That's great. If the mad dog Delay is coming out of his pen, you know Dean is connecting. Dean ineligible for president because he sides with the American people, the UN, our allies and most of the world? Then Delay should be executed for treason for subverting the 1st amendment. I mean fair is fair, right?

That's a great sign, though. After watching Dean here

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen//odrive/c04_022103dnc.rm

And on the News Hour, I now offically declare myself a Dean supporter. If he can't beat Bush, no one can. If he can't inspire dems to get out and get involved, no one can. If he can't weather the GOP destruction machine, no one can.

Dean will beat Bush if he gets the nomination. He offers a hopeful, positive message that will be hard to resist. We need to organize! The blog/web activists can make a difference. Just ask trent lott. Look at the world-wide protests. We can be players in the Dump Bush movement that is starting to take root. Even repubs have serious doubts about their boy of late!

Sorry...but Dean has me worked up!

Dean is near the end of the clip, about 4/5ths of the way through.

The fact that Delay tries to trash Dean means they're not sure their "boy" could win from a nominated Dean... I say they're getting a bit scared...

Yeah, I think they are after Dean and we need to be ready to counter the coming media onslaught. Besides the attack by Delay, Richard Cohen also strangely attacked Dean in the Washington Post in his column (here's the link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62679-2003Feb24.html

Why would Tom DeLay even know who Dean is? It seems possible and likely that he was told to go on the floor and make the speech by the RNC (and maybe even given the speech). How often does DeLay opine about Dem presidential politics (besides Clinton)? Does anyone know the history?

Cohen is more of a mystery. Why would he single out Dean as unreasonable when his position on the war is anything but? Cohen has been carrying water for the administration at several key points in this debate. Given all the strange excesses in the debate about this war (many on the pro-war side) it is strange that a "liberal" columnist would decide to use his space to attack the two most viable liberal candidates.

Someone has decided to position him as a radical. I can't figure out if it is because Rove, et. al view him as a threat and want to kill him early or because they want him as a nominee and are increasing his profile and likeability with red meat Dems by having the Dems least favorite GOP (DeLay) attack him...

Dean's anti-Iraq-war stance will become less and less relevant as the weeks fly by between the conflict (whenever it eventually happens) and the Iowa caucuses. The theme for 2004 (as was 2002) was "It's the national security, stupid" and most of the Democrats still aren't getting it. Lieberman does (which is why he's getting support, and that will probably grow) and based on his comments on past Sunday's Meet the Press, Gephardt seems to get it too:

"And after 9/11 you look back on a lot of things that we did or didn’t do, and maybe you’d like to do them better. 9/11 changed everything. You know, a lot of the argument about Iraq is whether or not the inspectors can prove that they have these weapons. It’s almost like setting up a legal case in a court. Well, you couldn’t prove before 9/11 that 9/11 was going to happen. "

I predict that the early primaries will wash out everyone except Lieberman, Gephardt (whose labor backing seems to be returning) and Kerry, whose candidacy will be the liferaft that the folks will swim to after the Dean and Edwards ships sink. I still think Lieberman will prevail in the end.

BTW, I usually don't buy into these orchestrated scenarios (i.e. I think DeLay talked about Dean because DeLay wanted to.) However, don't doubt that Rove would LOVE to see Dean as the Dem nominee... many conservatives believe this.

The theme for 2004 will be the economy above all. People always vote their pocketbooks. How the economy will be when the U.S., as it will be for the foreseeable future, is bogged down in an expensive military occupation of Iraq is anybody's guess, but I think it's fair to say that bringing true stability to region, which is what the economy needs, is something that can't be done overnight. Considering the way that the administration has handled Afghanistan, to say nothing about Osama bin Laden and al-qaeda, one has to wonder what kind of attention span it really has. They're going to find out that overthrowing Saddam Hussein is far from the whole story with U.S. involvement in the region. In the meantime, does anyone know where Osama is?

The "Dean mania" exhibited by some on this board is just astounding! Let me get this straight -- Dean is now a serious contender because Tom DeLay makes a negative comment about him?? You tea-leaf readers really crack me up.

