Why Democrats haven't taken on this stance yet I don't know. You appeal to the peace-movement while not looking weak on national defense. The lines should be:
-"It's al-Qaida stupid."
-"The homeland is not secure."
-"The president wants us to wage war on a nation a half a world away and we're not prepared for the retaliatory attacks."
-"An Iraqi war jeopardizes the coalition built to combat the 'War on Terror'."
-"Osama is the reason those two towers are missing - why aren't we concerned about putting his head on a platter?"
-"The pResident continues to underfund homeland security measures."

When the U.S. mainland is attacked as we're launching war on Iraq, Bush will lose major political points. The people who have opposed this war on the grounds that it makes us more susceptible to attacks by al-Qaida are the ones who will gain politically. As of now, Dean is the only announced candidate that holds this opinion.

Someone on one of these boards suggested that this is the DEM strategy as crafted by Carville and McAuliffe. Sort of "keep your heads down on the Iraq stuff" and run on "it's the economy, stupid." Well, that worked really well in November 2002 didn't it? Carville seems to think that next year is 1992. Worst of all is the Dems will get slaughtered on this stance for behaving so "politically." That was how RoveCo defined Gore and the 2002 candidates and it really worked in 2002.

HowardDean4Prez is absolutely correct. Those are the messages we should be telling.

Howard Dean/Wesley Clark 2004
Economic Security/Homeland Security

I love how Bob Graham stays on message: "I am outraged...." From what I have seen, I think that's how we can expect every quote from him to begin.

Geez, I'm looking for a new party. These dems don't speak or act on my behalf. They are just spineless and clueless. It's obvious that Nov. 02 taught them nothing. If they continue to act like lemmings, we should brace ourselves for Dubya serving 4 more years. Good gawd!

If the Dems are going to fight 2004 without taking on Bush on foreign policy then it seems to me they have but two hopes - that either the war drags on disastrously (though this will be difficult for them to take advantage of if they have supported him up to that point), or an economic meltdown, otherwise it is likely to be 2002 again, but on a larger scale.

Um, Janet, why are you looking for a new party, instead of supporting Howard Dean, The Democrat With A Backbone?

And Joe Lieberman's every utterance is WAY too close to "axis of evil" for my tastes.

This is for Janet. While I believe Howard Dean is the only candidate making sense in the Democratic Presidential field, I also want you to know that there is an alternative in New York State. It's called the Working Families Party.

I would say the Greens were an alternative, but they insist on running their own candidates *and* members of the Greens are fairly stubborn about their party allegiance. . .that means they won't barter, hence the major parties just tune them out.

If you live in New York and want more information about Working Families, please visit http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org

No, please, no more fragmentation. I love the idea of working families, but we need to put our wills together to overthrow the junta. Dean may be our best hope, certainly he is saying what I want to hear, but no more parties. Make Working Families a core part of the Dem. platform, absolutely. Sigh.

I've seen Powell's speech and it did not convince me. The greater part of it was just a rehash of old grievances [which were already aired by Bush and others in front of the UN] but nothing substantially new. Those audio tapes could also be interpreted in an other way. The arguments he brought about Iraq's link with Al Qaida are at the same time contradicted by a leaked report of British intelligence which said that for now there is no proof of Iraqi connection with Al Qaida. The eye witness reports and reports of "spies" cannot be verified by independent sources so how truthfully are they? The only thing that is somewhat credible are those satellite images and those places need a thorough investigation by the inspection teams to verify if there could be truth in Powell's allegations.

All the arguments Powell made are not enough to warrant a war.

Its Dean for me!

Also the title should read:Dean Responds, Dems roll over

Some good news in the polls:

Latest Quinnipac Poll Hypothetical Match-ups:

Bush 49% vs
Lieberman 43 %

Bush 50%
Kerry 42%

Bush 52%
H. Clinton 41%

Bush 51%
Gephardt 42%

Bush 50%
Edwards 39%

Bush 53%
Dean 36%

Bush 64%
Sharpton 21%

Overall Democratic Primary:

Lieberman 27%
Kerry 18%
Gephardt 16%
Edwards 14%
Sharpton 6%
Dean 3%
Undecided 16%

if H. Clinton is included, she gets 42% with Lieberman down to 15%

The head of the AFL-CIO described Sen. John Kerry "as representing the Democrats' 'best chance' of taking on President Bush in 2004," the Boston Globe reports. "The Kerry campaign was clearly heartened by the labor leader's comments, e-mailing a wire story about them to political reporters. At the same time, the senator's rivals for the nomination downplayed the statements."

