Dean ='s McCarthy?

Supercharts · 29th December 2003, 06:08 PM

Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy.
Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me.

aerocontrols · 29th December 2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Supercharts
Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy.
Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me.

It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so.

That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination.

And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner.

Oh, well.

MattJ

sorry the link is to the New York Times

boomer6 · 29th December 2003, 06:22 PM

I agree. They are running around like a pack of mad dogs. Doing and saying some really stupid things. oh well!

Better for the country that THEY are not in power right now.

Troll · 29th December 2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols

It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so.

That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination.

And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner.

Oh, well.

MattJ

sorry the link is to the New York Times

So let me get this straight. Dean wants others to basically back out so he can win. He says if they don't and another name is on the ballot that his supporters will stay home in protest, basically ensuring the frontrunner doesn't win?

Mike B. · 29th December 2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols

It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so.

That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination.

And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner.

Oh, well.

MattJ

sorry the link is to the New York Times

What the heck does he think Karl Rove and Bush are going to be like next year? If he thinks Gephart, Kerry, etc. are being mean (I don't think they are) wait till next year?

Or as Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen."

aerocontrols · 29th December 2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll

So let me get this straight. Dean wants others to basically back out so he can win. He says if they don't and another name is on the ballot that his supporters will stay home in protest, basically ensuring the frontrunner doesn't win?

That's not exactly how I would frame it. He doesn't want the other Dems to back out ('basically back out' as you have said may be accurate enough)

If you have a NYTimes username, you can read a more complete article here.

If you read the article, you'll see that Dean says that if Ron Brown (Gore's choice) had been chosen as the chairman of the DNC, then "This wouldn't be happening." For those unfamiliar with American politics, this is a shot across the bow of the Clintons. Dean and Gore seem to think they can get Clintons people out of power in the DNC and put their own people in, and want to make sure to do so if Dean wins the nomination, (something Gore was unable to do) whether Dean wins the general election or not.

For those of us who want to see the Democrats eventually get their act together, getting McAuliffe out is certainly one of the things that seems to need doing.

A side note:

Does Dean really use the royal 'we' when speaking?

Quote:

"What I'm saying is I think we're the best and most capable candidate of beating George Bush because we're the only one that is exciting the party," he said.

Weird

29th December 2003, 08:50 PM

The power battle between Gore and Clinton confuses the heck out of me.

Clinton: Won two terms; defeated a sitting president that at one time had a huge approval rating from a largely popular war; had a sex act performed on him in the oval office and somehow wound up getting the leader of the impeachment effort (Gingrich) put into political exile

Gore: Lost an election to someone that makes Dan Quayle look reasonable; somehow managed to look like an unforgivable idiot over 1) remarks over his sponsership of early internet legislative support and 2) relating a story told to him by a college friend about an old movie.

One of these two is likely the greatest politician (with all the ups and downs attatched to that word) of the modern era, while the other hasn't done much right since he managed to get born rich.

So, who do you think should be guiding the party's future?

aerocontrols · 29th December 2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly
So, who do you think should be guiding the party's future?

To be fair to Gore, Clinton was not much good for the Democratic party if being in power is an important consideration. And since Gore and Clinton have been gone, Clinton's man McAuliffe has been awful for the party.

The Dems have lost power in the House, the Senate, governorships, state legislatures, the courts, etc.

In short, if I was a Democrat, I would probably support Bill Clinton for leadership of the party if he was running or if Hillary was. But she's not running. He can't run. And McAuliffe is bad news for Democratic chances, and it should be obvious by now that he was a poor choice for head of the DNC.

If Dean wins the nomination, McAuliffe is going to be torn between spending a bunch of DNC money trying (fruitlessly, I think) to get Dean elected and spending that money trying to recapture (also likely fruitlessly, but perhaps not) a chunk of the legislature.

Either way the Dean camp will say that McAuliffe (or the Democratic Establishment) didn't give enough support.

Or perhaps Dean will win, in which case McAuliffe will be out and the Clintons will no longer have much sway in the Democratic party.

