"our Primary guns are trained on Kerry."
Careful, Aziz. Yes, you're competing with Kerry for votes right now, but don't make more of it than it is. Try and follow Reagan's 11th Commandment, and avoid speaking ill of a fellow Democrat.
You can do it while making the same points you are making. Just think carefully as you write, and remember the Kerry people are, at heart, friends.
Dana - I think we are saying exactly the same thing, if you read the rest of the post beyond that phrase...
I'm not going to make any apologies for lambasting Kerry's hypocrisy, not to mention his desperate, shameless co-opting of anti-war rhetoric. Yes, the GOP is skilled at character assasination, but Kerry brought this upon himself. Just because the Republicans are adept at going negative doesn't mean we should take it easy on Democratic candidates who seem incapable of being consistent. Being a leader means taking a principled stand and sticking to it. If Kerry can't do that, I think serious Democrats have a responsibilty to express their dissatisfaction, even if it might give the Tom Delays of the world ammunition.
Dear LL:
I think the point is that we're seening an organized attempt by the Chickenhawk club to make any criticism of the President and the conduct of the war off limits. Smart more on their part, since the build-up to the war has been a disaster, and the "peace" that follows the war is likely to be equally problematic.
Kerry made the right assertion that it will require a new president to mend fences with Europe. The Europeans are intensely uncomfortable with Bush.
On another note - you have to hand it to Kerry's campaign manager who fired back saying that, unlike his critics, Kerry wore the uniform and served in combat with distinction - so we would rather just skip the debate of who is more patriotic.
My feeling is that Kerry's campaign is hoping that the Chickenhawks continue to attack him so he can expose their brazen hypocrisy. Perhaps we'll even get a chance to see the new movie "Chickenhawk Down"?
I'm pulling for Dean (both morally and with my money) but I can live with Kerry as the Democratic candidate.
sz
SZ,
The problem isn't what Kerry said as much as the artificiality with which he's been delivering his pronouncements lately. I was under the impression that we wanted a candidate who not only speaks truth to power, but does it consistently...and with sincerity.
The Europeans may be uncomfortable with Bush, but Europeans don't attend caucus meetings in Iowa. They don't vote in New Hampshire. Democrats do, and they'd better figure out whether they want a candidate they can believe in or one they can simply "live with."
LL, I dont disagree with your assessment. And I saw your post as poking good fun. Im not really addressing my post to you specifically, but i was talking about the general tone of increasing hostility towards Kerry that I have seen slowly building as Dean gains in the polls. We need to be very careful.
If you felt like I was targeting/critiquing you, I apolgise 
I dont think you have anything to apologise for.
Thank you so much Aziz for writing what I think many of us have been thinking.
We - as Dean supporters - are "against" Kerry for the moment. There's nothing wrong with that. But we have a larger duty as liberals and progressives to not demonize the people who may wind up as OUR candidate come 11/04.
What we've all got to ask ourselves is, "is John Kerry a bad guy?" Clearly the answer is no - especially not when he's stacked up against Bush! Has he been waffling a bit? Yes. Has his position been nuanced, if not downright adjusted? Yes. Does this make him unworthy of our support should he be the Democratic candidate against Team W? NO!!!
Mind you, this is all coming from someone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Even then, though, I looked at my state (New Jersey), saw we were solidly in the Gore column, and went ahead and voted guilt free. However, there were a few states (Florida included) where I knew - well before November - I would not have sacrificed the power of my vote for hardline principle.
So to the people who would like to beat Kerry over the head every chance they get, my message is this: calm down, focus on the GOP, and come November '04, be prepared to hold your nose to BEAT BUSH. Let's face facts - even Lieberman would be better for America right now.
Okay - that's quite enough soapboxing for me...
Aziz,
No worries. I think you made a valid point and I acknowledge the dangers inherent in Democratic infighting.
I'm not sure that I agree with your argument that there is a "general tone of increasing hostility towards Kerry." I see it more as an increasing willingness on the part of many Dean supporters to openly challenge Kerry's oft-repeated assertion that he's the most electable Democratic candidate.
John Kerry is a good man. He served his country in Vietnam. He has been a friend to those of us who work in the affordable housing/economic development community. But he is not, in my opinion, the best candidate for president, and I will make that point again and again. I don't think that's hostility...I think it's truth-telling.
There will probably be at least nine people on the stage when the Democratic candidates hold their first debate. No candidate will be able to win the nomination if they focus exclusively on Bush. This is politics. Feelings will be hurt and egos will be bruised, but this is a utilitarian game and we must keep our eyes on the prize.
I'm going to speak frankly here: there are a lot of Dean supporters who think his appeal is so self-evident that he never has to say a word about another Democrat to win the nomination. That's not the way it works (remember Bill Bradley?)