If Democrats want to win the Presidency in 2004, They should nominate former Vermont Governor Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee for President. Dean is a former Governor, Governors have a stronger chance of winning the Presidency than Senators- Carter,Reagan,Clinton and Bush were Governors. Dean is a fiscal moderate and a social libetarian. supports universal health care, opposes gun control. Was the only candidate to speak out against the war on Iraq. If Dean wants to defeat Bush in 2004 he should select former NATO General Wesley Clark as his running mate. Wesley Clark is a NATO Genaral during the Clinton Adminstration. lead NATO during the War on Kosovo- brought down Serb Dictator Slobodan Molesovic. Clark is a native and resident of the state of Arkansas- a Southern State. Clark brings Military experience to the Democratic Ticket and Helps Dean win states in the Southern Region like Arkansas- Clarks home state and West VIrginia- Democratic Stronghold in the border south. West Virginia voted for Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In Addition to Arkansas and West Virginia. Dean will carry New Hampshire- a swing state in the North East and all the states Gore carried during the 2000 Presidential election.

States like Arizona,Colorado,Florida,Louisiana,Missouri,Nevada,Ohio,and Tennesee are considered Tossup States.

President Howard Dean-D-VT
Vice President Wesley Clark-D-AR
Agriculture- Jill Long Thompson D-IN
Commerce- Steve Grossman-D-MA
Defense- Sam Nunn-D-GA
Education- Rudy Crew-D-NY
Energy- Gary Locke-D-WA
HHS- DAvid Satcher-D-TN
HOmeland- Gary HArt-D-CO
HUD= Fernando Ferrer-D_NY
Interior- John Kitzhaber- D-OR
Justice- Eric Holder-D-VA
LAbor- David Bonior-D-MI
State-Richard Holbrooke-
Transportation- FRederico Pena-D-CO
Treasury- Larry Summers-
Veterans Affairs-Bob Kerrey-D-NB

NSA- Ron Dellums-D-CA
UN- George Mitchell- D-ME
CIA- Lee Hamilton-D-IN
FBI- TOm Ridge-D-PA
EPA- Jeanne Shaheen-D-NH

Maybe I am just an ill-informed hick, but it sure looks to me that bush is a foreign policy failure. If iraq is such a clear and present danger, why can't he rally our allies the way his dad did? Most of the world opposes us on this because junior has alienated the world with an arrogant, swaggering, imperialistic and downright scary foreign policy.

And N.Korea! My god. We do nothing for 1 1/2 years while they make n. bombs. It is unforgivable.

Our standing in the world has not been this low in decades, or longer. Same with our economy. Those who hug bush will never be able to defeat him. I think he is vulnerable on FP as much as domestic policy.

Thanks for the alternative party suggestions. I am aware of the Working Families Party and the Greens. I respect the voices and polices that these alternate parties offer. These alternate parties are the voice for the voiceless. Through their voice they highlight how wrongheaded and unjust our government has been to vast segement of our society; these parties bring these issues to the nation's attention. However, I am and have always been a practical voter. Each voter the rethug can peel off from the dems, is in essence a vote for the rethugs. Further, in a national election, the alternative party can never garner the votes to win an election from the team that stands together, i.e. election 2000. And this brings me to my issue with Dean. He definitely speaks for me, but I'm a realist. UNFORTUNATELY, we live in a telegenic age, and I think this is a big disadvantage for Dean. Remember in the 2000, Brian Williams of MSNBC, having no tangible reason to dislike Gore over Bush, blurted out, "Gore is follicly challange." This is as high minded as the idiot pundits and news readers get. So, although I am dismayed at the democratic party now, in the end I will hold my nose and vote for the candidate, because ultimately, the dem candidate's policies will come closer to mine. And the bigger picture, whomever is in office gets to choose the judges---and judges are the end all and be all of American justice and politics, i.e. Scalia, Thomas, Pickering, etc.

Janet, I think Dean looks great. He's way more telegenic than Gephardt, Edwards looks way too young, and Kerry looks just plain weird. And Lieberman's not pretty. I think Dean's the best-looking of the bunch. Your post is not very clear-- you were discussing looks, right?

Dean is too liberal to beat Bush.

For the millionth time, Dean is not so liberal. He has 100% rating from the NRA. He's no more liberal than Kerry or Edwards.

Dean is more conservative than Bush on economic policy. Dean has a 100% rating from the NRA. Dean wants to incrementally increase people's access to health insurance-- he does not want a government-run health system. Dean supports states rights on a large number of issues. So, Oliver, what makes Dean too liberal? You only got the first part right. He's less liberal than libertarian.

I'm with 90210 regarding telegenecy. Dean is good-looking and he looks more presidential than any of the other Democratic candidates. Edwards is good looking, yes, but he also looks like you could stick a pacifier in his mouth.

Gary Hart has predicted that if U.S. invades Iraq, there will "almost certainly" be retaliatory terrorist attacks here in the U.S.

Senators Bob Graham and Kennedy have also expressed concern that, with his back against the wall, Saddam or his cohorts will approve the use of WMD or U.S. terrorist attacks. If that happens, Bush will be criticized for sleeping at the switch on domestic terror--and focusing too much on Iraq.

I doubt it'll happen. Bush is betting he can invade Iraq without consequence--and he's probably right. Call it the Bush luck. We'll invade Iraq, depose Saddam in a few days, install our proxy, and Bush will be a king for a few months. I doubt there'll be retaliatory attacks (who really knows?).

