  Electability

      Electability seems to be what's kiiling Dean, which is ironic. How has the media succeeded in convincing Democrats (sheep) that a centrist governor who has balanced budgets, cut taxes and provided healthcare for every child in his state AND stood up to the right wing extremism of the Bush administration is less electable than a liberal Senator who voted for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, NCLB, and the war. How in God's name is Kerry going to "go toe to toe with George W. Bush"? By saying "His policies suck, and I only voted for them because he tricked me"?

      by miasmo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:56:20 AM PDT

      •  Kill Electability

        Electability is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a false notion, because whichever democrat gets the nod HAS electability. Dean's going to have to harp on that idea, and take down the "E" meme.

        And I think his concession speech last night about voting for what he feels is right rather than what's popular is an indication of what he's going to do to try to win back support from Kerry.

        by ebie on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:15:23 AM PDT

        •  x

          I agree, but I'm considering that this might scare off voters.  They know he'll try to accomplish what he thinks is right, which might include a little pain for them.  

          Does the electorate continue to delude itself that we can fix America's problems painlessly?  Or at least with pain inflicted only on others?

          by Mary Mary on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:19:59 PM PDT

      •  Your premise is mistaken....

        Kerry has voted against the Republicans - including Bush - the vast majority of the time during his 20 years in the Senate.  His challenge in a general election, if he is nominated, will not be defending his (few) votes with Bush - for which he gives consistent and principled, if shaded, explanations - his challenge will instead be to shake the label of "Massachusetts liberal" in the blue/red border states that any D needs to win.  

        I think he may be able to do this, because of his military service, his rock-solid support from vets (many of whom he commanded, some of whom say he saved their lives) and firefighters, and because he has shown himself to be a tough debater in the past.  You, I take it, are bothered by his Iraq vote (so am I, by the way - but it's not going to keep me from voting for him) - but face it, most people, and the vast majority of swing voters, basically agree with it.  They're more worried that he's Ted Kennedy than they're worried that he's W.  

        by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:57:30 PM PDT

        •  Not Much To Debate On

          How he voted over 20 years won't matter much.  He needs to attack Bush's policies and it is hard to do that when he voted for them.  The average american will not be given nor want to hear "consistent, principled, shaded explanations".  To the average voter it will just sound like excuses.

          The Massachusetts liberal image will also be a problem especially down south, but it won't even matter if he cannot go on the offensive and win over the independents.

          by Bri on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

          •  Yes, but which policies?

            Only in the Deaniac bubble is the vote on Iraq significant.  Comparatively few voters, especially the independents - who, I agree, are vital - disagree with Bush on Iraq.  Other issues matter, and on the issues that do, Kerry (like any of the Democrats, to a greater or lesser degree) can show plenty of differentiation from Shrub.  

            On another note, keep in mind that the mantra about winning the South is largely wrong.  No Democrat is going to win the South.  Not Edwards and not Clark and certainly not Kerry or Dean.  Bill Clinton didn't take most Southern electoral votes, nor did Jimmy Carter; the GOP's southern strategy has no cracks in it and none are likely any time soon.  The best the Ds can hope for is to peel off Arkansas, Louisiana, maybe Kentucky.  The point is that they don't need to.  What they need is Pennsylvania, Ohio, and yes, Florida.  Then they can (and probably will) win.  

            Finally, how Kerry voted over 20 years will matter a lot if he doesn't have a good rapid response/counterattack machine to keep him from going on the defensive when the Rove attack dogs have their muzzles taken off.  I'm hoping that whatever candidate gets nominated is ready for them, a la Clinton/Carville - not Dukakis.  

            by DZi on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:42:47 PM PDT

        •  Kerry v Bush

          I agree completely. Further, I believe that the majority of Americans, who can vote Democratic are mixed on the war. Their feelings mirror Kerry's reactions very well. Dean's 'pure' anti-war stance (which, if you look at his statements around October aren't that pure) are supported by a vocal minority of voters. But, it's not enough to win an election. If Dean couldn't win Iowa (before the scream), where he spent unlimited money, had unlimited volunteers, had 2 years on the ground, that's a good indication, to me, of his 'electability' beyond the media. If you add in Dean's 40% disapproval numbers, you've got a fatally wounded candidate who is running on fumes right now.
          Kerry has all the right positions on domestic issues. Kerry is not only a veteran, as Gore was, he is a multiply-decorated veteran. This will carry weight in the south. He can indeed go toe-to-toe with bush on the war, because bush LIED. He can go toe-to-toe on the 'Patriot' act because of the abuses that Ashcroft is guilty of. He got toe-to-toe on Guantanamo and arrested-and-hidden-from-the-world US citizens. Kerry has the standing to do this.
          Dean has the better riffs. Dean has better stump speeches. Dean has better delivery. But, that's not enough.
          That's why Kerry is the best nominee for the Democrats and why he will beat bush in the fall.

          by myjlf on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:34:07 PM PDT

          •  "the standing"?

            "Kerry has the standing to do this."

            What the hell are you talking about? Why does someone need "standing" (whatever the fuck that means) to speak the truth. Dean hasn't needed anybody's permission to call Bush out. Face it. Dean had the balls to do it first, and Kerry and all the rest jumped on board only after Dean started getting all the grassroots support and attention. Dean is a leader. Kerry is a follower.

            by miasmo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:19:46 PM PDT

            •  Watch Kerry Follow

              Oh I so agree with this statement.  It's so disgusting to watch Deans words come out of Kerry's mouth and the sheep following and agreeing as if it has never been said before except by Kerry.  He will do anything for votes, say anything, and if he gets the nomination and if the election goes to him it will be the same ol same ol, all over agian.  

              Put the people back to sleep Mr. Government, they almost started thinking.  

              by PrimitiveDesign on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:24:37 PM PDT

    •  Iraq in January is not Iraq in November

      The other gaping problem with the "Iraq didn't work for Dean" argument is that Iraq didn't work in January. We are in something of a lull there now, at least in media coverage, since Saddam was captured.

      I don't think Iraq was the major factor in Dean's early takeoff--other than people respecting him for taking a highly unpopular position--but the world could be a whole different place next November.