Or perhaps someone else will capture the nomination, and Dean won't make too much of a fuss. In this case, I think that McAuliffe holds on to the DNC chair, mostly because he's such a good fundraiser. (a talent Dean doesn't require from him)

MattJ

Judith · 30th December 2003, 11:16 AM

I heard Dean made some comment about how Bush did something wrong about mad cow. That made me cringe. pathetic.
All this attack politics is anything to distance themselves from anyone, to stand out - bllech.
And those bickering democrats! It's sad to see people who probably generally agree on things trod over whatever they can with their desire for power. Who knows if they have beliefs any more.
I hope they get their act together.

Luke T. · 30th December 2003, 11:27 AM

I remember McCain and Bush bashing each other, so neither party is immune.

There is a theory floating around that certain Dems want to lose the 2004 election to give Hillary Clinton a better shot at the presidency in 2008. For what it's worth. If McAuliffe is the Clintons' man, then that might make sense.

But if they screw up so badly they lose a lot of seats in the Congress, they may be in quite a fight in 2008, too.

Bill Clinton, no matter how you feel about him, was a political genius and the real powerhouse of the Democratic Party. His remoteness now may explain their difficulties. The prime mover is gone.

Dean has earned a reputation with the media as a hothead. That won't bode well for him. I think he won't do as well in the primaries as some people think. He may be all washed up by March.

Samus · 30th December 2003, 12:12 PM

I, unfortunately, think that Dean will win the Democratic nomination. I hope I'm proven wrong, but he has a lot of momentum and he gets a lot of press. Certain News Networks definitely seem to prefer discussing Dean.

I do not think Dean has a chance of defeating Bush unless he tempers his message a lot. While chastising Bush's every move might make Democratic party loyalists feel good, it won't win over the masses and he won't win the general election. Besides being not Bush, I don't know what Dean really stands for and what he wants. The "I'm not Bush" technique doesn't fly given that there are several other very good candidates for the Democratic nomination (Clark, Edwards, and Kerry).

I'm a registered Republican in a state with closed primaries (New York), so in theory, none of this matters to me anyway. But I really like Wes Clark, for some of the same reasons I campaigned for McCain in 2000. The only thing Clark has said that made me wary was that he thought H. Clinton would make a good VP (yikes!)

I was also surprised at Dean's jab at McAuliffe. Unless you really think you have the nod sealed up, then you probably shouldn't publicly denounce the chairman of your party. I think it was bad form on his part, even though the DNC has arguably not done much for themselves in the past few years. But again, the Republicans have a fairly popular president in the white house (all things considered), which is a blow to the DNC. With our military engagements abroad still producing newsworthy stories (i.e. capture of Saddam), and the economy showing signs of improvement, they lack a single issue to really grab on to.

Jocko · 30th December 2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Commander Cool

I'm a registered Republican in a state with closed primaries (New York), so in theory, none of this matters to me anyway. But I really like Wes Clark, for some of the same reasons I campaigned for McCain in 2000. The only thing Clark has said that made me wary was that he thought H. Clinton would make a good VP (yikes!)

I too was a strong supporter of McCain in 2000, but I think comparing him to Clark is problematic. For instance, did McCain jump parties just so he had a clear shot an a nomination (any nomination)? No, he stood by his roots and fought the good fight and took defeat with grace and poise.

Moreso than I did, that is. I wrote him in anyway.

Clark mentioning Hillary as a VP possibility sounds a lot to me like someone trying the secret password to get into a clubhouse he's never been to. Military suck-ups have never had much success in politics with the arguable exception of Colin Powell.

Jocko · 30th December 2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
I remember McCain and Bush bashing each other, so neither party is immune.

Yeah, but while that was an interesting one-on-one boxing match, the 9 dems going at it reminds me more of a game of grabass than it does a game of chess.

Quote:

There is a theory floating around that certain Dems want to lose the 2004 election to give Hillary Clinton a better shot at the presidency in 2008. For what it's worth. If McAuliffe is the Clintons' man, then that might make sense.

You know, if we were talking about anyone else I would say that's a crazy theory. Who would do such a thing just for the sake of personal ego at the expense of the party and - supposedly - one's own principles? But then I remember who we ARE talking about, and I gotta admit it's not that far-fetched.