I agree with all of you ... especially Scott Shields.
We have two lessons to take from this:
1. Kerry was waffling and this is not what we want and the Kerry campaign *must* realize that Democrats *demand* a leader who will stand up and say what is right no matter whether it is currently popular in the polls. I personally chose Dean because this is not something he needs to learn, rather it comes naturally. Dean is the winner and that's why I'm supporting him.
2. All Democrats and that includes Dean and Edwards as well as there supporters need to rally around and retort the DeLay's and the chickenhawks when they imply that criticism of the president in war time is unpatriotic. It is not and I find it absolutely astonishing that they would criticize Kerry, a vietname combat veteran, for criticizing the president when many of them, including DeLay and Rumsfield did the same thing to Clinton over Kosovo.
In the end I think we are all saying the same thing only emphasizing different points. In my mind #2 is the more important lesson, but #1 is still very valid.
OOPS - that was supposed to be sad-face smile, not angry-face, in my post above...
LL,
There's a lot of truth to your Bradley comparison. But the thing is, I don't really know that Gore won because he was more mean - which he was. Rather, I think it was because A) McCain hogged independent support in New Hampshire's open primary, and B) as the sitting vice-president, Gore was the virtual incumbent.
Remember how much flak Gore took from the pundits in the general election for being too negative? Many of those critics cited his treatment of Bradley in the primaries. Not only did that turn a lot of people off to Gore very early on, but it also set the tone of the media's coverage of Gore from that point on.
The last thing we need is the media adopting a "Dean's a jerk" party line like they did with Gore. But you're right - we do need to make sure our man is easily distinguished from the rest of the pack as the candidate with the most promising message.
And Adam - you're absolutely right about your point #2. Which makes me wonder, why can't the Dems gang up on DeLay the same way the GOP goes after Daschle and Kerry over every little comment?
I don't think anything I've advocated in my posts would lead people to conlcude that Dean the candidate is a jerk. The main point I'm trying to make is that Dean supporters should focus their energies on supporting Dean, and not on being apologists for Kerry. I'm not ready to view Dean as the "How Kerry got his groove back" candidate quite yet. I'll do that if and only if Kerry wins the nomination and Dean endorses him. That's a long way off, and, hopefully, it will be the other way around.
Sorry for the double posting...wait, no I'm not. That would be waffling... 
Excellent post, Aziz!
At least in Washington State, many of the ways a person can support Dean are beneficial for whichever candidate wins the primary. If Dean supporters start attending the weekly Democratic Party district meetings and volunteering to become Precinct Committee Officers and canvas their neighborhood and make sure everyone is registered to vote - well, it helps us all.
HA! Well LL, I'm glad you're consistent and not waffling on your points. Maybe you want to jump in the race, too?
I just want to point out that in no way am I saying that anything you advocate would legitimately make Dean look like a jerk. I'm just saying that the media are endlessly in pursuit of the juicy story of intrigue and conflict, and more than willing to create one where there is none. And as such, the Dean camp has to be careful not to give them too much ammo by focusing more attention on the other candidates than on the GOP opponent. That's where I think Gore got in trouble in 2000.
The primary process should really be decided on two criteria - who makes the best case positively for his/her own presidency and who makes the best case that bush shouldn't be president. I really don't think it should be about who can make the other candidates look the worst.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain547730.shtml
CBS's story of the topic with some comments from dean.
"...
After speaking to the New York State United Teachers convention in Washington Friday morning, one of Kerry's Democratic rivals, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, said he probably would not have used the words that Kerry did, but, "I have not criticized Senator Kerry for that, nor am I going to.
"It certainly would be unusual for me to line up with Tom DeLay, and I don't intend to start now," said Dean, who in recent weeks has assailed Kerry, suggesting that the lawmaker has waffled on the issue of the war.
..."
I agree that the Dems need to work together more on damage control in order to look united. I have never viewed Dean or Kerry as personally attacking each other. To my knowledge, Dean has always acknowledged when he is wrong (Cali + Edwards) and apologized for it. Although strong in rhetoric at times, I view his crititism as constructive and his questions are ones that everyone wants to ask. I don't think he has ever wavered. The problem lies also in the media sound bites and coverage. Out of context, the sound bites can seem mean. But, this party right now is fighting for its life and the White House. The tough questions must be addressed now and not after another election is lost.
I have nothing against Kerry, but he needs to start looking more consistent and unapologitic for his stance. By standing on the fence and wavering so much, he is either going to fall on the wrong side or end up severely racking himself.
If Kerry has made any direct negative comments to Dean, I haven't heard or read it except from his campaign people. If Kerry happens to win the nomination from Dean, Dean's presence at the very least would have strengthened Kerry's chances against Bush.