      We will have been there a year, the body count will probably continue unabated, and we may have turned the place over to a Shiite government--or be in the process. It could be very ugly.

      It will be Bush's biggest weakness--and a MUCH bigger weakness for the guy who got us in there than for a Dem who merely voted for an amendment--and Dean and Clark are the only ones who can do real damage to him on it.

      by davecullen on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:33:27 AM PDT

      •  NOt just got us in there

        But voted against the reconstruction bill.

        Hell that vote alone can be spun by the GOP as "not supporting the troops".

        Couple that with his first Gulf War vote, the pictures of him holding the upside down American flag protesting Vietnam...

        That destroys ANY "I was a war hero" crap right out the door.

        Votes with Bush, then in election attacks Bush.

        Votes with Bush, then doesn't vote to support the troops.

        Sure, it's slimy as hell to say that, but Kerry's votes and arguments when they really matter will play into those attacks and that destroys Kerry.

        Same thing for NCLB, Patriot Act... etc.

        Totally unfair, but Kerry, coming form Massachusetts will be screwed on gay marriage as well, which will fire up the GOP base.

        There is NOTHING in Kerry's record or resume that makes him electable. There is NOTHING in Kerry's record that will be something he can run on, because his votes and his rhetoric against Bush are undercut by his Senatorial service.

        His "nuance-ing" the issues and lack of standing up FOR anything leaves him with NOTHING to sway undecided voters.

        Saying "I can beat Bush" or saying "we need to get rid of Bush so vote for this guy who voted with Bush on all the 'marquee' issues" is a death knell.

        I don't say this because I dislike Kerry, but all the flapping of arms and hyperventilating that we have to beat Bush so lets go with whoever is winning at the moment and has the Dem establishment backing is handing this (because of the frantic running in circles in the Dem rank and file to find someone to beat Bush) is delivering Kerry, who, aside from the stunningly stupid idea of putting Holy Joe up there, would be the biggest disaster against Bush we could imagine.

        For months and months the anti-Dean crowd screamed and screamed that Dean would be the worst because he stands up and yells no about Bush, yet we have Kerry that when it matters sides with Bush, and this is who is supposed to be able to beat him?

        The guy who votes WITH Bush is the one we want to run against Bush?

        Are the simplifications of Kerry's position fair?

        No.

        But that is exactly what Kerry's candidacy against Bush will distill down too, because that is the core essence of what the 200 million dollar GOP machine WILL get out there.

        The only thing that could possible pierce the fog that the GOP will flood against ANY Dem, will be a proven record to point to. Someone who can attack Bush on the issues, and point to his own record of ACCOMPLISHMENT on the key issues that actually matter to voters, healthcare, balancing the budget and the economy.

        BUt the Dem establishment is busy (frantically) running in circles like the chicken-shit party it is and lining up now behind the worst candidate of the big four who  cannot possibly run on issues or record against Bush.

        BUt, the Kerry anti-Dean folks here will vote and shout me down yet again.

        I have bit my tongue for months here, not pointing out the glaring fatal flaws of the other candidates, in the spirit of not "eating our own" and not "alienating" Kerry, or Clark, or Edwards, or Gephardt supporters.

        BUt time to get real.

        There is only one candidate who has the goods to have a real shot at this. And every regular here knows what that four letter name that is.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:53:21 PM PDT

        •  Maaa....

          People are voting for Kerry because they are sheep. The American public is, by and large, a willfully ignorant animal. They aggressively maintain that ignorance, and don't like Dean because he shows them up and makes them feel stupid. WE weren't fooled by W's Iraq spin, were we? Neither was Dean, which obviously makes hima member if the "intellectual elite" that that imbecile Anne is always trashing. Kerry, on the other hand, was "just like the real people", taken in by Bush's clever spin on WMD and everything else. Don't dis the stupid vote - it worked for Bush.

          by windsngr on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:27:08 PM PDT

    •  People are voting for..

      Kerry DESPITE his war vote not BECAUSE of it. They have convinced themselves he's more "electable" than Gov. Dean.

      by SteveLCo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:06:35 PM PDT

  •  great analysis

    But then it struck me: Sure, the core Dean supporters who opposed the war all along have long backed him, and most likely remain with him. But many of the non-core Dean supporters within the Democratic Party evolved on the Iraq issue to the point where, although they may side with Dean now, they did not start where Dean started. In fact, they probably started where Kerry and Edwards started: supporting the invasion, albeit with a sense of unease. Because their transformation more closely mirrors Kerry than Dean, voting for Kerry is more affirming.

    -Tom I've been watching a lot of TV and doing a lot of reading lately and I haven't seen ANYONE come up with this very plausible theory. Kudos to you (and kos for giving you the spotlight).

    by jdavidson on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:35:51 PM PDT

    •  Hi! (Waving frantically)

      I haven't seen ANYONE come up with this very plausible theory.

      That's the downside of the fast-paced dKos atmosphere.

      I have to lend my support to Tom's theory, because it's pretty much the same one I posted eight days ago.

      I think I just dislocated my shoulder patting myself on the back, though.
      

      by Kagro X on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:33:57 PM PDT

•  I disagree, respectfully

  I think a vote for Kerry is a vote from people that fear that we could lose to Bush in the General.  The opposite is true.  Kerry is the establishment candidate, the ultra-liberal, and Dean is the conservative man with integrity.  I'm not saying Kerry doesn't have personal integrity, I'm just saying his votes don't line up with the line he's selling us right now.  I'm a Dean man all the way to the nomination.