The same happened to Reagan after he fired the unionized air traffic controllers in August '81. There was fear that the replacement air controllers were inexperienced and a tragic mistake would result in a downed airliner. It didn't happen--call it the Reagan luck. Reagan went on to undermine unions by administrative edict for the rest of his two terms.

Bush is taking a chance that the Iraqi invasion WON'T trigger retaliatory domestic terrorism. He's taking a BIG CHANCE, but he's probably right. He's just plain lucky.

I'll say it again....the ticket to beat the GOPers is DEAN/CLARK.

Both are telegentic and can appeal to the entire political specturm. That is the key to victory. Progressive base, Centrist/Southern Appeal, Fiscal conservative, Libertarian policy on guns.

neal patel makes good points about Dean. Clark sounds like someone who would add strength to an Admin. but not sure I like a candidate that has never held elected office. "Military Mary" or Graham would seem to be better VP picks to me.

Some of us seem to be looking and listening to Dean and seeing winner or a Clinton. In honesty, Clinton was never more than "good enough" for me. Dean is more genuine and willing to take principled stands on all issues, regardless of popular sentiment. He's also smart and accomplished.

Rove knows that the one strength of GWB is that he is perceived as genuine and decent. IMO a candidate must be able to give GWB a run on these qualities. Attacking this in GWB will be less effective than having a candidate that exceeds GWB on these.

However, others keep seeing Dean as a Tsongas type candidate. Whereas, I see Lieberman and think Tsongas and Carter in 1980. I see Gephardt and think Mondale. I see Kerry and think Muskie and Dukakis. I fear that too many others will see the same thing and stay home, vote Green or give GWB another term.

I like the Clark VP idea as well. Military credentials on the Dem ticket (whoever it is that ultimately wins) will probably be necessary. My question is, who other than Clark would be a good VP candidate in terms of military and/or national secutiry (legislative) experience?

Marie,

The "genuine and decent" Bush qualities won't matter if Bush is on the defensive in '04. "Genuine and decent" didn't help Carter's re-election in '80. He lost to Reagan, our only divorcee pres. who hadn't held office since Jan. '75. Much more important are the economy and "America's standing in the world." If voters want change, Bush is out. If they want continuity, Bush wins.

The lesson GWB learned from Poppy's defeat was don't end the war too far in advance of the election. A stunning success next month does nothing for him in 2004. Fear, insecurity, continued terrorists acts, and perhaps even another war, will be used to excuse all economic problems and convince the electorate that national security will be put at risk with a change in administration. Those Senators who gave GWB a blank check for Iraq will have to go along with all other GWB adventures because the criteria for doing was set so low with Iraq.

Let me assure everyone that Dean can be portrayed as a very liberal candidate. His 100% NRA rating would be more than wiped out by his support of near gay marriage among working-class whites. He supports partial-birth abortion and gay marriage. That is how he would be portrayed in rural America.

AC,

You're correct about Dean. The civic unions issue will kill his candidacy. Plain and simple. Not to mention partial birth abortions. I don't understand all the support he's getting on this board -- Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards are more electable, and can better seize the intiative in case Bush falters. And Bush will have to falter below the 50% approval rating for any Dem. to have a chance.

AC - I'd much rather a doctor be that goes up against the anti-abortionists than up against the NRA. Dean's position on this is long-standing and cannot be made to be politically cynical like what was done to WJC on Gore on this issue. I have to admit that Dean was way ahead of me on this one.

Are there any anti-civil union single issue voters? Doubt it. The only people who care enough about this would vote for GWB even if he was televised in the Oval Office with a coke spoon in his nose.

Yes, Dean can be portrayed as liberal: the people who bring us balanced budgets.

Obe, you are obviously ill informed. We have almost all of Europe with us, and many other countries as well. We should not base our actions on France, Germany, Russia, and China. They do not have our best interests at heart. They all have been doing a lot of business with Iraq lately. It just may come out that they have been selling banned equipment to Iraq when the war starts. This is another reason why they don’t want us to go in.

If you remember, the reason why Bush 1 did not get Saddam out of power in 1991 was because of the coalition. They only allowed Kuwait to be freed. This is a good argument for why we don’t need everybody to be with us.

North Korea has been working on nuclear weapons since at least 1994 when Clinton - Carter agreed to feed and supply their people with heating oil. The North Koreans used that saved money on the weapons programs. Under the Clinton Democratic administration, we indirectly helped fund the North Korean weapons program.

*******************************

It is very obvious to most people that several Democrats are positioning themselves to use a future terrorist attack for political gain. It will backfire on them, probably ending any hopes of higher office.

The catastrophic failure of Democrats in 2004 was due in large part to the fact that they did not offer anything positive for the country. They were seen as opportunists trying to take political advantage of the country’s problems. And as obstructionists, just sitting on the sideline criticizing, without offering any positive suggestions.

The American people want leaders with great ideas for a great country. Do any of the Democratic hopefuls offer this? I hope so. If the Democrats are still seen as the disgruntled, angry, opportunists Party, they will lose even more power in 2004.