If Kerry wins the nomination, I wouldn't have any hesistation in supporting him. Of course, that would be a big "if" since Dean is going to win this since we, him, & his campaign will continue to work hard for this.
-pfb
-Bush made me register. Dean gave me hope.-
Yeah, I suppose we shouldn't be too harsh on Lurch Kerry (apologies to the late Ted Cassidy). However, a Kerry candidacy would be to the Democratic party what the Dole candidacy was to the Republicans in 1996: a reward to an uninspiring team-player who has no chance of winning. Also, Kerry's condescending attitude toward the Dean campaign sure doesn't endear him to me.
Anyone know if those quote is accurate?
Dean campaign director Joe Trippi called "Kerry's position 'flabbergasting' and an obvious bid to court anti-war voters … 'How do you say things like that when you voted to give [Bush] a blank check for war?'"
It's from the NY Post (via The Note), so it might not be. But if it is, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. The candidates had better learn to close ranks and defend anyone whose patriotism is attacked. And I mean ACTIVELY defend, not say "poor choice of words" or "no comment" or "why did he vote for a blank check?". If Kerry the war hero can be attacked for his patriotism then Dean is doubly vulnerable.
To volunteer for Dean I had to overcome the nagging fear that he was more likely to play spoiler for Kerry--my clear second place choice--than to win. This has raised all those doubts again.
I agree completely Katherine. Hopefully, we'll have some time to talk with campaign staff tomorrow and let them know how we feel as well as convince them of the absolute *necessity* to stand together against this barrage of right wing demonizing.
Katherine, I'm looking for that quote in the NY post blurb, but I can't find it?? Do you have a link?
I got it from the Note. Maybe they deleted it for inaccuracy? I hope, I hope. Hold on, let me see what I can find....
p.s. Can't make it this weekend. I have an oral argument Tuesday and need to do a ridiculous amount of preparation to guard against brain freeze.
Here's the link:
http://www.nypost.com/news/natio...lnews/
56193.htm
Here's why this bothers me so much: I think Kerry was very wrong to vote for the resolution, but that battle has been lost. We need to prevent the NEXT war--which may come before 2004--and to do that the rare Democrats willing to risk criticizing the president need to stand together. Maybe Kerry's initial comment was motivated by Dean's growing support--I don't care; if Dean is able to pull other candidates in the right direction so much the better.
How many times has the Kerry campaign "closed ranks" to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dean campaign? There's a difference between being willing to criticize the President no matter what the polls say and being willing to criticize the President because your rival is climbing in those same polls.
In any case, Dean has basically said that he doesn't diagree with what Kerry said but that he wouldn't have used the same words. What else do you want him to do? Lie?
Look, 2004 is going to be a street fight. It's going to be ugly. The Republicans don't just want to win; they want to end us.
Kerry voted to let the President waged war. It mattered then and it matters now. And it will matter in 2004. This isn't about defending his right to criticize the President; he has that right and we all know it. This isn't about his right to speak out against the manner in which the war is being conducted without being labeled unpatriotic; he has that right and we all know it. This is about his credibility. This is about being the total package. And he is not it. Howard Dean is. And the Dean campaign needs to devote every last ounce of energy to making sure America knows that Howard Dean is the best bet to take back the White House.
Joe Trippi doesn't work for John Kerry. It's not Joe Trippi's job to make sure John Kerry is a viable candidate should Kerry happen to defeat Dean in the primaries. If we start playing that game of wimp-out, we might as well just start looking at 2008.
Forget Kerry he is a sore loser,Dean is are only hope!Dean has the backbone to take on Bush and beat him.GO HOWARD DEAN
Just for the record, on February 25 -- Tom DeLay "unleashed a tirade against former Governor Howard Dean" for his opposition against the war.
This was before the war had begun. When we needed people to listen -- and take a stand.
During the period since then the Kerry campaign has defended Howard Dean with such choice quotes from Jim Jordan such as "hopelessly incoherent" and "not a serious candidate."
I will defend to the hilt Kerry's right to say what he said -- But I will continue to point out -- that having voted for the war -- and having lost his lead in NH -- it gives me pause to now see him shift once again -- even if it is to a position his campaign staff has said does not represent the view of a serious candidate and is hopelessly incoherent.
I want to take my country back and I firmly believe that Howard Dean will do that.
Mr. Trippi is absolutely right. Mr. Jordan had no problem joining up with Delay in bashing Dean for giving the U.N. "veto power" over U.S. national security. Kerry's campaign acted in tandem with the right-wing attack machine in an attempt to marginalize Dr. Dean by so shamelessly distorting his postion on Iraq--that he would be willing to wage war, even unilaterally, if it posed an imminent security threat to the U.S.