  Strangely, Andrew Sullivan seems to agree:

  ----------------------------------

  Most of the day, I thought that Edwards was going to be the un-Kerry from now on. Dean was too damaged after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Edwards' disappointing fourth place showing - behind the nutcase Clark - after such a big win in Iowa has to make his candidacy more suspect. Dean did a little worse than the exit polls suggested. But his concession speech was easily the best of the night. It was authentic, uplifting, and red meat to the Democrats. It actually rang true to me as Dean's real view of the world. It isn't one I entirely share, to say the least, but it is genuine, represents a lot of people in this country and deserves a hearing. He seemed more affable than recently as well. He smiled more. He spoke more calmly but not ineffectively. He's real. Kerry is so fake, in contrast, I cannot believe that Democratic primary voters will continue to support him in such numbers. Dean gave arguments. Kerry spoke in packaged Shrumisms. Dean has a vision. Kerry has ambition. If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Dean over Kerry in a heartbeat. To my mind, this is a battle between the Democratic party's soul and its fear. The exit polls showed how Kerry won by seeming more electable - thus trashing an old golden rule of American politics. But the more you see of Kerry the less appealing he is. I'm not sure he really is less electable than the dreary Kerry. Maybe Dean needed this early drubbing to make him more tolerable as a candidate. Maybe it's too late and Kerry is way too far ahead to be caught. I don't know. All I know is that what I saw in Dean's speech - and the extraordinary crowd that accompanied it - was more authentic than anything I have ever seen Kerry say or do. That must count for something.

  --------------------------------------

  Dated Dean
  Married Kerry
  Woke up with Bush

  by Seattle4Dean on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:52:51 AM PDT

  •  right on

    i do not believe that voters chose kerry because they agreed with his war stance.

    i think they have taken the bait that he is more "electable." i guess it's easy to think this when the media and dlc types keep rehashing it with barely an audible criticism of this cw.

    i was very skeptical of dean's chances after tonight but i like his 50 state strategy and hopefully a couple wins before march can help him win the nomination.

    it's no time to give up but it is certainly time to get more critical, and for a lot of people to quit sucking on the koolaid so much. if dean supporters don't, we're all going to be aboard a sinking ship but no one will acknowledge it until kate winslet is holding our lifeless body in the freezing waters.

    by Ekim on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:12:16 AM PDT

    •  The "More Electable" Meme

      Is an invention of Al From and the DLC/DNC insiders that has been conveyed and amplified to the Democratic public by a complicit American corporate media.

      And to the extent that Democrats buy into it, they show that they are still trapped by the Matrix of the American corporate media, and are still the brainwashed and easily manipulated fools that they always have been.

      The genious of the elites in our country--especially the Republican elites--is the way they consistently persuade the American people to vote and act against their own self-interest.

      --No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.--H. L. Mencken

      by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:01:43 AM PDT

      •  it requires a counter-meme

        If it's a false idea, and I believe it is, then a short simple counter-idea should be able to overcome it. IOW, it requires a counter-meme to stop its spread.
        

        by ebie on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:25:21 AM PDT

    •  Experience

      Everyone seems to be overlooking the "experience" factor.  I think after 9/11 people want someone with a good deal of Washington experience.  I think they've found a comfort factor with Kerry on that score.  Many are willing to overlook his vote on the war because they believe he will make a better president than the others and believe swing voters in the general will feel the same way.

      by Paleo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

      •  inside/outside

        Why do you think that 9-11 caused people to fear someone without experience? Who was this person without experience that they associated with 9-11? Are you refering to Bush? I doubt that people will see Bush as the man without experience, and Kerry as with, even if Kerry has been actually working at the federal level, and Bush has not. Also, the "experience" factor is, in a negative light, seen as Washington insider politics. Kerry and Edwards being DC-ites and Dean being a Vermont gov with an outstanding track record in comparison, makes Dean stand-out from these two in an appreciable light.

        by fitzov rules on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

        •  Exactly

          Everyone here in Kos-land knows Bush is a hack of the highest order. A facade for the GOP agenda. An affable brand name.

          But Bush will never been viewed by the electorate as inexperienced. Like it or not, he has been in oval office for going on 4 years now.

          You have to drive home that Bush has failed to do what needs to be done, and that you have a record of ding what needs to be done to fix the problems.

          ONly one candidate has that record, and will say the Bush has failed and is wrong for the country, and not be compromised by voting with Bush on the high-ID issues.

          It isn't Edwards, it isn't Clark... and it sure as fuck isn't Kerry who on top of it, is about as exciting, warm and personable as a plate of cold wet spaghetti (sorry John but that's the cold reality).

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:01:19 PM PDT

  •  The Dean phenom was never about Iraq

    I usually find the Kos posts very insightful, but I think this one started with the wrong premise completely -- and I think Seattle4Dean hit it much better.

    First, the Dean phenom was never about Iraq. That was a part of it, sure, but a small part. The media seized on that early, because that was the only explanation they could come up with--at least one they could spit out in a single sentence. How the rest of the country went along with this, I'll never know. Oh, because the media always wins when they start their chants.

    (The funny part is, Dean's main appeal COULD be summed up in a single word: McCain. He had the same appeal of candor/honesty/integrity that voters found so refreshing in McCain four years earlier. But McCain was able to shoot that down with the ludicrous argument that he didn't like Dean, that he thought Dean's views were alarming. BFD. The comparison had nothing to do with their policy stances. Why the press should give McCain the right to veto that label was preposterous, but that's the press.)

    Bottom line: most of Dean's support was never about Iraq, nor was much of the voting the past two weeks. So the attempt to rationalize the voting through that lens seems really misguided to me.

    It's also pretty clear from the exit-polling in both states--and all the feedback we got in the field just as Iowa wrapped up--that Dean lost support to voters fearing the electability issue.

    And Seattle4Dean laid that irony out quite nicely.

    But Kerry it's Kerry's turn for "scrutiny and harpons," as David Brooks pointed out on Charlie Rose in the last hour.

    More on that interesting conversation, and why he says "Howard Dean is not going anywhere!" here:

    http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/2004/01/27.html#a1068

    by davecullen on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:24:07 AM PDT

    •  Agree -- It's FEAR that has

      gripped this country and manifests itself in irrationality -- from invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to in the name of freedom giving up our freedoms with the Patriot Act, to voting for a man who cannot beat GWB because CW told voters that the man with integrity is not "electible."

      by Marie on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:33:51 AM PDT

      •  I agree Marie!

        Fear is an amazing factor.  It is irrational on the level that I see it - there are people I know that will glady send their kids into this war as long as those terrorists don't send in their exploding planes into Apache Junction, Arizona... people who do not think for themselves rely on others to think for them - like Fox News.  Very sad.  

