Daily Kos

Howard Dean backs Hillary on Abortion

by ARingMD2B

Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:14:58 PM PDT

Hey Kossacks,

      Remember when Hillary recently said we should work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal? If you don't, let this thread jog your memory.

Yeah, some of you lashed out when Hillary said it, calling her a "concession Dem." Well, what are you going to say now that Howard Dean has publically agreed with her?


New DNC Head Dean Hopes to Rebuild Party

Dean says that no one is "pro-abortion," but "we are the party in favor of allowing women to make up their own minds about their health care."

Yeah, that's what I thought. But the good doctor even took it one further:

And Democrats are not for "gay marriage," but "we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people," he says.

This is centrist progressivism and it's going to work.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 61 comments

  •  I didn't remember (none / 0)

    people lashing out at Hillary, but I remember people lashing out at Kerry when he expressed much the same thing on abortion.

    by Noisy Democrat on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:14:15 PM PDT

    •  Most folks didn't lash out at Hillary (none / 0)

      But please don't go bursting ARingMD2B's self-righteous balloon...

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:22:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know what you and... (none / 0)

        ... Noisy Democrat would call it, but from my recollection "lashing out" is putting it mildly.

        by Jim Riggs on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:31:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not in the diary cited (none / 0)

          ...

          by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:32:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From the Diary: (none / 0)

            What a waste of our time with the 'jellyfish' wing wanting to find some laughable, non-existent 'common ground'.

            pander bear

            Hillary watered down the issue of pro-choice unto a Republican-lite palatable version then she out right pandered to the Republican Fundalmentalist by advocating a known harmful strategy for teenagers. No.

            Still, there was something .... well, Clintonesque  about it that made me queezy.  And you nailed it: she didn't make new frames.  She just plugged my viewpoint into their frames.  Not good enough.  That's what makes it sound so weak.

            the clintonian prochoice movement IS POWERLESS. thats why they're forced to pander.

            Hillary Clinton was not pandering.

            Give it up already Bob.

            by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:46:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look, pal (none / 0)

              You can edit your diary all you want when called out on your bullshit.

              But what you originally posted here implied that nearly all of kos ripped Clinton for her remarks.  And your original diary, as cited below in my post that contained your original text, implied as much.

              One poster a community does not make.

              Good luck.

              by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:57:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bob (none / 1)

                You're absoultely right, I edited my diary on your suggestion. One would think this would make you happy. Alas, it does not. I guess I'm not a real diarist unless I stick to my guns, even when, as you correctly pointed out, I was originally wrong. Are you really insisting that I should not have changed my diary? And yes, Bob, much, if not most of the Kos community was very pissed when Hillary said what she did.

                Seriously, what is your problem?

                by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:03:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't see what Hillary's pandering (4.00 / 2)

                has to do with Howard Dean trying to frame a theme for the Democratic Party anyway.

                And no, before someone chimes in, what Howard Dean just said in that article abobe isn't equivalent at all to Hillary's faith-based initiative support (I think Dean supported those with some caveats--though I don't recall him making a big deal out of it in the way Hillary did about about the constitution), or her going on about how sad abortion is and a tragic choice for many women, or that religion is the primary way to stay abstinent.

                Anyhow, Dean's job now is to back up the Hillarys, Bayhs, Liebermans, and the Kucinichs the Party if he ever gets called on it.

                Shrug

                Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

                by Viktor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:10:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Ok, that's what I get for... (none / 0)

            ... not reading the link. I went back and checked and the diary I was referring to was by cybermome1207 on 1/25.

            I still think what Hillary said makes a lot of sense, but Lois certainly didn't agree with me. She accused me of not caring about women's health issues and wanting to recriminalize abortion because I think trying to reduce the number of abortions is a worthwhile cause.

            by Jim Riggs on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  yep (none / 1)

    it is correct that no one is pro-abortion...but the democrats should (and hopefully will not) compromise a woman's right to choose

    That being said, I think it is kinda silly to write a "I told you all so" or "I was right, you are wrong" diary

    One of the hardest things to accept as just is a called third strike - Robert Frost

    by israelfox87 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:20:01 PM PDT

  •  Read your diary you highlighted (none / 1)

    ... along with the comments.

    Looks like, except for two or three posters, most people agreed with Hillary's comments.

    So when you now write (bold mine)...