Can't a man critique a speech without ulterior motives any more these days? I saw the speech and was similarly moved by Dean's misuse of the term "unilateral" (meaning "one sided"). If other nations sign on, however small and cajoled they may be, then it's simply not "unilateral."

I like Dean but...

This is a classic GOP baiting. DeLay knows that whomever he attacks will become attractive to a lot of D's. They think that by emboldening Dean they can weaken a more serious threat - like Kerry.

I don't think they are at all scared of him. Right now, I think they consider him a great foil.

Time will tell..

You don't see them attacking Kucinich, Mosely Braun or Sharpton who are to the left of Dean. They don't want to run against a fiscal conservative Democrat who enjoys guns and the death penalty more than Bush. The Doctor is In!

AZGOP:
I need me a copy of that GOP dictionary that has such a clear definition of "unilateral" but has left out definitions of "compassionate", "conservative", "quota", and "patriot".

Can you hook me up?

While I find Dean much too moderate for my tastes, I agree with sxs--right now, Dean might be the only electable candidate of the eight. However, Dean does not appeal/excite many traditional Democratic blocks the way some other candidates can. Thus, if he wins the nomination he needs to select the ultimate veep--Hillary Clinton. Her national negatives will be more than cancelled out by the way she could turn out an anti-Bush vote.

Dean/Clinton 2004 might be the Dems best hope.

Disregard that useless trash from Mike the Analyst.

Lieberman has no chance--none. The troll pushes the Great Liberator of the Accounting industry precisely becuase he knows Lieberman would be the easiest to beat.

Dream on, troll.

Dean has quite an enthusiastic following. But I think the nomination will go to the more experienced, more centrist Kerry.

The 2004 race will be close. Bush could get a small bounce out of the Iraqi War Victory, but Iraq may not be much of an issue in '04.

Dean may yet do well... I'd feel more comfortable with him if he was a former 11-year governor of Pennsylvania than tiny Vermont...and who's ever heard of Montpelier?

It is a riot to read the GOPers here! They are disturbed by Dean. The man clearly has strong appeal and potential. Just imagine him next to the empty suit and empty head and empty heart of GWB with his biggest deficits in history and his racist pandering southern strategy and wholesale raping of the environment. People will have a hard time resisting if he survives the firestorm of distortion and sewage headed his way from the GOP

He is not "anti-war." But that is sure what they will want to paint him as as soon as possible. Count on the Davis strategy of defining the most threatening candidate before he can get on his leggs and before he has adequate funds to defend himself.

And AZGOP, if you think Bush's war....and this will be Bush's war... is anything but unilateral, watch the press breaking out in laughter at the White House yesterday when Ari tried to deny that the "willing" were bought and paid for. Or read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26FREE.html?pagewanted=2

"A committed Coalition of the Willing, drawn from allies and friends on six continents, won the last war in the gulf. This war will be fought by the United States, backed by a deeply divided Britain and a Coalition of the Sullenly Acquiescent."

Here's what Sue Allen from the campaign had to tell ABC's The Note this morning... they're on the case:

"The Governor finds this attack ironic, given that the party of Mr. DeLay and the president ignores the more pressing threat of terrorism, and the more pressing threat posed by North Korea's positioning in terms of possessing nuclear weapons."

"You don't make these decisions based on polls; nevertheless, recent polls indicate that more than 50 percent of Americans oppose this rush to war being waged by Mr. DeLay and the president."

"Meanwhile, the party of Mr. DeLay and the president continue to run up federal deficits and ignore domestic issues."

"But it's flattering to know Mr. DeLay watched! We have arrived, I suppose."

The "empty suit" sure beat the hell out of Algore in the debates. I remember listening to radio host who couldn't wait for the debates between Algore and Bush because Algore was going to humiliate him.

PS - are we really "rushing to war"? The discussion has been going on for almost one year now. I don't think there is any rush to war. And, France and Germany do not equal Europe. And the former Soviet Slave States support us because they know what it is like to live under a tyrant.