        BTW, it's been good to hear from you...

        mwjeepster

        by mwjeepster on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:25:00 AM PDT

        •  Fear

          From a behavioral point of view, fear conditions more strongly than any other emotion. That is why you see all the dirty supermarket/dangerous intersections/etc., etc., stories whenever your local news tries to boost its ratings. "Are you in danger, watch at 11", pretty much sums up the situation in the media and in advertising. Electability as a meme to this campaign, has taken off because voters are afraid of Bush being re-elected(opinion, not fact). Unfortunately, IMHO, people generally choose poorly, when their choices are made out of fear.  They are right to fear Bush, however...

          by bigring55t on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:47:48 PM PDT

    •  A vote for Kerry is a lazy vote

      I agree that the Dean support has not been all about Iraq. A lot of the early and continuing support is from people who haven't been politically active; new voters and older, disenchanted voters. More of the people now voting in the primaries are the long-time Dems and they are going for the "safe" Dem path. They don't want the boat rocked. I'd also suggest that many never really looked at Dean. Kerry was trotted out as the traditional Dem, and the lazy voters took everybody's word for it. I think it would be easier to get the Dems to join independent voters with Dean than to convince independent voters to join the Dems and support Kerry.
      And I think the Dean/McCain analogy is good. I recognized Bush as a threat back in the 2000 primaries and registered Republican to vote for McCain against Bush. But I don't think most voters looked closely at Bush back then, either. There is plenty of evidence to disprove the conventional wisdom, but people are lazy.

      by skate on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:08:48 AM PDT

      •  Not lazy at all

        Skate,
        I think they gave Dean a huge look and didn't like what they saw.  They didn't want an elitist who knows better than anyone else like Bill Bradley, who voted for the Reagan tax cuts or Ralph Nader who really screwed us over with his arrogance and outright lies.

        Dean looked to copy ideas from Clark when he should have been looking closer at Edwards.  He never evolved and didn't think he had to.  He is a fiscal conservative who doesn't talk about the redistribution or resupersaturation of wealth to the super wealthy.  Democrats don't like that about him.  He's had some dumb ideas and he wasn't afraid to say them.  Yes, that shows he's more candid but it also shows he shoots first and asks questions later.  Who needs that?

        John Kerry is steady and doesn't need alcohol and god knows what else like Bush needed and doesn't need tranquilizers like Howard Dean prescribed for himself.  He's slower than Dean but doesn't make a fool of himself with utter stupid comments like Dean did about bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

        Dean and his wife are not what America wants.  They want a couple that's a little classier and less goofy.  I know that's not very politically correct these days but politically wrong stole the White House in 2000.  Dean can NEVER beat Bush.  The ticket will be Kerry and
        

        by cpa1 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 08:51:46 AM PDT

        •  oops

          The ticket will be Kerry and Edwards.  

          by cpa1 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 08:54:44 AM PDT

          •  or Gephardt

            Either way Kerry is the man at the top of the ticket.

            I know he's not perfect, but my God, how can any rational person say he's as bad as Bush? That's just nonsensical. I cannot believe some of the posts here.

            I just hope like hell all you disgruntled Deanies get over your heartbreak and vote D this November. I'm beginning to get the sinking feeling, however, that most of you will put your own need to "get back" at the Democrats over the country's dire need for Anybody But Busy.

            by Jim J on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:54:04 PM PDT

            •  just for the record

              others have pointed out the internal inconsistencies and factual errors in the anti-Dean aspect of your argument so I'll ignore those.  

              my problem with Kerry is not that he's as bad as Bush, it's that even if he wins, Congress will publicly tear him into tiny little pieces and scatter him on the south lawn.  they will obstruct his judicial appointments and co-opt or distort any initiatives he takes.  most importantly they will spend 24 hours a day 365 days a year for four years blaming him for the catastrophic changes in US economic, military, and geopolitical standing which are now inevitable.  

              this is what they tried to do to Clinton, and it didn't work, partly because Clinton has an enormous amount of personal charisma, but mostly because the huge economic boom that took place on his watch.   Kerry has neither of those things.  nor does he have a deep reserve of political capital, despite his 20 years in office.

              so Kerry will be better than Bush in the sense that Bush is driving the country off a cliff at high speed, and Kerry won't do that.  the problem is that Kerry doesn't scare Tom DeLay and Bill Frist and Grover Norquist.  they have no reason whatsoever to cooperate with him.   all they have to do is spend another four years spreading hate.  all they have to do is point at the first terrorist attack that happens on Kerry's watch and say "told you so."  all they have to do is mutter about how Kerry isn't creating enough jobs.  it won't matter whether it's Congress' fault or Bush's fault - it will become Kerry's fault.

              why do I think Dean will be different?  because people are sheep.  they piss and moan, but they follow the bellwether.  watch Kerry and you can see that he wants to be popular (that was one of the things that drove me up the fscking wall about the Big Dog BTW).  watch Dean and you can see that he wants to fix things.  that difference is critical, because human nature is such that when people see somebody trying to fix things, they will help out.  when they see somebody telling them what they want to hear they smile and nod.  

              so unless you can show me that Americans in 2004 have less spunk than Londoners during the blitz, I submit that what we need is a leader who can get us to pitch in by setting an example rather than soothing our fears.

              there are hard times ahead, fellow citizens, and smiling and nodding are not going to do the trick.

              by radish on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:40:47 PM PDT

              •  For the record

                I certainly appreciate your argument and thank you for raising the level back to where it should be.  However, I have a different feeling about Howard Dean than you do.

                I have always felt that the only way to make changes is by educating the voters.  They have no idea what the Republicans are doing to them and how they are going to turn this country into India.  I believe someone who Americans can trust and respect can teach them these things.  

                Right now, whether you like Dean or not, Americans think he's a fool, who cannot control what he says, or that he's a man with a Dr. complex.  I like him and I like his wife.  I don't feel the same way the average American, those men and women who elected (?) Bush, feels about him.  Even though I like him, I'm not sure what he really would do fiscally because he has been very conservative as a governor and he did have some bad things to say about Medicare in nineties, something he never explained at any of the debates.  He talked around it.  He did some great things for this campaign but he also lucked out that Moveon.org came into it's own and selected him.