Quote:

Bill Clinton, no matter how you feel about him, was a political genius and the real powerhouse of the Democratic Party. His remoteness now may explain their difficulties. The prime mover is gone.

Or just hibernating? You know, like the 17-year locust?

Quote:

Dean has earned a reputation with the media as a hothead. That won't bode well for him. I think he won't do as well in the primaries as some people think. He may be all washed up by March.

I'm not so sure... being a hothead can play well with the anti-media crowd. Look at John McCain (my personal political hero) and his comments to Maria Shriver backstage. A lot of people cheered him for "putting her in her place." His well-known temper was a benefit as the upstart.

Dean, on the other hand, comes across as less the "Outraged man of principle" that McCain played so well; he seems to me like more of a loudmouthed jackass. No moral foundation for the outbursts, as far as I can tell, and even McCain decided to apologize once in a while when he was out of line. Dean has shown no such humilty, and that's not the kind of thing you can learn at his age.

I think Dean will wait until after the primary to self-destruct and we can look forward to four years of Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt yelling "I told you so" on Sunday morning news shows.

Edited to add: One thing McCain never apologized for was telling Falwell & company to go screw themselves on national TV, and on their own turf. I never thought I'd live to see a real Republican contender say what most people already think. That was a true gesture of courage on his part, because there was a price to be paid. He knew it, he paid it, and the words remained said.

Supercharts · 30th December 2003, 04:10 PM

Mr. Dean is becoming "unglued"
Statements attributed to him do not have the "ring of truth".
I never imagined Vermont had "cowboys".
This Dude is D.O.A. come February.
Bless your lucky stars John Kerry!

Supercharts · 30th December 2003, 06:15 PM

"Most of all, Bush's camp is delighted to let the Democrats hammer each other on the campaign trail. In particular, candidates Wesley Clark (news - web sites) and Sens. John Kerry (news - web sites), John Edwards and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) are attacking with increasing ferocity former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites) — the man many Bush political aides expect to face in the general election next year."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_elections
Edit: Underline is mine...

Jocko · 31st December 2003, 11:58 PM

It appears I may have been wrong about Dean waiting till the general election to implode in a supernova of sputtering rage.

Dean's a tad confused about Kerry's record

Seems he's made hay (pun indended) about Kerry's failure to support farm flood relief after the big deluge of '93. Obviously a hot issue with the Iowa caucuses only 3 weeks away. Only problem is, it's not true. Ol' shoot-from-the-hip Dean just put a slug in his own foot.

Quote:

"Bill Bradley opposed important flood relief that would have made a world of difference to farmers like me. Now, four years later, we again have a Democrat U.S. senator from an industrial state running for president in Iowa who voted against the very same flood relief legislation that would have benefited rural Iowans," Peterson said in a written statement.

But Kerry's camp is fighting back, and accusing Dean of smear tactics. Kerry, in fact, did vote for the flood relief that Bradley opposed. The proof is on the Web site of recorded votes that Congress operates.

Come on, Dean, hold it together for a few more months. Don't let this election get boring, please. Perot's not running this year and we need to have at least one psycho in the mix.

(Bush bashers feel free to extend the psycho label to the GOP, fair's fair after all)

Supercharts · 6th January 2004, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Supercharts
Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy.
Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me.

Ok, I posted this on 12/29.
In this weeks Time and Newsweek mags both run cover stories on Dean. Both stories deal with his personality - his shoot-from-the-hip quotes, his temperment, his anger, his backtracking etc.
Golly, am I good or what?

29th December 2003, 06:08 PM	#1
Supercharts Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,185	Dean ='s McCarthy? Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy. Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me.