Per AZ GOP comment (below) that "can't a man critique a speech without ulterior motives."

talk about ridiculous. Since when has the majority leader of the house been in the business critiquing speeches at the DNC's winter meeting? Delay has about a million other priorities. AZGOP -- do you think Delay was glued to CSPAN during Dean's speech and then just found himself moved to comment and happened to wander onto the floor? No way, this thing was scheduled, drafted and vetted by the staff with the RNC (and more likely given to his staff by RNC Rove). Also, note the timing -- two days after the actual meeting and time on CSPAN. Speech critiquers usually respond a little quicker...

Show me other examples of Delay commenting on other "speeches" -- I had no idea he was becoming the new Marshall McCluhan.

I don't know why you GOPers are bent on denying your organizational power -- it is impressive. But, stop pretending that you guys are just like the local League of Women's Voters.

I love it! I hope Tom Delay talks about Howard Dean every chance he gets. I really don't care what Delay's motives are (he's either scared to death for GWB against Dean or he foolishly thinks that Dean is too "left" to win a general election). At this point, Howard Dean just needs to keep saying what he believes and attracting attention and money. If that attention comes from Tom Delay--all the better! Dean certainly would be hard- pressed to find someone better at recruiting democrats for his presidential run than Tom Delay.

From Kerry's campaign manager Jordan... er, I mean DeLay:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/politics/26DELA.html?tntemail1

"If he wants to be president of the United States, but subject the United States to decisions by the U.N., he lacks the sound judgment needed for responsible national leadership," Mr. DeLay said.

Hey, Mike I really really think y'all need to dump Bush/Cheney as your party's candidate in '04 and replace them with David Duke/Lawrence Lindsey. Yep, those are going to be THE winning combo for you guys in '04. Please, please take my advice.

"The "empty suit" sure beat the hell out of Algore in the debates." - Mike

Bush beat Gore in the post-debate media spin, not the debates themselves. After the first debate, polls indicated that Gore soundly won the debate, then Bill Schneider and the rest of the chattering class started attacking Gore on his "meanness" and "sighs" and all sorts of other non-substantive issues, which is what influenced the debates that followed.

Only 36% of registered voters participated in the last pres election. Look to independants
and crossovers in '04. Dean will appeal to to registered indies like myself who are fed up with dem appeasers and repub hypocrites.

A troll? Does anyone here remember the story "Three Billy Goats Gruff?"

Well, the bridge I am guarding is that an obscure anti-war liberal (Dean) will not take out a nationally-known pro-war centrist (Lieberman) for the nomination. I hope he does, since Bush will probably win by something like 55-45. It will be much closer with Lieberman since he'll get your votes (anybody but Bush, right?) and he'll pull more independents in many parts of the country. And he (other than Graham) is the only one with a chance of winning FL from Bush. (FL is becoming a GOP leaning state, but Lieberman helped almost pull it into the BLue column in 2000).

RParker,

Good post. Gore did win the first and third debates, according to the polls.

The second debate was on foreign policy and was considered a draw, with Gore acting subdued because he was deemed too eager to answer questions in the first debate. The bar for Bush in the second debate was very low due to his lack of foreign policy experience. It's interesting now to realize that Bush called for a "humble" foreign policy in the second debate.

Polls clearly showed Gore won the first debate, but he stated that he had toured Texas flood areas with FEMA Director James Lee Witt in a helcopter. He had not actually visited Texas with James Lee Witt, it had been Louisiana, and Gore for castigated for exaggerating. That comment, plus Gore's unfortunate eye-rolling, sighs, and orange rouge, led to an unfavorable post-debate spin. No one said anything about Bush's nervous sniffing during the first debate. I guess it wasn't as noticeable as Gore's sighs.

Gore clearly bested Bush in the third debate, when Bush appeared tired and couldn't defend "affirmative access". Gore made one mistake of appearing a little too aggressive when he walked all the way up to the shorter Bush while Bush answered a question. But Gore was considered more in command of the issues, according to the polls.

It's sickening to hear Fox News reporters who say that Bush has a way of always beating expectations.Then they'll use the debates as an example and observe that "Bush wasn't supposed to win the debates, but most people think Bush won the debates". Fox's Tony Snow even said last year that Bush "cleaned Gore's clock" in the debates.