                I don't think Americans like Dean and I don't think they will vote for anyone they don't like.  They won't follow anyone they don't like.  They were very grateful for his stirring up the pot and that is why he did so well in the polls in the beginning, that plus MoveOn.org, but it's what will you do for me tomorrow, not yesterday.   This is where we live.  This is reality.

                However, I am not sure the DeLay is afraid of anyone.  That is one horrible SOB.  The Republican hate machine needs to be stopped and stopped hard.  Unfortunately, Al Franken won't run for the presidency.  Every Democrat has to go after all the Republicans with a vengeance.  I thnk Kerry is evolving and will be a terrific president.  I'd rather not risk all the marbles complaining that the press is unfair to Dean.  I'd rather find someone who the press will get behind, as long as they agree with my basic philosophy of government.
                

                by cpa1 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 07:13:13 PM PDT

                •  I apologize.

                  Please ignore my last comment; I hadn't read this post yet. Your very first sentence here convinced me you're not a troll. I've gone back and re-rated your earlier posts to a 3.

                  It's a hazard of a text-only medium; sometimes tone gets misinterpreted. I read you wrong, for sure, and for that I beg your pardon.

                  by Canadian Reader on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 12:21:30 AM PDT

            •  ack! oops...

              sorry Jim J, got you mixed up with cpa1.  profuse apologies.

              and BTW yes.  I can't speak for anybody else, but I will most assuredly vote ABB come November...

              by radish on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:47:51 PM PDT

        •  Copy What Ideas From Clark?

          Copying ideas from Clark would require Clark to have ideas.   If he has ideas, no one knows them, and that is a sign of a bad campaign. Near as I can tell Clark has a resume, not ideas.  

          by molly bloom on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:44:17 AM PDT

        •  As ignorant as that comment is...

          it's equivalent to the intellectual laziness in our media that helped put the hurt on Dean's campaign. Who needs reason, logic, or facts when you can simply make shit up?

          I'll bet you're a frequent guest on Hannity and Colmes, right? They love hit-and-run blowhards like you over there. You've got a great future in the invent-the-story media, pal.

          by edverb on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:08:29 PM PDT

          •  Hit and run...

            Yep, you're right, hit and run commenting. This cpa1 has never posted before this thread, has never rated anyone else's comment... in other words, he or she created a registration solely for the purpose of throwing a controversial cat amongst the pigeons, sitting back, and watching the blood fly.

            That, folks, is what a real troll looks like. You don't judge troll-hood based on whether you agree or disagree with a post; you judge based on evidence of motivation.

            Feel free to rate down. But 1's, not zeros, because some people have already posted some thoughtful answers that shouldn't have to disappear.

            And another time, if you think it's a troll, don't reply.

            by Canadian Reader on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:16:08 PM PDT

          •  Amazing Intolerance..you sound like Hannity,

            What a ridiculous thing to say just because I don't like Howard Dean as the Dem's presidential candidate.  How intolerant you are for someone who is supposed to be a liberal.  Some people can't take the truth.  

            Dean doesn't have it, he doesn't stand a chance and maybe you're willing to risk losing the government again to Bush but I'm not.  I'd bet you voted for Nader?  Dean will lose in a landslide just like the lying and arrogant Ralph Nader played poor sport and ruined so much good that was built up in this country.  Is that what you want?  Certainly you have top admit there is a high possibility that that will happen.

            As far as Kerry voting for the first Bush tax reduction, as alluded to in a later posting, if that's true, I'm very surprised. How can that be checked?  I seem to remember the only Dems voting for that bill were John Breaux of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Max Cleland and Zell Miller of Georgia.

            If I didn't know that Dean talked about the redistribution of wealth to the super wealthy, and I pay plenty of attention to all this, how do you think the average American will know that.  Dean was riding on his stand on Iraq and being against the Washington establishment.  He rarely, I think I used rarely in my original post, spoke about wealth redistribution and in no way do so in a clear way like Edwards did. As a matter of fact, Dean talked against it in saying that the wants to repeal the entire tax cut, without help to the struggling middle class.

            Some of you people are blind to reality, especially the realities of electability.   To Philip G., and Canadian Reader, You people don't know how to have a discussion.  Perhaps you are the true fools.  If you disagree with me, tell me, don't get nasty.  Show me how I am wrong, don't try to tear me apart.  People like you don't do the Democrats any good because you seem to be as hateful as the Republicans.

            I've posted before and rated before.  I changed my account name just recently and this is a permanent change.  I don't know that that makes any difference anyway because we are debating ideas, not who we are.

            by cpa1 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:33:51 PM PDT

            •  It's a pity then...

              that you chose to make your debut under your new name with a series of posts that sound exactly like a classic usenet troll, albeit of the plausible, articulate variety.

              Based on the evidence so far, I can see three scenarios:

              1. You are indeed a hit and run troll, and your claim to a previous registration is untrue.
              2. You did have a previous identity here on dKos, but your posting behavior quite deservedly got you either banned or rated very low.
              3. You had a previous identity here on dKos, but your opinions were unpopular, and some people misused the rating system to blast you with undeservedly low mojo.

              Tell you what. You only get credit for your previous posting history if people can see it. Let me know what your previous ID was, and I'll go look at a bunch of your old comments.

              If it was Case 3, I will apologize and change my 1's in this thread to 3's, because I don't believe agree/disagree has any business triggering a downrating.

              If it was Case 2, well... I won't apologize, but I'll withdraw the 1 and set it back to 'none'.  

              If you won't say who you were before, my rating will stand unaltered. Sorry, but, y'know... looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

              by Canadian Reader on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 06:09:42 PM PDT

              •  No answer, huh?

                Just a 1-rating in return. Well, I guess that really proves to everyone that you're not a troll.

                (Serves me right for even saying anything. I've been on usenet for years, dang it; I knew better than to argue with certain types online.)

                by Canadian Reader on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:54:45 PM PDT

        •  Dean? Elitist?