    Hey Kossacks,

    Remember when Hillary recently said we should work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal? If you don't, let this thread jog your memory.

    Yeah, you lashed out when Hillary said it, calling her a "concession Dem."

    ... my only comment for you is, "Generalize much?"

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:20:39 PM PDT

    •  I wrote this a little quickly (none / 0)

      and will insert "some of"

      In truth, it seemed to be at least 50/50.

      by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:27:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, you had one particularly extended... (none / 0)

        ... discussion with one poster(AmericanHope)and a couple of others chimed in.

        The diary wasn't heavily commented, but there were a few dissenters.

        I'm just pointing out that you're using a very broad brush in this diary.

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:30:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  96 comments isn't heavily commented? (none / 0)

          by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:32:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  More than half of those comments were... (none / 0)

            ... in the extended series of discussions between you and AmericanHope.

            How many individual posters commented in the diary?

            by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:34:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  aoeu (4.00 / 3)

              Bob, you're gonna hurt his feelings.

              turtles consider
              every single vote deeply
              yet always vote dem

              by TealVeal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:44:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I feel vindicated (none / 1)

                Heh-heh...

                Actually 47 comments out of 96 in the referenced diary were from AmericanHope or ARingMD2B.

                Not quite half.

                by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:46:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There were over 20 unique IDs (none / 0)

                  who commented in the diary. By my quick count 23. That's much better than the average diary (of course nothing like a recommended diary, but I make no pretense to being able to write that well). Why do you have to be so petty? I am simply pointing out that many Kossacks are quick to pounce on Dems like Hillary for "moving to the right" (which she didn't) but turn a blind eye when Dean does the exact same thing. It kinda reminds me of Freepers.

                  I'm not ragging on Dean for saying what he did. I'm glad he said it, and, of course, I'm a huge Dean supporter. I just hate to see this blog atrophy into the same intellectual hypocrisy as the right.

                  by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:03:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How many posted negatively on Hillary? (none / 0)

                    That was the point of your diary.  You were "vindicated" because you claimed that most of the poster on kos lambasted Hillary for her comments.

                    And you continue your unsupported nonsense in this post.

                    And you want to call me petty for pointing out that you overgeneralized (before you edited your diary)?

                    I'd say your posting of this diary was the real petty thing going on here.

                    by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:08:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  At least 12 of the 20 or so posters (none / 0)

                      spoke to varying degrees of negativity toward Hillary. More than 3 praised abortion as a universally good practice. One poster even went as far as to suggest that Howard Dean would never say something like this.

                      I observed, anecdotally, that about half of all Kossacks responded negatively to Hillary's statement. I did not, in my diary, specify and exact percent or any such figure. I said "some of you" lashed out at Hillary, which was absolutely true, as evidenced by my linked diary.

                      Yes, my diary was originally rather inflammatory. Yes, I changed it after seeing the initial response (largely thanks to you). There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, many would argue this is the whole point of being able to edit diaries.

                      Seriously, don't you have something better to do than point out that I was initially self-righteous but then modified my tone?

                      by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  cite? n/t (none / 0)

                        More than 3 praised abortion as a universally good practice.

                        by colleen on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 03:50:04 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sure thing: (none / 0)

                          Number 1

                          ABORTION IS A GOOD THING (none / 0)

                          why does that bother you?

                          why do you want to run people's lives:?

                          THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THE WORLD FOR YOU?

                          THERE AREN'T ENOUGH MALLS?

                          THERE ISN'T ENOUGH URBAN SPRAWL?

                          abortion saves lives
                          abortion prevents lives turning tragic
                          aborting a cell cluster means having
                          a child when the mother feels ready and financially secure.

                          Number 2

                          Abortion IS NOT A PROBLEM. it is a SOLUTION. abortion is reproductive FREEDOM.

                          Number 3

                          As someone who's worked in clinics since 1976, I'm sick of people apologizing for abortion.  It's a medical procedure that many women choose when they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term.  It doesn't have to be an "unwanted" pregnancy".  The only "tragic" abortions are the "wanted" pregnancies that go horribly awry and have to be terminated in the later stages... those "nasty" partial birth abortions.
                          ...
                          Abortion is empowering, and only when liberals and pro-choicers support it unapologetically will women getting abortions feel dignified about their choice and be ripe for politicizing.

