Dean was right to call Kerry silly and I'm glad he did so. Dean did well in questioning the Senators who supported the $350 billion dollar tax cut. Dean is going to get better with the debate format and he is still the candidate to beat Bush. I'd like to see Dean continue with his progressive and authentic challenge to Bush and those who parrot Bush's policies. That said, I also hope (and I'm confident) that Dean will rise above the baiting of the Kerry campaign and others. Dean is only beginning to heat up folks.

This debate was one event in many that have taken place and while we should expect that the campaign will learn from this... we would all do well to remember the many times where Dean has absolutely shined!

This campaign is a first for me and I am learning right along with Governor Dean about just how intense and emotional a national campaign for President can get. This is a marathon and we all need to pace ourselves. In my opinion we (Dean supporters) would all do well to take some of Dean's advice and try to develop some more backbone.
Adam in MA | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 9:57 pm | #

Seems to me that this is a critical and interesting point in the campaign. Before, Dean was an outsider and not expected to contend, and he was "having fun being himself", loose and natural. But now, with serious attention, being called a contender, it might be a case of "uh oh this is big time". Remember Perot? He cracked when he reached this point. Anyway, signs point to Dean behaving a bit differently now. Hopefully he can retain (or get back to) that loose, natural "having fun" attitude.
txh | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:21 pm | #

from the looks of this article, MSNBC has officially crossed into the "Fair and Balanced" mode of reporting. Joe Lieberman, most electable, my foot.

valid point on Dean, though: Dean's strength is his ability to ad lib. I would've liked to have yanked those blasted notes away from him at the first commercial break.
Joe Mariani | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:26 pm | #

-- Smokin Joe Lieberman ---> Howard "Muhammed Ali" Dean?; the only one on the panel who has taken on Hollywood -- wow, what courage...

-- Unlike it seems almost everybody else, I thought Dean looked fairly presidential during his closing remarks; Clinton always had a sheaf of papers in his hands (which he would look down at) when making statements from the Oval Office; the article made it sound like Dean was imitating a 9th grader in speech class, which was the last thing he was doing; the one issue, I think, was that there seemed to be some difficulty with which camera he was supposed to be speaking into -- his right shoulder looked to be a bit further forward than his left (caught in between two cameras?); also, strange that given the silliness statement, Dean (according to the article) somehow forgot his ad-libbing talent (followed statement up with joke about saying nice things about Republicans)

-- on the Q+A, what should have Dean done -- asked about if they knew any good places to eat in Columbia?; these guys deserve to be called out on this stuff -- the media sure isn't going to do it; let the other 8 candidates do Larry King imitations

-- why is the what figures...you're looking at statement snide??

-- agreeing with Adam, calling Kerry silly was right on; Dean has made national health insurance a centerpiece of his campaign and obviously worked his tail off in VT to cover all the kids and over 90% of the adults; he's obviously and rightly proud of his record (and again worked his tail off); lastly, I'm glad to be able to support a candidate that doesn't say -- I believe my learned friend is incorrect on this issue -- as funny as it sounds, Dean is willing to get pissed off -- like a real person

-- Kerry smiled at Dean explosion -- terrific for him; to my mind, if I worked for Kerry I would be more enthusiastic if Dean had not 'exploded' -- our (current) main antagonist is a New England wuss; Dean is supposed to do what, run away from his VT record?
Ian Bellis | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 12:26 am | #

did Dean mean to keep saying "preventive war" or preemptive war"? not that i really know the difference...
IHL | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 3:12 am | #

Ditto about Dean looking down at his notes. I realize that his serious contender status is placing him under new and greater pressure, but that nervous gesture took all the power out of his closing remarks. Those words were inspirational on my computer screen and I looked forward to hearing him speak them aloud with heart, confidence and passion! What a disappointment!
scm | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 6:17 am | #

Joe Trippi had a logical and understandable explaination as to why Howard Dean acted in Saturday's debate the way he did. The problem is that even though the excuses are good,they are also unacceptable in light of the goal we all are trying to obtain: getting Howard Dean elected.

Howard is no stranger to national politics, being president of the Govenors Conference for 2 years. He also had the experience for the Childrens Defense Fund forum, which compared to Saturday, was quite good. I don't think that you can use inexperience as a shield. Howard was unprepared.

Several people have likened this political race to a marithon. I don't view it that way. Howard is at a critical point were he needs the national spotlight to propel his standing among American voters. Any preceptions of weakness of ANY kind will seriously damage that goal.

There is no "down time" left for Howard. For him to win this nomination all the stars will have to be aligned perfectly. On Saturday, a star moved out of place.

Several of the posters seem to be quite young to me. They also appear to be well versed with the issues, better with the detail of policy than I am. Being ten days older than Howard Dean I have, at least, had the benefit of an over view of American politics starting with my campaigning at age 12 for Nixon and Lodge in 1960.

I seen these things developed over many years and my gut feeling is that Howard Dean can not afford to slip anymore when given a national forum.

While he didn't fatally hurt himself on Saturday, he didn't gain any converts either. The best that can be said is that Kerry stumbled badly, much more than I would have expected. That, of course it good for Dean, but Dean needs public wins now not something else.
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 8:46 am | #

I'm a little curious about Dean's opening remarks:

GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN: Let me be very clear about what I believe. I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country and I'd keep a strong military in this country. But I think this is the wrong war at the wrong time, because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country and I think that was the wrong thing to do, because sooner or later, we're going to see another country copy the United States, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that there may well be a Shi'a fundamentalist regime set up in Iraq, which would be a greater danger to the United States than Iraq is.