          I've seen this before, and very recently. where in the world did this "Dean is an elitist" notion come from? like this whole "beer/wine" thing which came out of nowhere this week.

          Dean is about the most populist candidate I can remember. Gore, Dukakis, Bradley, etc. all came off as know-it-alls which killed them, and Kerry hasn't done much to dispel the aristocratic blue-blood aroma.

          by mudskipper on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:19:25 PM PDT

      •  Not lazy at all

        Skate,
        I think they gave Dean a huge look and didn't like what they saw.  They didn't want an elitist who knows better than anyone else like Bill Bradley, who voted for the Reagan tax cuts or Ralph Nader who really screwed us over with his arrogance and outright lies.

        Dean looked to copy ideas from Clark when he should have been looking closer at Edwards.  He never evolved and didn't think he had to.  He is a fiscal conservative who doesn't talk about the redistribution or resupersaturation of wealth to the super wealthy.  Democrats don't like that about him.  He's had some dumb ideas and he wasn't afraid to say them.  Yes, that shows he's more candid but it also shows he shoots first and asks questions later.  Who needs that?

        John Kerry is steady and doesn't need alcohol and god knows what else like Bush needed and doesn't need tranquilizers like Howard Dean prescribed for himself.  He's slower than Dean but doesn't make a fool of himself with utter stupid comments like Dean did about bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

        Dean and his wife are not what America wants.  They want a couple that's a little classier and less goofy.  I know that's not very politically correct these days but politically wrong stole the White House in 2000.  Dean can NEVER beat Bush.  The ticket will be Kerry and
        

        by cpa1 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 08:52:04 AM PDT

        •  With all due respect, you are an idiot

          They didn't want an elitist who knows beter than anyone else . . . .

          --So is that why they have so far rejected a man who went into the family practice of medicine (Dean) for a man of wealth and privilege, "skull and bones" pedigree, East-Coast political establishmentarian, who married a $600 million heiress (Kerry)?

          Dean and his wife are not what America wants.  They want a couple that's a little classier and less goofy.

          --Haven't you now just contradicted yourself?  So now, tell me who really is the elitist?  Perhaps it's you?

          Dean looked to copy ideas from Clark when he should have been looking closer at Edwards.

          --What alternate reality to you live in?  I don't think Dean has copied his ideas from ANY of the other Democratic candidates.  Rather, it's the other way around.  Most of them are copying their ideas and rhetoric from him.

          [Kerry's] slower than Dean but doesn't make a fool of himself with utter [sic] stupid comments like Dean did about Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

          --What was so "foolish" about saying that the real enemy is Osama Bin Laden and that the capture of Saddam didn't make us any safer from terrorists?  Or didn't you know that the majority of the American people agree with these views?  Or was his foolishness embodied in the fact that he didn't realize that that opportunistic, self-serving putz Lieberman would pounce upon these statements and distort them for his own political ends?

          [Dean] doesn't talk about the redistribution or resupersaturation of wealth to the super wealthy.

          --Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to Dean's comments or reading his policy statements.  And obviously, it doesn't bother you that it was Kerry who voted for Bush's first round of tax cuts, which have been largely reponsible for bringing about the "redistribution or resupersaturation of wealth" that seems to bother you.

          But, on second thought, I think  I understand . . . you are modeling for us the stupidy and ignorance of the typical American voter so that we can see the real reasons why Dean won't get the nomination, aren't you?  

          Clever boy.

          by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:23:53 AM PDT

          •  He is not an idiot

            And calling him one demonstrates a big problem with the Deanies.  He has an opinion that is well expressed.  You might not agree with him, but don't call him an idiot.

            by kimster on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:35:23 AM PDT

            •  He's not an idiot

              An idiot would not be capable of the mental gymnastics that guy used to try to make his ridiculous and self-contradictory case.

              by miasmo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

              •  He may not be an idiot BUT

                his facts are not correct.  Please site for us ONE instance when Dean has copied anything that the other candidates said FIRST.  This I'd like it hear!

                mwjeepster

                by mwjeepster on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:30:34 AM PDT

                •  Yes, I know...

                  Preview is my friend... preview is my friend...

                  mwjeepster

                  by mwjeepster on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:33:31 AM PDT

                •  Middle Class tax cuts

                  He got on that bandwagon after EVERYBODY else.

                  by ryan b on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:49:51 AM PDT

                  •  He has not jumped on that bandwagon

                    Do you have anything to say that is based in reality?

                    by miasmo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:51:39 PM PDT

                  •  Huh?

                    Dean hasn't copied any of the candidates in the race on that at all.

                    He has floated the idea about payroll tax reform down the road, after we get the deficits under control.

                    Not sure what you are referring to with this "middle class tax cuts" nonsense.

                    Mitch Gore

                    Wanna win in '08...?

                    Put your money where your mouth is.

                    by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:06:49 PM PDT

                    •  He floated it ...

                      ... because he was getting hammered on the tax issue.

                      I'm not saying that he's insincere, but he's modifying his position based upon people's reaction to it.  He's following the other candidates' lead on this one.

                      (I think it's a good idea, incidentally).

                      by ryan b on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 03:04:55 AM PDT

          •  Remind Me

            So is that why they have so far rejected a man who went into the family practice of medicine (Dean) for a man of wealth and privilege, "skull and bones" pedigree, East-Coast political establishmentarian, who married a $600 million heiress (Kerry)?

            Where did Dr. Dean grow up?  attend college?  ski during the war?

            by Adam B on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

            •  geez

              If we say "yes, Dr. Dean grew up with an elitist background" (as did Bush, of course) will you agree that Kerry's background is at least as "elitist" and can appear or be spun as even more so? Come on, it's lazy to debate by ignoring one half of the argument.