That's so inaccurate. Since Bush was eventually named president, people conveniently assume that he must have won the debates. It's the assumption that "well, he's president, he must have won the debates". The debates themselves aren't viewed individually.

A similar thing happened with Kennedy/Nixon. Nixon was considered the winner by radio listeners; Kennedy by the TV audience. But since Kennedy won the election, including the popular vote, most people look back at Kennedy as having bested Nixon in the debates. It was actually quite close.

It's just handy and convenient to say that well, Kennedy must have won the debates.

And, Mike:

"And, France and Germany do not equal Europe. And the former Soviet Slave States support us because they know what it is like to live under a tyrant."

France and Germany have been under tyrants. They support us (the people, not Bush) because they know we are under a tyrant. This is a simplification of course. It is mostly about oil.

Mike, is that with Bush is losing, by 19% in the latest Gallup polling, amongst Independents?

Mike the Analyst --

Glad you want Dean to win, so do I... Lieberman is not going to win the nomination, so you shouldn't worry (his Bush like stances aren't going over well with actual Democrats)

Also please prove your assertion that "FL is becoming a GOP leaning state, but Lieberman helped almost pull it into the BLue column in 2000." This is actually NOT the case for Presidential or statewide. Dems have become more competitive, not less, in last few cycles. Yes, the legislature is more GOP (because of deal Black caucus struck with GOP) but that is changing as Orlando corridor becomes more hispanic (Puerto Rican, not Cuban). I think we can win FL in the future. I agree that Dean is not the natural candidate but he could do well (Edwards is actully the natural candidate). Lieberman's appeal is overblown. The cuban grandmothers will always vote for Bush and the SoFL Jewish vote goes to the Dem candidate no matter what. The key is Afrian American turnout and doing well upstate. Remember, Gore actually won the popular vote based on the statewide recount.

Um, Mike, FL is NOT "becoming a GOP leaning state". Presidentially, it was a significantly GOP-leaning state through the Reagan/Nixon era (with an exception for Dixie native Carter). It has become significantly MORE Democratic in recent elections, and Lieberman had nothing to do with it (look at the charts of key counties in Emerging Democratic Majority -- 2000 represented a SETBACK). If this is the quality of your "Analysis", you might think about changing your screen name.

Your thoughts re: Dean and Lieberman no doubt reflect conventional beltway wisdom. I might remind you it was equal conventional wisdom just before the 1980 election that Reagan was the Dems' dream opponent; it was only after the surprise results that people started talking about Reagan as Great Communicator. The circumstances are remarkably similar: a president barely elected (at a time when the opposition party had won the two previous contests), suffering from economic problems and an uneasy foreign policy that made him ridiculed overseas. The GOP might well have won more easily with Howard Baker or Bush the Elder in 1980, but they went with Reagan, and his skill-of-staged-expression pushed their program further right than anyone dreamed possible. I can easily envision Dean -- who connects viscerally with audiences -- doing the same from the other side. Saying Lieberman is the strongest Dem candidate is lazy, retro analysis that doesn't recognize changes in the electoral map.

With all the talk about the current candidates in the race I want pose a question. Is there anyone not currently in the race that you guys think should be?

For my part I am currently undecided but leaning toward Dean in the current active candidates. But I would love to see Sen.(and former Gov) Evan Bayh run. He is the perfect candidate to me. He is centrist, experienced, young, attractive, and well spoken. Also I wish someone like Sen. Diane Feinstein run. I think she would present one of the first very serious candidacies by a female candidate.

mikey,
FL leaning GOP?? clinton won it in 96 and gore in 00, even though jebbie was the gov. it's a bellweather state. keep calling dean a lib, even though he isn't. he'll swat that dimwitted sloganeering back in the mug of any repug who trots it out. i like him a lot. he speaks his mind, it doesn't seem like anyone owns him. he could get a bit of that WM support from the pubs. if dean is the nominee, chimpCo will not be able to tar dean as a lefty wimp.

dean:
1. on the right side of most dem issues, with the exception of guns.
2. may frame the debate on gay rights in a whole new way (gay haters don't vote dem anyway).
3. appears to be a straight shooter and smart. will appeal to independent male whites.
4. will not allow chimpCo to define him. he will appeal to the anti-bush crowd.
5. will likely proudly advance the progressive political agenda and ultimately appeal to the base.