29th December 2003, 06:22 PM	#2
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Re: Dean ='s McCarthy? Quote: Originally posted by Supercharts Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy. Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me. It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so. That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination. And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner. Oh, well. MattJ sorry the link is to the New York Times
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

29th December 2003, 06:22 PM	#3
boomer6 Student Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 34	I agree. They are running around like a pack of mad dogs. Doing and saying some really stupid things. oh well! Better for the country that THEY are not in power right now.
boomer6 Student Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 34

29th December 2003, 06:38 PM	#4
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Re: Re: Dean ='s McCarthy? Quote: Originally posted by aerocontrols It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so. That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination. And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner. Oh, well. MattJ sorry the link is to the New York Times So let me get this straight. Dean wants others to basically back out so he can win. He says if they don't and another name is on the ballot that his supporters will stay home in protest, basically ensuring the frontrunner doesn't win?
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

29th December 2003, 06:57 PM	#5
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186	Re: Re: Dean ='s McCarthy? Quote: Originally posted by aerocontrols It's not so amusing to me. I hope Bush wins again, but I would much rather see him win against a well-organized, professional opposition party than a chaotic bunch of losers who can't get their act together. It would be much better for the country if the Dems could do so. That having been said, Dean's recent complaints that the Dems are attacking him too much and Terry McAuliffe hasn't reigned them in are just bizarre. We still haven't had the first primary election. Just because he's the frontrunner in December doesn't mean he is 'owed' the nomination. And his veiled threats to take his supporters and go home strike me as unhelpfully childish at this point. They don't even make logical sense coming from such a strong frontrunner. Oh, well. MattJ sorry the link is to the New York Times What the heck does he think Karl Rove and Bush are going to be like next year? If he thinks Gephart, Kerry, etc. are being mean (I don't think they are) wait till next year? Or as Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen."
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186

29th December 2003, 07:01 PM	#6
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Quote: Originally posted by Troll So let me get this straight. Dean wants others to basically back out so he can win. He says if they don't and another name is on the ballot that his supporters will stay home in protest, basically ensuring the frontrunner doesn't win? That's not exactly how I would frame it. He doesn't want the other Dems to back out ('basically back out' as you have said may be accurate enough) If you have a NYTimes username, you can read a more complete article here. If you read the article, you'll see that Dean says that if Ron Brown (Gore's choice) had been chosen as the chairman of the DNC, then "This wouldn't be happening." For those unfamiliar with American politics, this is a shot across the bow of the Clintons. Dean and Gore seem to think they can get Clintons people out of power in the DNC and put their own people in, and want to make sure to do so if Dean wins the nomination, (something Gore was unable to do) whether Dean wins the general election or not. For those of us who want to see the Democrats eventually get their act together, getting McAuliffe out is certainly one of the things that seems to need doing. A side note: Does Dean really use the royal 'we' when speaking? Quote: "What I'm saying is I think we're the best and most capable candidate of beating George Bush because we're the only one that is exciting the party," he said. Weird
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

29th December 2003, 08:50 PM	#7
Suddenly Guest Posts: n/a	The power battle between Gore and Clinton confuses the heck out of me. Clinton: Won two terms; defeated a sitting president that at one time had a huge approval rating from a largely popular war; had a sex act performed on him in the oval office and somehow wound up getting the leader of the impeachment effort (Gingrich) put into political exile Gore: Lost an election to someone that makes Dan Quayle look reasonable; somehow managed to look like an unforgivable idiot over 1) remarks over his sponsership of early internet legislative support and 2) relating a story told to him by a college friend about an old movie. One of these two is likely the greatest politician (with all the ups and downs attatched to that word) of the modern era, while the other hasn't done much right since he managed to get born rich. So, who do you think should be guiding the party's future?
Suddenly Guest Posts: n/a

29th December 2003, 09:05 PM	#8
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Quote: Originally posted by Suddenly *So, who do you* think should be guiding the party's future? To be fair to Gore, Clinton was not much good for the Democratic party if being in power is an important consideration. And since Gore and Clinton have been gone, Clinton's man McAuliffe has been awful for the party. The Dems have lost power in the House, the Senate, governorships, state legislatures, the courts, etc. In short, if I was a Democrat, I would probably support Bill Clinton for leadership of the party if he was running or if Hillary was. But she's not running. He can't run. And McAuliffe is bad news** for Democratic chances, and it should be obvious by now that he was a poor choice for head of the DNC. If Dean wins the nomination, McAuliffe is going to be torn between spending a bunch of DNC money trying (fruitlessly, I think) to get Dean elected and spending that money trying to recapture (also likely fruitlessly, but perhaps not) a chunk of the legislature. Either way the Dean camp will say that McAuliffe (or the Democratic Establishment) didn't give enough support. Or perhaps Dean will win, in which case McAuliffe will be out and the Clintons will no longer have much sway in the Democratic party. Or perhaps someone else will capture the nomination, and Dean won't make too much of a fuss. In this case, I think that McAuliffe holds on to the DNC chair, mostly because he's such a good fundraiser. (a talent Dean doesn't require from him) MattJ
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