              What's impressed me is what Dean did with his background after he became an adult. He couldn't help who his parents were any more than could John Edwards "son of a millworker". None of us can. But Howard Dean lived in a house that he bought for $165,000, not a governor's mansion. He (and I know he want his children to be off limits so he's not going to say it himself, but I can) SENT HIS CHILDREN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL. I know a lot of you grouse about politicians who complain about public schools and then send their kids to private ones, but he put his money where his mouth was when it would have been easy to send his kids to a New England boarding school. It seems that Howard Dean can't help that he's the son of a stockbroker and not a millworker, but everything he's done as an adult seems to indicate that he's too busy helping people to be an elitist.

              by JMS on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:37:43 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Before he was pilloried with 'the scream' Dean was pigeonholed much earlier as 'the anti-war candidate'. If you listen to Deans speeches, he spends far more time talking about fiscal conservancy, universal health care and jobs but the media found his Iraq stance far more salacious and so chose to fixate on it instead. If anyone knows anything about Deans stance on anything besides Iraq it's only because they've watched the debates.  With all due respect Tom, I think you've drunk the medias kool-aid re Dean.

      If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers

      by iconoclast on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:18:11 AM PDT

      •  Oh come on

        Both Deaniacs AND Democrats in general have been all about the war.  All day every day Deaniacs slam Kerry and Edwards for voting for "Bush's war."  

        The fact is, Dean didn't get the anti-war vote in either Iowa OR New Hampshire.  Can't blame that on the media.  

        by ryan b on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:44:03 AM PDT

        •  Then again

          you can't blame the media for Gephart's atrociously negative ads or Kerry's negative push polling either (hey, it worked great for Bush against McCain). It just happened to be a coincidence that the media was using the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus to tear into Dean at the same time.

          Who says going negative doesn't work?

          by Thumb on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

          •  It DOES work

            and everybody knows it.  Look, the candidates are going to do what it takes to win.  Yes, it's dirty, and yes, we NEED a candidate who can win dirty.

            Do you think November's going to be CLEAN?

            I like Dean but they better overhaul that campaign, and fast.  

            by ryan b on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

          •  Yes, but...

            ...Dean's ads against Gephardt were just as atrociously negative.  And he hasn't exactly been all sweetness and light against Kerry.

            Dean may not have gone negative first, but when he did, he went hard core.

            by Angela on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:35:28 PM PDT

            •  atrocious ads?

              I saw one ad that stated the plain fact that Gephardt wrote the resolution to go to war and Edwards and Kerry voted for it. Then Dean came on and said he opposed it and that it's time for new leadership in Washington. There was no sinister music or unflattering pictures of Gephardt, etc.

              Yet I hear about Dean's "atrociously negative" and "viscious" ads. Am I missing something? Were there other ads I didn't see that did something besides factually point out a policy difference?

              by miasmo on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:31:57 PM PDT

  •  Ayuh

    I always liked Seattle.

    by Demise on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:30:06 AM PDT

  •  Or

    Dated Kerry.
    Married Dean.
    Screwed Bush!

    by plasmastate on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:02:47 AM PDT

  •  Nutcase Clark?

    Were those Andrew Sullivan's words?  You can say a lot of things about Clark (mostly that he's inexperienced and his campaign sucks), but he is hardly a nutcase.

    I have a great deal of respect for Clark.  I don't know what the problem with his campaign is.

    by ABB on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 09:44:32 AM PDT

    •  This is Sullivan, remember.

      Like a dog walking on its hind legs. You shouldn't expect everything Andrew Sullivan says to make sense; instead you ought to be pleasantly surprised if he makes any sense at all.

      I think he has finally woken up to the fact that Republicans are very much not his friends, no matter how much he would like them to be -- and he is reluctantly casting about for some Democrat he can (almost) support. So far he seems to have settled on Dean, but who knows how long that will last?

      by Canadian Reader on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 02:41:39 PM PDT

  •  This is the frase:

    To my mind, this is a battle between the Democratic party's soul and its fear.

    It's about fear. It will be about fear all the way to the general election. This is the tack Dean must take. Dean must offer the opposite of fear. He's the man to do it, too. The right demeanor and he's a doctor.

    But his stump is getting old. I'm still waiting for a second act.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:37:03 AM PDT

  •  Andy Sees The Light

    I am so pleased that Andrew Sullivan managed to extract his head from his ass long enough to see a ray of truth about the relative merits of Kerry and Dean.  (I wonder if he also saw his own shadow in the process.)

    But I am going to take issue with this remark:

    ...Edwards' disappointing fourth place showing - behind the nutcase Clark - after such a big win in Iowa has to make his candidacy more suspect.

    Some snarky Kossack in the chat room last night insinuated that I had made up my mind to support John Edwards a long time ago and have only been pretending to continue to entertain thoughts about voting for Howard Dean.

    Regardless, I woke up this morning, after tossing and turning all night, still wondering what to do next Tuesday when I vote in Arizona's primary.  I am definitely leaning towards Edwards, at least with my head, but Howard Dean's hold on my heart hasn't diminished.  In fact, the way he has conducted himself since The Scream has only endeared him to me more.

    Having said that, I don't believe that Edwards 4th place NH finish (800 odd votes behind Clark) makes his candidacty "more suspect."  Yes, if he had surpassed Clark by even 1 vote, a 3rd place finish would have generated better headlines, and yet I seriously doubt that it would have made any significant difference going into Feb. 3rd.

    To put the Clark/Edwards finish in perspective, the General was in the low 20s in NH the week before Iowa and was campaigning there all to himself (we'll ignore the existence of Joe and hope that he blows away soon).  Had Kerry not won Iowa, Clark might have seemed to be the more electable candidate in the fall and NH voters might have stuck with him, but with Kerry appearing to demonstrate his old knack for pulling an electoral rabbit out of his hat, New Hampshire "came home" to Kerry post-Iowa, rendering Clark irrelevant.  In the end, he lost about half of his pre-Iowa support.

    Edwards, on the other hand, was nowhere in the pre-Iowa NH polls.  He had been campaigning in the Granite State for a long time, but no one took him very seriously.  Nevertheless, with his strong 2nd in Iowa, he managed (in just a week) to double his strength in NH.  Had the primary taken place a day or two later, he probably would have overtaken Clark.  Big deal.

    What matters is what happens next.  South Carolina is a must win for Edwards, and polls in that state show him beginning to pull away from the rest of the pack.  His NH placement was respectable and isn't going to reverse the SC trend.  He has actively campaigned in Oklahoma and has a real shot of winning there.  It certainly isn't going to be especially friendly turf for Kerry or Dean.  It will be interesting to see if the Clark collapse in NH has any effect on his strength in the heartland and out here in Arizona.