                          by ARingMD2B on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 11:01:00 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  bah (none / 1)

                    Why do you have to be so petty?

                    ironic

                    I am simply pointing out that many Kossacks are quick to pounce on Dems like Hillary for "moving to the right" (which she didn't) but turn a blind eye when Dean does the exact same thing. It kinda reminds me of Freepers.

                    Oh please. Dean did not say the exact same thing. He didn't attribute all abortions to some mythical percentage of women too irresponsible to use contraceptives (and in a political climate where we are being forced to pay pre-orgasmic fundie women to not teach about contraception) and he did not lie about religion being the best force for abstinence (a fact which is demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of 'abstinence' pledges are broken rather quickly)
                    She didn't mention that the number of abortions has increased under the thumb of Bush and  careful guidance of the fundies, she did not examine the reasons why this is so. What she did do was set the stage for a political atmosphere in which abortion will be treated by the dems in the same manner they dealt with welfare deformation. Women who turn up pregnant will be villified and demonized as 'irresponsible', the male contribution will never be mentioned and Burger King will have an influx of desperate and poor potential employees. And that is the typical 'centrist' style of triangulation on social issues.

                    All Howard Dean said what that nobody is pro-abortion and that is the absolute truth. Get it? Dean will defend with compassion and common sense and honesty, hillary, like her husband, will sacrifice the poor and ignorant to score mythical political points. That's what 'centrist' triangulation does. It sets up whole classes of people like 'welfare queens' for everyone to hate and villify. You might find this acceptable leadership but those of us who actually care about individual lives and poverty issues do not believe this sort of thing does much to advance the dialogue.

                    by colleen on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 03:46:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  This is such an easy one (none / 0)

    I started feeling the way Hillary expressed herself several years ago, and it would be a great bridge issue.  I belivee we should be all in favor of education of the risks, both physical and psychological, and the adoption option.

    We can make the point moot that liberals a "pro-abortion," anit-life, whatever they frame us as.  If we can show how to discourage abortion as thoroughly as possible and reduce the abortion rate, that would go a lot further than painting them as "pro-life until birth, then you're on your own."

    Read my lips: we do not torture.

    by captnjaq on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:21:57 PM PDT

  •  Well, Dean and Hillary are right. Safe, legal and (none / 0)

    especially rare are the way to go.  The ultimate decision should be left with the woman who is pregnant.  And to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place, don't restrict access to birth control.  For teens, be sure to talk about the 'abstinance' alternative too, shoot, encourage it, since birth control isn't 100% effective.  We wouldn't want anybody to have any unplanned luxury items, right.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:23:18 PM PDT

  •  Dean's job isn't to represent Dean anymore (none / 1)

    it's to represent the party as a whole.  This is Dean using frames for the party.  Dean is the party's mouthpiece and tool now.

    Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

    by Viktor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:27:33 PM PDT

    •  Oh yeah (none / 0)

      Howard Dean is a realy "tool."

      Probably not the smartest thing to say on this blog...

      by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:29:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're misinterpreting the comment (none / 1)

        Dean, himself, said that policy will come from the legislators, not the DNC.

        I think that was the point of the "tool" statement.

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:32:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, (none / 0)

          Whatever. I don't think I'm going to argue with you about the orginal poster's intended meaning of "tool" was...

          by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:36:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Damn straight Bob (none / 1)

          "My views are well known, but most of the policy pronouncements will be coming from the leaders in Congress and not from me."

          Dean has plenty of other chores to keep him busy.

          President Bush just won his second term. Republicans are firmly in control of the House and the Senate. And the GOP is gaining strength in conservative states in the South and West.

          The former Vermont governor promised to learn how Democrats can communicate positions more effectively.

           Dean says that no one is "pro-abortion," but "we are the party in favor of allowing women to make up their own minds about their health care."

          And Democrats are not for "gay marriage," but "we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people," he says.

          Dean is determined to seize the moral high ground from Republicans, arguing Democratic positions on helping the poor and protecting children are consistent with religious values.

          Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

          by Viktor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:36:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't think our friend meant (none / 0)

        tool in the perjorative way that word is often used around here, but rather in the less charged, essential meaning of the word. Maybe "instrument" is a better term now ?

        I think this is a perfect demonstration of how language shifts out from under us sometimes, though.