America has learned from their mistake when they elected Carter. He was viewed as the nice guy outsider. He really is a mister nice guy. But he was a terrible President. Several notorious foreign leaders have duped him. America wants a President that is not a naive outsider. The voters will not make that mistake again.

Janet, read the AP article, it's rather good.

Oliver Willis, that's the RNC's meme, think of your own. Dean is a fiscal hawk, Bush and the Senators are the ones being 'liberal' with spending your money and future into deficit.

As far as telegenic goes: Has noone noticed how much Edwards looks like "Just Jack" from Will and Grace? That can't be a good thing.

More seriously, I heard him on NPR the other morning and the guy is just not confidence-inspiring. Maybe in a few years, but right now he looks and sounds rather callow. I'm all in favor of educational opportunities, but his College for Everyone big idea seems like something way down at the bottom of the priority list with all the problems this country is facing right now. What the Dems desperately need is someone who projects strength and real backbone. Everyone should be hammering away at the economy and foreign policy issues that the current administration is (I'm searching for a word)...fouling up beyond even my most pessimistic predictions.

I wake up and still can't quite believe that George W. is president. Yikes.

Although Dean is telegenic, he is also short. I think I read somewhere that in the modern media age, the taller candidate almost always wins the presidency.

And a quick amusing what if: Graham wins the presidency, Jeb appoints George to Graham's Senate Seat. :)

Gore is taller than Bush (remember that stalking moment in the second debate). But then again, Gore did win :).

"And a quick amusing what if: Graham wins the presidency, Jeb appoints George to Graham's Senate Seat. :)"

Firstly Dubya ain't from Florida and secondly Graham's seat is up in 04 if he wins the Presidency he won't have run for re-election and someone else already will have won the seat.

Tinbot:

Most of Europe with us?! That's funny. I know, it's only that "old Europe" that is against us. And tell me, how many billions of our money did bush blow to bribe these countries, none of whom have endorsed an invasion now.

I don't recall hearing about satellite photos of trucks hauling uranium for processing under any other president but this one. I don't recall another president standing by while N.Korea marched toward producing several nuclear bombs within a matter of weeks, and has now announced its own pre-emptive strike doctrine and openly threatens war.

This administration is pretending none of this is a big deal (because its arrogant mistakes led us here) and seems willing to accept a nuclear N.Korea. And you call Carter weak? Or is he planning an attack? Or perhaps he could not capitulate so thoroughly so quickly in the face of his tough guy swaggering, but his intention now is to try to salvage a Clinton-like deal with better verification?

Partisanship cannot mask this FP disaster. Bush is vulnerable on FP, and the dems need to challenge him there to win. Dean seems to be the only one so far.

Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and all those "New" European countries. I think its up to 18 in total with us including Australia. Even though it is not necessary to have them all, we are not acting alone by a long shot.

Do you deny that the Clinton Carter deal with North Korea was a failure?

Where did you here that the North Koreans only started on the Nukes since Bush was in office? North Korea has a million man army. They have a history of unpredictability and just plain insanity. Are you suggesting that Bush should have attacked them when he saw those satellite photos without even a force in place? Even after we had information that they already had operational nukes and long range missiles that can reach Tokyo. Of course you must be thinking about the FP of Clinton and how he attacked an African medicine factory to punish OBL. If you think that Bush is vulnerable on FP, that the Democrats are in critical condition.

Tin Bot

We need the countries that matter to be with us in Iraq. You know good and well that the opinion of Germany, France, Russia, and China matter way more than Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, etc. We have most of the world's nuclear powers wanting more inspections and we still press forward with this stupid unilateral strategy in regards to Iraq.

This is a very dangerous precedent we are sending. Can't you see that. Bush would be better served giving inspections more time to do their job. When Iraq is truly shown to be totally uncooperative and deceptive then these other powers will go along. But we are not there yet.

Why is it that so many people are willing to go to war. War is evil people. War is killing. So to wage a war you sure better have better reason to do so than a perceived threat from a nation a million miles away from your borders. There is in my view a higher power who I have to answer to and he does not favor killing your fellow man.

Marie-
I don't agree that everyone who would strongly opposes civil unions would vote for Bush regardless. There are many working-class whites who are socially conservative but want some government help economically. This is the group of voters that has left the Democrats over gay issues and abortion. I fail to see how Dean gets these voters back.

Tin Bot,

Unfortunately it's you who is ill-informed. You said, "If you remember, the reason why Bush 1 did not get Saddam out of power in 1991 was because of the coalition. They only allowed Kuwait to be freed." That is patently false. That may be why the US tanks didn't roll into Baghdad, but there was a revolt under way in March of 91 (that Poppy Bush called for) that was on the verge of success. Bush made the decision to facilitate the Hussein counterattack by letting the Republican Guard pass through US lines and attack the Shiites in the South, and he allowed the Iraqis to use helicopters in the South and North to put down the rebellions. This had nothing to do with the "coalition." This was because the Bush Administration thought that Saddam was better than a Shiite south (that may fall under the influence of Iran) and an independent Kurdish state in the north (which the Turks fear).