30th December 2003, 11:16 AM	#9
Judith Scholar Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 52	I heard Dean made some comment about how Bush did something wrong about mad cow. That made me cringe. pathetic. All this attack politics is anything to distance themselves from anyone, to stand out - bllech. And those bickering democrats! It's sad to see people who probably generally agree on things trod over whatever they can with their desire for power. Who knows if they have beliefs any more. I hope they get their act together.
Judith Scholar Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 52

30th December 2003, 11:27 AM	#10
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	I remember McCain and Bush bashing each other, so neither party is immune. There is a theory floating around that certain Dems want to lose the 2004 election to give Hillary Clinton a better shot at the presidency in 2008. For what it's worth. If McAuliffe is the Clintons' man, then that might make sense. But if they screw up so badly they lose a lot of seats in the Congress, they may be in quite a fight in 2008, too. Bill Clinton, no matter how you feel about him, was a political genius and the real powerhouse of the Democratic Party. His remoteness now may explain their difficulties. The prime mover is gone. Dean has earned a reputation with the media as a hothead. That won't bode well for him. I think he won't do as well in the primaries as some people think. He may be all washed up by March.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

30th December 2003, 12:12 PM	#11
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003	I, unfortunately, think that Dean will win the Democratic nomination. I hope I'm proven wrong, but he has a lot of momentum and he gets a lot of press. Certain News Networks definitely seem to prefer discussing Dean. I do not think Dean has a chance of defeating Bush unless he tempers his message a lot. While chastising Bush's every move might make Democratic party loyalists feel good, it won't win over the masses and he won't win the general election. Besides being not Bush, I don't know what Dean really stands for and what he wants. The "I'm not Bush" technique doesn't fly given that there are several other very good candidates for the Democratic nomination (Clark, Edwards, and Kerry). I'm a registered Republican in a state with closed primaries (New York), so in theory, none of this matters to me anyway. But I really like Wes Clark, for some of the same reasons I campaigned for McCain in 2000. The only thing Clark has said that made me wary was that he thought H. Clinton would make a good VP (yikes!) I was also surprised at Dean's jab at McAuliffe. Unless you really think you have the nod sealed up, then you probably shouldn't publicly denounce the chairman of your party. I think it was bad form on his part, even though the DNC has arguably not done much for themselves in the past few years. But again, the Republicans have a fairly popular president in the white house (all things considered), which is a blow to the DNC. With our military engagements abroad still producing newsworthy stories (i.e. capture of Saddam), and the economy showing signs of improvement, they lack a single issue to really grab on to.
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003

30th December 2003, 12:31 PM	#12
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Quote: Originally posted by Commander Cool I'm a registered Republican in a state with closed primaries (New York), so in theory, none of this matters to me anyway. But I really like Wes Clark, for some of the same reasons I campaigned for McCain in 2000. The only thing Clark has said that made me wary was that he thought H. Clinton would make a good VP (yikes!) I too was a strong supporter of McCain in 2000, but I think comparing him to Clark is problematic. For instance, did McCain jump parties just so he had a clear shot an a nomination (any nomination)? No, he stood by his roots and fought the good fight and took defeat with grace and poise. Moreso than I did, that is. I wrote him in anyway. Clark mentioning Hillary as a VP possibility sounds a lot to me like someone trying the secret password to get into a clubhouse he's never been to. Military suck-ups have never had much success in politics with the arguable exception of Colin Powell.
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