    My guess is that Feb. 3rd will be a very mixed bag, with Edwards winning his birth state of SC and Clark doing well in ND, OK, and AZ, Kerry continuing on momentum in DE and MO, and Dean possibly showing some strength in the NM caucuses as well as later in the week in MI, ME and WA.

    But, unless I'm wrong and Edwards is especially weak outside of SC, he will be in very good position to win both Feb. 10 contests in Virginia and Tennessee, and at that point the media may set up a Kerry v. Edwards two man race.  At least, that is what I'm praying for, because the only way I see to head off the disaster of a Kerry nomination is if there becomes a clearly identifiable anti-Kerry candidate (someone who can actually ignite a crowd and exhibit some skill in a debate).  Howard Dean may yet prove to the one, but he's going to have win somewhere first to convince me.

    by gaycat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:35:52 PM PDT

  •  Kerry / Dean

    Dean is the guy every girl loves to date when she's young. He's Johnny Depp , Orlando Bloom exciting brash a bit arrogant but ALIVE. Kerry though is the guy she settles down with eventually to have a family. That's the way I see it. So the dated Dean married Kerry analogy is pretty good. The problem is Kerry. Do people want to divorce Bush and buy Kerry? We better hope so.

    by glennk1949 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 12:59:03 PM PDT

    •  Marry Kerry over Dean? ROFLMAO

      That's about as good as Keaton dumping Keanu Reeves for Jack Nicholson.  My little poll on that question has been unanimous -- all the men think a woman would go with Jack and all the women think the men are crazy -- no way do we go with Jack.

      by Marie on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:59:37 PM PDT

      •  Go with Jack.

        Why not? She was in love with Jack not Reeves remember. My ? is why did she fall for Jack in the 1st place and 2nd could anyone take seriously that Reeves fell in love with her? The whole plot was screwy (no pun intended) but that's what Hollyweird does with our heads it screws around with them for $$$.
          As far as the Dean Kerry thing who knows? How's this dated Dean married Kerry, divorced Kerry eloped with Edwards!! Maybe the story isn't over yet??

        by glennk1949 on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:35:49 PM PDT

        •  Give me a break --

          Jack was an old bimbo and Keanu was a young gorgeous doctor who was crazy about her.  Now had Jack been an old doctor and Keanu a young bimbo, Jack may have fared better with the women I polled.  

          Since old men believe every day that young women are in love with them, why is it so hard to believe that a younger man would adore an older woman?  Some of the best relationships I've ever seen are older women/younger man (and yes, with 20 year age differences) and those relationships have been going strong for twenty years and they are not based on the men looking for a "mommy."  These are sexy, smart and interesting women that they love.  

          by Marie on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 06:03:16 PM PDT

          •  Older women fantasy

            I'll admit that a very tiny % of older women younger men love stories exist but, I think your fooling yourself if you believe this is the norm for most men or women. Men are primarily attracted to women visually at first that's how nature for some reason has set us up. It pisses some women off that life seems to have at some level reduced itself to a beauty contest but, don't blame us for that blame nature. The facts are Jack's attraction to younger women is the norm. Men don't go through menopause as we all know and I think this explains some of it. That Jack falls in love with Diane wasn't so strange either. He's old and tired and sick are younger women going to want to bother taking care of him as he gets more and more feeble? Maybe, if their in the will.

            by glennk1949 on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

            •  Newsflash - old men like young women!

              What you refuse to hear from me and other women is that older women find Keanu Reeves more attractive than Jack Nicholson -- and we would not dump Keanu for Jack.

              by Marie on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 01:21:21 PM PDT

              •  Reeves

                What you refuse to hear is that Reeves would have in the "real" world eventually DUMP Diane for a younger women when he decided to have kids. Reeves was just playing games with Diane the affair was a Hollyweird chick flix fantasy. Hell, the whole movie was for that matter.

                by glennk1949 on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

•  Diebold at work?

  I saw this on the Dean blog.  Haven't verified it, but it did seem interesting.  

  And remember, even though your candidate may have been benefitted this time, there's no reason that that same technology cannot be used against him in a general election.

  Capish?

  ------------

  ACT NOW Call the NH Election Dept.
  Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
  [e-mail] us

  and ask for a recount

  Hampstead (1 of 1 Precincts Reporting)

  John KERRY 575 43%
  Randy CROW 287 21%
  Gerry DOKKA 158 12%
  Joe LIEBERMAN 156 12%
  Wesley CLARK 150 11%
  Al SHARPTON 7 1%
  Dennis KUCINICH 6 0%
  John EDWARDS 2 0%
  Howard DEAN 1 0%
  Caroline Pettinato KILLEEN 1 0%
  Robert H. LINNELL 1 0%
  Edward Thomas O'Donnell, Jr. 1 0%
  http://www.electionline.org/interactiveMap_result.jsp?state=NH&stateText=New%20Hampshire&top icText=Voting%20System%20Used&topic_string=22:votingsystemtypemain

  PRECINCTS
  Gilford
  updated: 9:51 p.m.,
  January 27 Kerry 0 0% 100% reporting
  Lieberman 115 96%
  Clark 0 0%
  Dean 0 0%
  Edwards 0 0%
  Kucinich 0 0%
  Sharpton 0 0%

  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/counties/NH/index.007...

  Take action now.
  

  by PhillipG on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 03:54:55 AM PDT

  •  Check out this site

    http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2004_results/nh_primary/nh_primary_dem_town-by-town.html

    The data is a bit more reasonable here.

    by John on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:18:24 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, John

      by wilderness wench on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:56:19 AM PDT

    •  Last 9 precincts

      Does anyone have the counts for the last 9 precincts? There are 301 but I can't find any counts that list beyond 292.

      by common veil on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 10:33:07 AM PDT

  •  Address NG

    Thanks for the info, Phillip .. but the email address doesn't seem functional.

    by wilderness wench on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 04:48:19 AM PDT

  •