You are hearing this here first:
One could easily argue that Howard Dean lost the nomination because of Kucinich.
If not Kucinich, who would Kucinich supporters have voted for? Gephardt? Lieberman? Kerry? Yeah, right.
Clearly Kucinich had no chance for the nomination, and he should have been chased out of the primaries and the debates. What a jerk!
It was incredible when in Iowa, desperate to win a single delegate, he brokered a deal with Edwards to help collectively undo Howard. That was the real thing that caused the S-C-R-E-A-M, that someone like Dennis who pretended to be such a principled actor, could be so full of she-it.
Without that egotist Kucinich, Dean could have definitely won both Washington and Maine, and could well have recovered his momentum.
So I blame Kucinich and all the pompous, self-serving Kucinich people for the ascendancy of Kerry.
Now if Kerry loses to Bush, (and I hope not!), I will blame Kucinich and his stupid followers. Dean was the much stronger candidate, and if they hadn't have followed the pompous prick Kucinich, he would have beat Kerry. And if Dean had won the nominee, Nader wouldn't have run, and with the Nader vote added to the truly Democrat vote, Dean would have definitely beat Bush!
LMAO, at these lines of reasoning. Yes, I was disappointed that people voted on principle for the unelectable candidate, but I sure wasn't going to demonize their guy, or try to tell them who to vote for.
Why are the Democrats pushing these arguments against Nader leaners? Is it a Republican fueled plot to ensure a large 2004 vote?
At best the anti-Nader diatribe will keep the Nader votes home. And by that I mean they won't vote. How on Earth will any of the Nader venom encourage his supporters to embrace Kerry?
Please people, grow Up!