I don't have time to go into why your assertions on North Korea are wrong. Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com has a fine series of posts on the issue. Read 'em.

I'm slowly gravitating toward Howard Dean.

If Graham would decide to enter the race I think he'd make for a very strong challenge to W. -- perhaps teh strongest, given the electoral vote situation -- but I have my doubts he'll do it.

I keep thinking that personality matters. Even if Dean has some positions on the issues where people might take issue with him, he does seem to speak with a sense of genuine conviction and I believe a lot of people will respect that. You can't overstate how important having the personality with which to deliver the message is. This is where Lieberman falls very short and, I suspect, Kerry does, too.

It is a concern, from the standpoint of the general election, that he comes from a small state and is not well known. But, how is he in much of a different position than Bill Clinton was in 1991 or so?

"I'd much rather a doctor be that goes up against the anti-abortionists than up against the NRA."

I'll bet that one is going to play well with your base, huh? The same people who are impressed by the NRA thing aren't going to vote for him because of the support for civil unions, I can guarantee you.

Besides, the election won't be framed around gun control. It will be framed around civil unions. The media will focus on it, the GOP will focus on it -- it's just who he is, and it's almost impossible for him to escape it.

"Are there any anti-civil union single issue voters? Doubt it. The only people who care enough about this would vote for GWB even if he was televised in the Oval Office with a coke spoon in his nose."

Then you don't know how people in the southern border states vote. A pro-CU pro-PB Abortion candidate has no shot in hell of winning Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, or any other state you hope to make competitive in the south.

These are people, a lot of them suburban, who were willing to vote for Clinton because he was a moderate southerner and would consider voting for a moderate Democrat.

"Yes, Dean can be portrayed as liberal: the people who bring us balanced budgets."

I'm sorry, but there's no way Dean can extend universal healthcare and balance the budget without going beyond the tax cut. The only way he can do it is by issuing an unfunded mandate to the states to pick up part of the tab for those under the age of 23.

Balancing the Vermont budget two or three years ago is vastly different from trying to balance the American budget today.

The issues that are going to get heavy play in 2004 if Dean is the candidate will be civil unions and his health care plans, and on both of those issues, he's a liberal. And that's why people are going to view him as one.

AC,

I think you're on target about Dean and civil unions, though I disagree with you on other issues. Dean isn't well known enough to overcome the civil unions baggage. It just doesn't play well in middle America, no matter how reasonable Dean sounds when discussing it. I agree that folks who oppose civil unions WON'T automatically vote for Bush.

Sure, there are Pat Robertson-700 Club-homophobes who'll always vote for Bush. But there are plenty of centrists who simply aren't gonna be attracted to a candidate who signed civil unions into law. It's not like it's the number one issue--all centrists aren't homophobes. But when Dean's position is revealed, it will be a vote killer, especially in the general election.

I do agree that Dean will be hurt among social conservatives for his stance on civil unions.

However, he does believe that they should be left up to the individual states (much like his position on guns), so maybe people won't care. OTOH, that could hurt him among gay-rights advocates.

One reason I support Dean is that he is an exciting orator to watch. The other politicians are boring. He's smart, enthusiastic, and passionate.

At least Dean has been willing to stand up and challenge the President. The Democrats have a chance to win back the White House but it will be hard for them to capitalize on it without offering some alternative vision of things to the voters. Sorry, but Kerry has disappointed me some in not questioning the administration more than he has and Lieberman, for sure, is hardly any kind of alternative.

"There are many working-class whites who are socially conservative but want some government help economically."

Well if they vote for Bush over Dean, then they're NOT going to get much government help economically.

Political compromises work both ways.

Anyone know if GoVote's Quinnipiac Poll is national or just in NY, NJ, or PA (the states they usually do)?

I think that the GOP might be falling on its own sword if it attacked Dean on civil unions by isolating soccer mom centrists with the homophobic rhetoric bound to come from the right wingers.

Pat Robertson's viewers are going to vote against Dean anyway. They've got GWB in their hip pocket. It would not matter to these folks, if the Democrats nominated a right-to-lifer. They would still vote Republican. As the election of 2002 demonstrated if the voters are given the choice between the Republican Party and capitulation, they'll choose the Republicans.

Perhaps it's b/c I'm a history and government teacher, but we've got to learn from the mistakes of this past election...move beyond them....and not repeat them. We must stand up and be proud to be Democrats. Dean does this.

The reason why Gore and the Democrats lost working-class whites in 2000 was over the gun issue. Economically, they're progressive/liberal. Socially, they want good schools for their kids and the government's hands off their guns.

I hate to sound like a broken record player, but IMO, the ONLY Democrat who can appeal to these marginal swing voters is Howard Dean. It's our job as HD supporters to show how Dean's views are so in allignment with each individual voter's values. That's how I've persuaded several of my friends to get on the Dean bandwagon.

Dean's candidacy is going to be grassroots, and we must act as the gardener.