30th December 2003, 12:39 PM	#13
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Quote: Originally posted by Luke T. I remember McCain and Bush bashing each other, so neither party is immune. Yeah, but while that was an interesting one-on-one boxing match, the 9 dems going at it reminds me more of a game of grabass than it does a game of chess. Quote: There is a theory floating around that certain Dems want to lose the 2004 election to give Hillary Clinton a better shot at the presidency in 2008. For what it's worth. If McAuliffe is the Clintons' man, then that might make sense. You know, if we were talking about anyone else I would say that's a crazy theory. Who would do such a thing just for the sake of personal ego at the expense of the party and - supposedly - one's own principles? But then I remember who we ARE talking about, and I gotta admit it's not that far-fetched. Quote: Bill Clinton, no matter how you feel about him, was a political genius and the real powerhouse of the Democratic Party. His remoteness now may explain their difficulties. The prime mover is gone. Or just hibernating? You know, like the 17-year locust? Quote: Dean has earned a reputation with the media as a hothead. That won't bode well for him. I think he won't do as well in the primaries as some people think. He may be all washed up by March. I'm not so sure... being a hothead can play well with the anti-media crowd. Look at John McCain (my personal political hero) and his comments to Maria Shriver backstage. A lot of people cheered him for "putting her in her place." His well-known temper was a benefit as the upstart. Dean, on the other hand, comes across as less the "Outraged man of principle" that McCain played so well; he seems to me like more of a loudmouthed jackass. No moral foundation for the outbursts, as far as I can tell, and even McCain decided to apologize once in a while when he was out of line. Dean has shown no such humilty, and that's not the kind of thing you can learn at his age. I think Dean will wait until after the primary to self-destruct and we can look forward to four years of Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt yelling "I told you so" on Sunday morning news shows. Edited to add: One thing McCain never apologized for was telling Falwell & company to go screw themselves on national TV, and on their own turf. I never thought I'd live to see a real Republican contender say what most people already think. That was a true gesture of courage on his part, because there was a price to be paid. He knew it, he paid it, and the words remained said.
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

30th December 2003, 04:10 PM	#14
Supercharts Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,185	Mr. Dean is becoming "unglued" Statements attributed to him do not have the "ring of truth". I never imagined Vermont had "cowboys". This Dude is D.O.A. come February. Bless your lucky stars John Kerry!

30th December 2003, 06:15 PM	#15
Supercharts Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,185	"Most of all, Bush's camp is delighted to let the Democrats hammer each other on the campaign trail. In particular, candidates Wesley Clark (news - web sites) and Sens. John Kerry (news - web sites), John Edwards and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) are attacking with increasing ferocity former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites) — the man many Bush political aides expect to face in the general election next year." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_elections Edit: Underline is mine...

31st December 2003, 11:58 PM	#16
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	It appears I may have been wrong about Dean waiting till the general election to implode in a supernova of sputtering rage. Dean's a tad confused about Kerry's record Seems he's made hay (pun indended) about Kerry's failure to support farm flood relief after the big deluge of '93. Obviously a hot issue with the Iowa caucuses only 3 weeks away. Only problem is, it's not true. Ol' shoot-from-the-hip Dean just put a slug in his own foot. Quote: "Bill Bradley opposed important flood relief that would have made a world of difference to farmers like me. Now, four years later, we again have a Democrat U.S. senator from an industrial state running for president in Iowa who voted against the very same flood relief legislation that would have benefited rural Iowans," Peterson said in a written statement. But Kerry's camp is fighting back, and accusing Dean of smear tactics. Kerry, in fact, did vote for the flood relief that Bradley opposed. The proof is on the Web site of recorded votes that Congress operates. Come on, Dean, hold it together for a few more months. Don't let this election get boring, please. Perot's not running this year and we need to have at least one psycho in the mix. (Bush bashers feel free to extend the psycho label to the GOP, fair's fair after all)
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

6th January 2004, 06:45 PM	#17
Supercharts Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,185	Re: Dean ='s McCarthy? Quote: Originally posted by Supercharts Somehow I keep thinking... Howard Dean ='s Joe McCarthy. Watching the DNC de-construct itself is amusing to me. Ok, I posted this on 12/29. In this weeks Time and Newsweek mags both run cover stories on Dean. Both stories deal with his personality - his shoot-from-the-hip quotes, his temperment, his anger, his backtracking etc. Golly, am I good or what?