        Let's get some Democracy for America

        by murphy on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:34:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's super. (none / 0)

    I hope I can be vindicated someday so I can right a pointless self-fellating diary about it.

    --

    by furiousxgeorge on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:28:48 PM PDT

  •  Timing is everything (none / 0)

      Hilary better learn timing better.The RWCM was all abuzz with "the Dem party needs to move to the Center"(which really means farther right)when the old battle ax made her comments.Hil and Bill were still trying to find someone,anyone to stop Dean.Never believe that Bill and Hil are Deans freinds.They're not.

    http://dumpjoe.com/

    by ctkeith on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:37:18 PM PDT

  •  No, that is actually just stating a plain truth. (4.00 / 3)

    That is actually our Democrats finally using correct terminology to explain things.  We let the GOP form the words pro-life and let them run with it, thus making us look like the really bad guys who wanted the abortions.

    I am not pro-abortion.  I am for a woman's right to choose her own medical care with the help of her family, her physician and whomever she chooses.  

    That is the terminology Dean as always used.  Can you imagine anyone being for having abortions?  That would just be ridiculous.

    He is still giving the woman the right to choose, and that is the important issue. I think that is what Hillary Clinton meant as well.  

    We have too much at stake to pick nits when they finally do start using strong and correct language.  I thought the way he phrased it was strong and correct.  Well-done.

    "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

    by floridagal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:45:45 PM PDT

    •  Well (none / 0)

      "Can you imagine anyone being for having abortions?"

      There are indeed people on this blog who are for having abortions. Hence the purpose of this diary.

      by ARingMD2B on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:51:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  aoeu (none / 1)

        Some say that you like to munch on crusty rat poison pills, when did you stop this practice?

        turtles consider
        every single vote deeply
        yet always vote dem

        by TealVeal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:56:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wait a minute... (none / 1)

        I thought the purpose of this diary was your presonal "vindication."  (At least it was until you changed the title.)

        Or the purpose of this diary was to essentially throw a bucket of crap back into the faces of essentially the entire kos community who you claimed attacked Clinton for making a statement on abortion.  (At least until you changed your blanket statement and added the qualifier "some of you.")

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:58:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and one more thing. Dean said it better. (4.00 / 2)

        His statement left no doubt where he stood, and he implied that is what the party should stand for.  "We are the party of allowing a woman to choose.....etc."  

        He was right on, very clear.  I don't think I am really sure whether Hilary is definitely for a woman's right to choose, or if it is political thing.  I don't know.  

        Dean said it better.  He did not sound as though he were trying to have it both ways. He is pro-choice, clearly, no doubt.  He was very clear what our party should be about.

        "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

        by floridagal on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:50:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Close, but not quite (none / 0)

        I, like most people on this blog, am FOR a woman being able to have a safe and legal abortion when SHE believes she needs one.

        A subtle but essential distinction.  

        by moiv on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:45:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think we should force the right wing into a real (none / 1)

    discussion about this. Let me make it perfectly clear before I continue: I am strongly pro-Choice. But I myself lost my first baby because of congenital heart defect. When I was pregnant with my second child, who is just fine, thank you, and now fifteen years old, I looked at a chart in an embryology text book every day to see how he was developing. So I have never been able to accept one of the arguments that some pro-choice groups made that the fetus was not human. Having said that, I thought about it long and hard, and came to the conclusion that abortion must be safe and legal. I don't think that a woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy that she does not want under any circumstances.
    I want to force a discussion with the moral absolutists who insist that there should never be an abortion, ever. This is an untenable and cruel position. The Republican Taliban "partial birth abortion" law didn't make an exception for a woman who would die as a result of continuing a pregnancy. These male moral zealots did not think that a minor who was pregnant from sexual abuse should have a right to an abortion. They didn't think a woman who becomes pregnant from rape should be entitled to abortion. There position is morally indefensible.

    These men are praising the president who is cutting the budget for all kinds of social programs that help women and children who are in poverty. These men have no answer to the problem of poverty. They don't care about it, they would sooner let poor people rot and die. But those people better not have an abortion, because, you see, to these men, human life is SO VALUABLE.

    Abortions happen for one reason: the inability of the woman at the time when she finds herself pregnant  to see herself seeing through the longterm commitment to that child. It is a very, very sad choice.