Mr. Moderate:

Did you ever care to think that the 2004 election will be framed around the economy and national security?!! Or that Dick Cheney supports civil unions, or that Dean pushed a compromise measure to meet a court mandate. Don't get me wrong, Dean will strongly defend his position, but these other realities will prevent him from being tagged as an extremist. And his other centrist positions will show that he is not beholden to the liberal orthodoxy.

"Balancing the Vermont budget two or three years ago is vastly different from trying to balance the American budget today." - Mr. Moderate

Your statement is true. However, Howard Dean has balanced the VT state budgets for fiscal years 2002 AND 2003. These aren't from two or three years ago.

After the new GOP Governor James Douglas complained that he would have to run a deficit in 2004, Dean then released a blueprint of a balanced budget for that year.

Remember, Dean's term in office just ended on Jan. 9th, not 2 or 3 years ago.

"he's a liberal. And that's why people are going to view him as one."

SO WHAT? GWB is a right wing extremist. Given a choice, people will choose a moderate liberal over a wacko right wing 'conservative,' all other things being equal.

People can and will respect a liberal. Our greatest presidents were liberals, especially compared to GWB.

The most important thing in the upcoming election is for the Democrats to nominate someone who can connect with the American voters and can forcefully and likeably put forth their positions.

Americans actually prefer the policy positions of the Dems over those of the GOP. Bush didn't win because of his policy positions, but because of his personal characteristics. Gore didn't lose because of his policy positions, but because of his percieved personal characteristics.

Clinton, if I recall, won the 1992 election while promoting a health care solution which was MUCH more liberal than what Dean is proposing today.

And another thing: seeing that we will have many important problems to discuss in the 2004 campaign, a Bush machine attack about "gay marriage" will not resonate outside the culturally backward Deep South. Dean isn't even proposing national enforcement of civil unions, except to federally acknkowledge their existence when they are granted by a state. It will only backfire on Bush in moderate/liberal blue states and the libertarian West.

Dean only needs Gore states and NH & NV to win, so the notion that CUs will doom him because he'll be hurt in southern-border states is mistaken.

"I'm sorry, but there's no way Dean can extend universal healthcare and balance the budget without going beyond the tax cut. The only way he can do it is by issuing an unfunded mandate to the states to pick up part of the tab for those under the age of 23."

Let's see your calculations, Mr. Moderate. Or are you just making it up? I think it can be done (as long as the Bush Deficit doesn't get much bigger, but that wouldn't be Dean's fault anyway).

Brian, the coalitions support ended when Kuwait was liberated, that was the deal that was made then. I think Bush 1 should have entered Baghdad anyhow, but he was too worried about acting unilaterally. Bush 2 will not make that mistake. Bush 1 had his hands tied by the agreements that ended the aggression of the gulf war. He could not openly help the Iraqi Kurd and Shiite rebels overthrow Saddam. It was a real shame. They needed us.

France has a long history of opposing everything we do. Russia, has been a long time ally of Saddam. Communist China has also been supporting him militarily. Germany has been doing lots of trade with Saddam, even building his underground bunkers. So we don’t need their permission to act in our own best interest.

The UN will now have Libya heading up the counsel on human rights. My point is, the UN is not credible. 18 countries are with us. We are not acting alone. Case closed.

I do agree with Brian that we should have supported the Kurds in northern Iraq more. Unfortunately I think that they are going to be kept from gaining very much independence because we probably had to make concessions to Turkey for support. That’s another reason why we should not wait until everybody is with us before we go. It will just end up causing problems later.

Ok Deanheads--

Voters like America being the world's top dog. Security counts.

It is one thing to take a pricipled stand, but swing voters (the ones you need in November) don't want risk compromising national security.

The Dems lost in 2002 due to a lack of an economic message and also by holding up homeland security.

The only way to be competitive is to highlight Bush's lack of compassion (take the compassionate out of "compassionate conservative"). The messsage must be:

"It's the economy stupid--but don't forget about terrorism."

You know what, Gore would still be the Democrat's strongest candidate.

George H. W. Bush NEVER asked for the authority to go into Baghdad. There wasn't anyone tying his hands. He could have sought a resolution from the U.N. to go all the way after Saddam Hussein and likely could have gotten one, having been a much more skilled diplomat than his son has been. But he didn't do it. He made everyone think that that was what he wanted to do, but it never was what he wanted to do.

I agree that Gore would be the strongest candidate. However, he said he doesn't want to run.

I'm sure the voters will be concerned about national security, however I like what Howard Dean has had to say. He's the only one running who's asking the obvious question of "why Iraq?" when fighting terrorism should clearly be priority no. 1.

Gore has said almost the same thing, i.e. as a nation, we've really lost focus on combatting terrorists and the administration has still not produced credible actual evidence to tie Iraq and al qaeda together.