The Dean camp is perfectly entitled to highlight Senator Kerry's flip-flop on attacking Bush. It's so obvious that Dean's rising poll numbers in NH have Kerry worried, hence the red-meat "regime change" remark. Trippi's line of attack that cites hypocrisy and blatant politcal posturing is different than the right-wing charge of being unpatriotic, also meaning that 'I wore the uniform' is not sufficient to deflect Trippi's criticism.
Given that the Kerry camp is hostile to Dean's anti-war postion, that Kerry does not have a clear position on the war, and that Kerry is now flip-flopping to appeal to anti-war voters after having voted to give Bush a blank check, Senator Kerry has brought this on himself.
Joe Trippi: I would not disagree with what you've said at all.
However, I would *add* that it would be best for all involved if Howard Dean and John Edwards and *all* of the potential Democratic ticket would close ranks and make absolutely clear that these Republican attacks at demonizing those that speak out against the war are *wrong* in the strongest possible terms.
It is true that Kerry has waffled and has broken his pledge, but the conclusion that DeLay and the rest of the chickenhawks would like everyone to reach is that any criticism of the president during war time (they'd probably say *any* time if they could get away with it is unpatriotic. We can not concede this point to them or allow them to suggest anything of the sort.
BTW, I just wanted to say how amazing and confidence inspiring it is to see Joe Trippi and in this discussion and actively communicating with with volunteer base!
I love to see this and I am so happy that the Dean campaign is truly about the people. I can't tell you how exciting it is to be involved in such a truly grassroots movement to take our country back! This is so energizing 
Adam -- thanks.
I started out as a $15 dollar a day quasi-volunteer organizier in my first presidential campaign. I have a deep and abiding committment to grassroots organizing -- and its power to really change things that need to be changed. But Governor Dean is right -- you have so much power than I ever did as an organizer -- because of the tools you have. The net, email, even cell phones.
I don't have a ton of time to read as much of these boards as I would like -- and I may forget to answer emails etc when I am underwater. It always kind of irks me that by the time I get around to posting -- it often turns out I am the last post on the thread and people have stopped reading.
But I will say this as a last thought on this subject.
Their are those who wonder if we are a spoiler in terms of John Kerry Why? Because he has the most money?
I think in the end -- the question may well be is Kerry a spoiler in terms of Howard Dean.
We will defeat George W. Bush -- but only if turnout is at record proportions -- only if we give people a real reason to vote -- only if we stand for what we beleive in and are unafraid to make our case.
There is only one candidate who proves everyday that he is up to that task.
And his name is Howard Dean.
Thanks again for spreading the word -- for building a grassroots orgnization like none other (which is what we are all doing) and for helping to deliver a message that Howard Dean is going to be competitive when it comes to money and resources.
John Kerry's campaign sees our growing strength and they are worried.
I am not concerned by that -- it just makes me want to redouble our efforts to build the largest volunteer based organization in the history of American politics. We can only do it with you.
I'm split. Ideologically, I support Dean. All the same, it's obvious that a governor without a national voting record is of course going to look "purer" than anyone who has had to play ball in the senate. That's my concern with Dean--can he get anything accomplished before a Republican congress? While the same question applies equally to Kerry, Kerry has the relationships in congress to play ball. He may look like a compromised candidate, but he may also be the one who can actually solicit the votes (in the congress) needed to change things.
Thoughts?
In response to JWC's thoughtful comments: It's true that Dean is an
outsider as far as congrerssional service is concerned. It is also true that there were many Democrats and a few Republicans who voted against the war resolution - Nancy Pelosi and 60% of the house Democrates voted against it. So did Senators like Kenendy, Wellstone and Byrd. I think that in the long run sticking to your own internal compass works. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, perhaps influenced by his friend the late Senator Wellstone, said that he would vote the other way (against the war resolution) if he had to do it over. Dean will have to make some compromises and hed will make mistakes. But he has an internal steadfastness and authenticity which we badly need.
Kerry Is worried about Dean. Dean Is
now tied with him In New Hampherse.
If Dean wins there,and In Iowya It
could be disasteras for him. Well
Kerry should have thought about the
2004 election when he voted to give
Bush the authority to do whatever he
wants In Iraq.
Joe Tripppi said (upthread):
"Their are those who wonder if we are a spoiler in terms of John Kerry Why? Because he has the most money?
I think in the end -- the question may well be is Kerry a spoiler in terms of Howard Dean. "
I think a more apt analogy might be that John Kerry id Ed Muskie in 1972 -- trailing money and endorsements as he takes the party apparatus over the cliff. And our guy is, well, obviously, George McGovern.
Except THIS time, we're going to win all of it, not just the nomination.