Ced,

I'd like to see Fla. Senator Bill Nelson and Sen. Bayh run for president.

Sen. Mary Landreiu would make a good candidate, either for pres. or V.P. She's gutsy, and has a down-to-earth, soccer mom appeal. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendall would also be good, but he was just sworn in.

We need a moderate southern Democratic governor to run, but there are few prospects. Maybe young Gov. Warner of Va.? The lack of southern Democratic governors doesn't speak well of Democratic chances in '04.

I won't get into FL right now, since I'm doing some statistical analysis about federal races since 1996 and when thats done, I can get more into it.

As for Dean: I just went to deanforamerica.com to look at his stand on the issues.. here's what I surmise:

Health Insurance
Liberal: Federally run Conserv: Privately run
Dean supports a mix for universal care: Centrist

Tax Cuts
Liberal: Against Conserv: For
Dean wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts: Liberal

Gay Marriage (sorry, "Civil Unions")
Liberal: For Conserv: Against
Dean strongly promoted: Liberal

Child Care
Liberal: Govt does a lot, Conserv: Govt outa the way
Dean has a program that visits mothers in hospitals and at homes. It sounds like a good idea, but we're not looking at good/bad but liberal/conserv and this idea is quite...: Liberal

Gun Control
Liberal: More and more laws Conserv: Keep the current laws
Dean appears centrist since he leaves it up to the states, but that really means he has no problem if states want to ban all guns. I'd have to give this: Liberal/Centrist

Homeland Defense
Liberal: Who knows? Conserv: Support new agencies
Dean treats this as another social program that needs $$$$ - how is he going to pay for it? Guess how. Liberal

National Defense
Liberal: UN in charge; we help Conserv: US looks out for its interest and helps world
Dean talks about spreading democracy, that's nice, but has no plan for how he'll deal with any country that harbors terrorists willingly. I'm assuming a Clinton-like approach: Liberal

Abortion
Liberal: For any type Conserv: Against
Dean believes the notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense - no restraints on abortion. Uhhhhh.....: Liberal

So... judging FROM HIS OWN WORDS, I see him holding Non-Liberal stances on Health Care and (sort of) on Gun Control. That definately puts him to the left of Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt - maybe Edwards. And these guys get 90s and 95s from Americans for Democratic Action (i.e. they are liberal) so, Dean is fooling nobody.

So, he's a liberal. Big Deal. For goodness sake, can't a liberal run as a "liberal" anymore? Or has liberalism been that discredited?

Mike you are so full of S#### and not even worth wasting time on. BTW why do you come to lefty sites. Why dontcha stick to your own kind? Are you unable to communicate with them? Oh, and BTW you can go shove your ad hominem attack crap where the sun don't shine. I am just beginning to find your posts very amusing.

Well, the fact that you imply no difference between civil unions and gay marriage suggests you're not exactly an honest broker on these issues. You also twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid giving Dean any centrist credit on the gun issue. And the fact that Democrats PROPOSED Homeland Security, with Bush only hopping on at the end when he had to, would seem to qualify the liberal position for more than "Who knows?". If YOU don't know, then you're clearly not qualified to even discuss the issue.

In general, your breakdown between the liberal and conservative positions are so one-dimensional/cartoony they seem calculated to draw ridicule. One in particular, the tax cut one. Given that polls have from the start shown the public didn't want the initial tax cut, supported its repeal as soon as the deficit kicked in, and don't favor any new ones, we have to draw one of two conclusions: 1) such a position -- Dean's -- is NOT overwhelmingly liberal; or 2) most dangerous to the GOP: the public at large is a lot more liberal than conventional wisom assumes.

In spite of the possibility of the second option, it's true most politicians dislike the label "liberal". But it's because, as Mike Tomasky writes at Tapped today, when journalists say "liberal", they further imply "flaky", "unelectable", "unserious". It's precisely the same way in which "right-winger" was considered pejorative, and GOPers fled from it, until Reagan was elected and redeemed the word.