Not sure where Tin Bot gets his history. I waited to see if he/she would follow the advice to go to talkingpoints and read up on Korea/Clinton. You have no idea what you're talking about, please don't get your history from Bob Novack. There is no Clinton-Carter Korea policy, they were only 12 years apart, but in fact the Clinton policy was working. Their real interest in nuclear is for, ta da, power, not weaponry. Clinton's plan was to help them develop a form of nuclear energy generation that could not be then utilized for weapons, in exchange for which NK would dismantle its plutonium enrichment (which was useful for weapons development). When the lying sack of shit we call Bush came on the scene he immediately began to dis NK, dropped all dialogue, caled him a pygmy, and reneged on the original deal, so NK said fine, we'll go back to our original plan as well. Any corrections folks? [I apologize for the very short version]. Read, it helps.

Well, aside from Bush putting them on a list of three countries of "evil" and then proceeding to unilaterally invade and require "regime change" from the first on that list. I certainly would want to build up the defenses on my country if that happened.

Surely if we can afford to give an average of $1000 back to 92 million Americans - y'know those "average" tax cuts,then we can afford to pay out $2000 a person to insure 40 million uninsured Americans. And,hey, don't forget that we the insured already indirecly pay for the uninsured folks who go to the ER for routine medical care.

Lets go back to what Dean himself said about the '04 election - if the economy is not the issue then the Dems are dead in the water. Dean himself has said that the civil unions issue is not going to matter if the main focus is on the economy.

And all you folks who keep on calling Dean too liberal - this guy was a Rockefeller Republican who left the party after the 64 Goldwater Repubs let on that the party had gone wacky right. I think if you gave descriptions of philosophies w/o labels and told them to pick what they are, I would venture to say that most would say they were Rockefeller Republicans.

Right now I am in between Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards, leaning slightly towards Lieberman. I will be at a fundraising breakfast with him in New York in a few weeks. I want to meet him personally and see what he has to say. Living here in NY, we usually don't have that sort of opportunity. Usually we see $1 million 30 second spots. Lieberman will have strong support in New York, among Democratic elected officials: Speaker Sheldon Silver, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, AG Spitzer, and Comptroller Hevesi, among his most likely backers. Perhaps Hillary will back him too to solidify her position with Jewish voters who still, to an extent, are not as warm to her as they have been to other Democrats. U gotta love this state!

Neal - Looking over your list(BTW its way too early to be doing this) Kitzhaber should be HHS.Satcher already served as Surgeon General. There's way too few females in your list. Surely we can find something for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Richardson should be SOS . If Dean has a big ego to match B.Clinton he should appoint Clinton. And although I am Clintoned out, I would love HRC at Justice just to see Orrin Hatch's head exploding. Tom Ridge is a Repub not a Dem and there is no f**** way a Dem. president should have a Repub at the FBI. Sam Nunn can go to hell for dumping on Clinton on the gays in the military issue. Bob Kerrey's another one who can go jump in the lake. VA has a very obvious choice - Max Cleland. Harold Ford should also be in there being groomed for bigger and better things for an African American Democrat. George Mitchell's gonna be an old man and probably not want a high stress job. If Dean wins Grossman's gonna be playing the Terry McCauliffe job of raising dough for 2008. But there's Laura whatshername who was the trade rep who did some of the NAFTA work who would be a female and well qualified for Commerce.

Dean is about an inch or less shorter than Bush; it's not enough to matter.

Dean looked shorter than Kerry during the NARAL event but Kerry looks very tall and at most Dean's 3 inches shorter than Kerry. Dean's not short. He's got that muscular broad shouldered build which for whatever reason makes him look shorter.

"I think that the GOP might be falling on its own sword if it attacked Dean on civil unions by isolating soccer mom centrists with the homophobic rhetoric bound to come from the right wingers."

Actually, Dean's support of civil unions should turn off soccer moms in most battleground states as it is. If I was running the GOP strategy team, I wouldn't even mention Dean's support of Civil Unions -- the press will do it for us.

"Did you ever care to think that the 2004 election will be framed around the economy and national security?!!"

Oh, yeah, that reminds me: Dean's position on war with Iraq is quite liberal...pretty much the most liberal of all the candidates.

"Surely we can find something for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend."

Hey, how about secretary of HUGE EMBARRASSMENTS? :D

I guess I should expect a wingnut who calls himself Mr.Moderate not to understand political labels.

I guess John Ashcroft - couldn't win an election against a dead guy, has nekkid statues at the Justice Dept buildings draped, doesn't want New Yawk US AGs to use the death penalty as a bargaining chip - must be the Sec. Of Big Embarrassments in the Dubbya admin.

Jobytodd wrote:

The reason why Gore and the Democrats lost working-class whites in 2000 was over the gun issue. Economically, they're progressive/liberal. Socially, they want good schools for their kids and the government's hands off their guns.

I think you're exactly right here, Joby. A lot of people wouldn't even consider Gore because he was portrayed as a man who wanted to raid everyone's gun cabinet. Whether it's Dean as the nominee or not, it is time the Democrats jettisoned this issue; as an electoral strategy, it's an utter failure. And, IMHO, irrelevent to federal governance. It's a local issue.