    As a society we need to grow up. If we had a rational, adult, sensible scientifically-based policy toward sexuality and birth control, we wouldn't have this trouble with abortion. Because from the teenage years on, people would be acting more sensibly. (You look up statistics for Europe, especially Scandinavia, where they are much more forthright about all this: they have fewer abortions, fewer unwanted pregancies, very little STDs and so on.)

    Also, there really is a solution now: RU486, the morning after pill, was approved by the FDA within the last two years (I think) but in this repressive climate, they won't bring it to market. It prevents implantation. It completely removes the need for the abortion debate. It changes the debate to one about whether people should just be having sex for pleasure. That is what some members of the right wing are really afraid of. (I believe that a group Santorum is associated with wants sex for procreation only. I would advocate they follow the Shaker tradition--no sex at all.)

    The right wing is anti-sexual. What they really seem to fear is people enjoying their god-given sexuality. At the same time, they seem as a group to be completely obsessed with it.

    The corporate media are destroying progressive Democrats. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party.

    by lecsmith on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:49:44 PM PDT

    •  Pro-Choice (none / 1)

      Yes! That is very well said.

      Either extreme collapses into a reductio absurdum. If someone really believes a woman has a right to terminate any pregnancy, anytime, anywhere, it amounts to arguing abortion is fine until delivery. Alternatively, if one really believes that abortion should be prohibited from the moment of conception, then we might as well execute men for masturbation.

      RU 486 gives us the chance to make much of the abortion debate irrelevant. I think that is why the right fears it so much. Nobody will every be able to convince me that a blastocyst deserves constitutional protection and yet no one will be able to convince me that an 8 month fetus is not human.

      I still come down pro-choice. But since I value life, humand non-human, I can't not value potential human life either.

      by cspoirot on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:58:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Misconceptions (none / 0)

      RU-486 (AKA Mifeprex) is not the Morning After Pill (AKA Emergency Contraception). The deliberate blurring of the very great difference between the two by anti-choice factions is very harmful to the public debate on issues related to both contraception and abortion.

      Mifeprex is a progesterone-blocking steroid used for the abortion of a still early but already well established pregnancy.  It was approved by the FDA for that sole purpose in 2001, and to date, Mifeprex is the only drug approved by the FDA that cannot be purchased or dispensed except by doctors who meet a strict set of criteria.  

      Emergency Contraception is a specific dosage of the same hormones used in all brands of plain old birth control pills.  The most common formulation, marketed as Plan B, is usually effective in preventing pregnancy up to 120 hours after unprotected sex, and is already sold over the counter in several states. The FDA is currently stalling on its long overdue decision regarding the approval of OTC sale nationally.

      But unfortunately, neither "removes the need for the abortion debate," nor ever will.

      by moiv on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:29:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is just LABELING (none / 0)

    Ask any pro-life republicans if they want to make abortion illegal and they will say NO.

    Reublicans just want to label democrats as pro-abortion which in reality nobody is for abortion.

    We should have challenge Bush to clarify why he calls himself pro-life when even he does not want abortion made illegal.

    Fact check Obama spins on Hillary http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

    by timber on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:50:32 PM PDT

  •  Dear Yall, (none / 1)

    In order to become the majority party again, we don't have to change our views at all.

    But we DO have to make our selves come off as more centrist.  Repeat:  We dont have to be centrists, but we have to appear that way.

    Thats how the GOP got where it is...they are waaay out there on the right.  But as demonstrated by the last election, to many many people in middle america, the GOP is the centrist.

    Maybe its because Bush doesnt talk in complete sentences, go figure....  but thats what I think Dean is trying to do. Mold our image. Because if we need anything, its PR work.

    by Nirvana3240 on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:00:01 PM PDT

  •  Howie (4.00 / 2)

    When I hear "Howie," I don't think of Howard Dean; I think of Howard Kurtz.  That's probably because of Atrios.

    by dtj on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:21:50 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps (none / 1)

    Because people trust Dean, and therefore allow him leeway in  language that they wouldn't for someone they don't trust.

    by ElitistJohn on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 09:14:37 PM PDT

  •  Actually (none / 1)

    I'll take bets on how long it takes to see the first "Howard Dean sold us out" diary here on dKos :)

    technology. politics. culture. life. dimensionsix dot net.
    "the christian right is neither." -- moby

    by storm2k on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 11:16:12 PM PDT

Permalink | 61 comments