If he's so worried about a Shi'a regime, how is it that Dean is suddenly tickled about Hussein being gone? More than a little curious how some of those who support Dean for being anti-war are now viewing this tap-dance to the center.
Greg Wythe | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 9:11 am | #

This is no dance to the center. Anyone who would think that Saddam was good for the Iraqi people would also think that rape,torture,and genocede were a good policy.

By denouncing Saddam,Howard was just stating the obvious.

Having said that, Howard was also observing the political destablizing aspect of the invasion of Iraq with the possible instillation of a radical theocracy that would support terrorism against the US.

Howard Dean was never antiwar. That title was layed on him by the media. Howard has stated that he is not a pacifist. He has always said " this is the wrong war at the wrong time" Dean stated that under certain curcumstances he could have envisioned a justification for going to the war with Iraq.

People may have supported Howard for his antiwar stance, but his detailed position on the subject was articulated by himself, not by the antiwar supporters.
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 9:40 am | #

Re: Dean's Hussein comment.

Let's put it this way, I would be delighted to see Bush out of the Presidency. But that does not mean I would support someone assassinating him.

Does that clear things up?
Chris Andersen | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 11:38 am | #

Dean was clarifying his "I suppose it's a good thing" statement by breaking it into two parts:

- Saddam bad
- post-Saddam not necessarily good

His position hasn't changed.
chase | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 3:45 pm | #

Robert, I'll take your comments to task, because I think they take a blind eye to the actual words used by Dean ...

"This is no dance to the center. Anyone who would think that Saddam was good for the Iraqi people would also think that rape,torture,and genocede were a good policy.

By denouncing Saddam, Howard was just stating the obvious."

I'll disagree with your take here ... Dean did not denounce Sadaam in his comment. Read it again: "I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone." Rather simple .... So the question stands, if he's so delighted, how does he reach the point of concern that in "see(ing) Saddam Hussein gone" he's concerned at the prospect of a Shi'a regime a mere two sentences later ... one which will be a "greater danger to the United States?" (note the use of actual quotes here). That's not a condemnation, that's a contradiction ... as if to suggest he's pleased that we will now have a greater threat. I won't be facetious enough to presume that this is his true meaning. Instead, I think it just underscores how Dean isn't catching onto what the primary responsibility is for the President.

Under what set of circumstances does Dean think that Saddam would have been peacefully evicted from Baghdad and there would not be the same very chance of a Shi'a regime? Had Chirac cajoled Saddam into exile, would this be less of a possibility, somehow?
Greg Wythe | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 5:04 pm | #

While I think Lieberman is wrong on the bare face of his assertion of electability ("defense" IMO is not bombs alone), our distinct position on foreign policy in a post-911 & Bush Total War world will be an important one to articulate throughout the campaign. You can see it on the face of any interviewing news anchor that hears Dean's assertion that Iraq is not necessarily now better off: they all look like someone just shot their mother. These are the folks who were so captivated by ClearChannel and hooked on the war video game, who think everything Bush says is the whole&absolute truth. It's that same simplistic/easy & quite popular view most of the warmongers have about any dissent against the war, that is likely the basis for Lieberman's assertion. They all assume if you are against the Iraq war you:
Hate America
Love Saddam
are a whimp-ass and will let France rule the world

The real reasons (like making more bin Ladens, WMD == a pretense, etc.) never come into it.
I mean I was driving through suburban Downtown Redmond WA on Saturday (not exactly a Navy Town, but close enough to Everett, I guess, the home port of the USS Lincoln). I passed by a pile of "patriots" with signs "Honk if you support our troops". They were standing in the same place as the canclelight peace vigil was every night for the first week of the war. I just shook my head as we drove by, since I'm not so sure courage & bravery means shooting cruise missles at poor people who never did anything to us. So one of them yelled at me "Go back where you came from."

I'm not saying these are the converts we have to win over, but rather this is what today's soundbite media creates. Every mention of being against the war must contain the very valid reasons why this is the wrong war at the wrong time. As time goes on and things unwind in Iraq, this should be easy for people to grasp, like the 60-minutes bit last night on how very very little has changed in Afghanistan in 18 months, or how all Dixie Chix concerts are now sold out. With the RNC in NYC in September 2004, we'd better have our answer to the approach to terrorism well formulated: the symbolism to overcome will be ENORMOUS. We need to be right in a way the Strong & Wrong can relate to.
Benjamin von Ullrich | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 5:52 pm | #

Greg,
You're splitting hairs here. Howard Dean stated on several occassions that his method of dealing with Saddam would have been thus. Dean said he supported the UN weapons inspections. If WMD were found or if Saddam did not cooperate, then Dean would have urged the UN to demand complience immediately. If Saddam did not comply than Dean would have formed a true coalition, with UN backing as in 1992, and invaded Iraq.

Those are the circumstances that Dean layed out prior to the war.

I don't really understand what it is that you are questioning. Dean has always been very consistant. The fact that the media choose to ignore his plan and decided to call Howard the antiwar candidate is not the fault of Howard.

The fact that people against the war supported Howard Dean is also not Howard's fault. If the antiwar people thoroughly understood Deans public stance in all of its detail, perhaps they would not have been so supportive. May be it didn't matter to them what Deans detailed position was because he was one of the only high profile democrates aganst this war.

I think there were many who didn't know what Howard's position was. I also think that many people were just thankful that some one was willing to call George Bush on his ill concieved doctrine.

Dean does not want the US to start invading countries at our whim. Invading Iraq, Deans believes was an isolated situation. If the weight of the UN supported an invasion then the US would only be one of many, not acting alone.Dean would have supported that kind of action and said so.

You can debate the merits of such an action, but I see no conflict with Howards words and his postion.
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 6:44 pm | #