"Oh, yeah, that reminds me: Dean's position on war with Iraq is quite liberal...pretty much the most liberal of all the candidates."

Good. To the extent it even matters, that means he will kick shrub's butt. America is sick and tired of right wing wackos and will welcome a principled liberal with open arms.

Dean used to wrestle (real high school - college wrestling not that "professional" stuff). In wrestling, size doesn't matter....it's strength.

And on the strength of public policy issues, Howard Dean is far more stronger than the current occupant of the White House

My friend and trumpet player in my band is the most serious 2nd Ammendment guy I know, i.e. strongly opposed to increasing gun control. He says in all other respects he would vote liberal/progressive and most gun owners would as well. I don't know if that's true, but I told him Dean is your man. Anyway, after Moore's Bowling for Columbine I'm convinced it i not the gun laws or lack of them, it is the culture.

I'm 5-11, I shook Dean's hand once, he's 3-4 inches shorter than me. Bush is 6 feet. But if the public falls in love with Dean, it won't matter.

I think the candidates match up against Bush in different and really non- comparable ways, so I've grown tired of thinking beyond generalities of 'who's better able to win' (other than my full conviction that Joe and Dick are near-sure losers, like Gore would have been.)

Don't worry everybody - the primaries will sort out the best candidate.

I am sick an tired of hearing that civil unions will do in a Dean candidacy.

First states have rights, right?

So if that is true, then Vermont has the right to recognize civil unions.

Second, Dean is not campaigning on making civil unions the law of the land, but the constitution is the law of the land and most people in middle America dont give a damn what the hell people do in thier bedrooms.

Third if the South can fly the confederate flag then Vermont can do as it pleases on civil unions.

I think Dean will be able to turn the tables on the rightwing nuts in the country. Let go after these southerners and tell the country what they are up to.

If Bush can drive a wedge between North and South as he did in 2000, then Dean can do it in 2004.

All we need is one more state that is it, plain and simple.

Dean 2004 and screw the rightwing.

Russell, Hillary Clinton has already stated that she will NOT be endorsing ANYONE during the 2004 primaries. She said she'll support whoever's the nominee, and she believes that individual will be determined by March.

"You know what, Gore would still be the Democrat's strongest candidate."

Am I the only one who sees how a Gore/Lieberman rehash in 2004 would only propel the Democratic Party toward further degradation and an embrace of cultural conservatism?

Yes, Gore would have been able to win against Bush in 2004. So would any of the other Democratic hopefuls (aside from Sharpton), if they were the nominee.

This should be about nominating the BEST candidate to be our next president, not the one who's best at hugging the center.

****to whoever wrote this*****
"Surely if we can afford to give an average of $1000 back to 92 million Americans - y'know those "average" tax cuts,then we can afford to pay out $2000 a person to insure 40 million uninsured Americans. And,hey, don't forget that we the insured already indirecly pay for the uninsured folks who go to the ER for routine medical care."
DUMBASS thats just why you will lose. Give Give GIVE back 1000 dollars to 92 million people who pay taxes. As GW Bush said it was their money in the first place. The 2000 dollars you want to GIVE to uninsured people wasn't their to start with.
Oh, and heres a joke: How many French men does it take to defend Paris? We don't know they never tried.
FORGET the French

me again
The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.
let me KEEP MY MY MY money!!!!!1

use your money for toilet paper joe average

Joe "average"

Folks like you consistently spew statistics like the fed income tax is the only tax people pay. People in this country pay about the same percentage of income in taxes no matter what the income level, if you include all taxes. We DO NOT have a progressive tax structure. Fed taxes only make it non-regressive.

Plus, one of my definitions of "idiot" is someone who buys the "average taxpayer" BS.

"How many French men does it take to defend Paris? We don't know they never tried."

Ever heard of a little thing called World War I, you stupid bastard?

"joe average",

I would rather have the government spend money on public education, health care, and a clean environment than on a tax cut for millionaires.

I'm not a wealthy man. I work hard for my money. Yet, you and I both know the rich multimillionares of the nation don't have to work one day. Yet, they're getting the benefits of the Bush administration. What am I getting? A stock portfolio worth less today than before I started investing, gas prices rising at the highest rate in the past 10 years, fear that my friends are going to be sent off to war....shall I continue?

Tax cuts for the rich. Social, economic and security cuts for the rest of us.
I don't need Robin Hood. I need DEAN/Clark 2004
Economic Security/Homeland Security

Hey Average Joe is that a reguloar average or is that a GWBush average?\

I know you want to keep YOURRRRRR money but you also have YOURRRRRRRR debt to pay. Y'KNOW the federal debt - yep buddy thats YOURRRRR responsibility too. So you better pay up YOUR $100K debt.

I much rather trust Howard Dean to use my money wisely than GWB.

The deficit will be only about 3% of the GDP. That is like a family that makes $100,000 per year having to take out a $3,000 loan during a family emergency. Not a financial crisis, and very justified under the circumstances.

Dean/Clark 2004, it's time for a balanced budget amendment and more power to the states.