Mike the Analyst, you have a gift for self-parody if you find Dean's gun control position anything approaching liberal. You state that the conservative position is to oppose new laws, but it sounds to me like you think the conservative position would be for the federal government to pass a law preventing states from passing their own laws. Dean opposes new gun control laws, and just wants to keep what we have already.

You also ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is that Dean is a fiscal tightwad and deficit hawk. That makes him conservative in a way that Republicans only pay lip service to. He's fiscally conservative but socially liberal aside from guns. That pretty much sums it up.

Gee, Howard Dean is a liberal, according to this analysis. I wonder if a liberal can win the democratic nomination? Duh...

NONE of this "analysis" matters one little bit. Democrats need to nominate the man they want to be in the White House and not worry about who is most "electable". Every election is a referendum on the incumbent party's candidate--period. If the war/foreign affairs and economy do well over the next two years, Bush wins regardless of who the democrats nominate. If the war/foreign affairs and economy look in two years like they appear to be heading now, Bush loses regardless of whether his opponent is Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, etc...

Does anyone really believe Dukakis would have lost if the Reagan years had been viewed as a failure by the voting public? Does anyone really believe that Clinton would have won if the first Bush administration had been viewed as a success by the voting public? Bush I went from 89% approval to something in the low 40's by the end of his presidency (and lost to a guy that had already been revealed to be a womanizer, pot smoker and "draft dodger"). For all of his flaws and weak performance as a campaigner, Al Gore still managed to get a half million more votes than Bush--because voters recognized that the past eight years had been among the best in memory for the nation. People judge performance of the incumbent party's candidate when voting for president and will overlook a lot of flaws in his opponent if they think the last four years were bad.

So our old "friend", Mr. DeLay is attacking Dr. Dean. Looks like Mike the Analyst has some company. Could it be more than just fear factor?

The Doctor is IN!

Dean-Clark 2004
Economic Security/Homeland Security

Mike, you genius, we're talking about Dean's liberalness RELATIVE TO THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, not relative to Bush or any other conservative. Let's see you make a chart.

I suspect Mike's statistical analysis will include plenty of dummy variables, including, I hope, the southern dummy so famed in statistical analyses of wages. Mike, use 'em all and go nonparametric!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Susan Allen
February 26, 2003
Press Secretary

BURLINGTON, Vt. - Democratic presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean fired back today at attacks made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, criticizing the reckless domestic policies and misplaced defense priorities of Mr. DeLay and the President.

"The Republican Party doesn't understand that it's not unpatriotic to question the judgment of this accelerated rush to war," said Gov. Dean of Vermont. "The Republicans are rushing us into the wrong war at the wrong time. We need to defeat Al Qaeda and protect our homeland."

"This President is about to allow North Korea to become a nuclear power on his watch simply because he refuses to talk," he added.

"This President and the party of Mr. DeLay are recklessly running up the largest deficits in our nation's history. The Republicans are pursuing a very expensive war, without U.N. support, against a country which poses no imminent threat to the United States," he added.

"This President and the party of Mr. DeLay ignore the more pressing threats posed by Al Qaeda. They are not pursuing the war on terror because they have no energy policy to reduce oil consumption, and will not confront the fact that our oil money is sometimes used to fund fundamentalist Islamic schools which teach children to hate Americans, Christians and Jews, and even to fund organizations which promote terror."

These decisions cannot be based on polls; nevertheless, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans agree with the Governor that U.S. intervention in Iraq should be done only with the support of the U.N.

"I'm running for President so we can put a stop to reckless economic policy at home, and misplaced priorities in defending America abroad," Gov. Dean said.

******

Mike, the economy trumps all those measures, and on that count, Dean has the credibility, Bush, the borrow and spender, has none.

Bush's on track toward a $400BILLION to $500BILLION deficit for this year alone. Dean is right, Republicans can't handle money.

On this measure, if you want to stick with the Lib-Con dichotomy, are you embracing deficits as being conservative?

No Hillary -- everytime I hear her talk she sounds like she's waffling, hedging or not speaking honestly. I may like her personally but I really have trouble listening to her. That's also what people didn't like about Gore.

McCain and GWB are attractive to many people not because of what they stand for but because they seem to be straight talking, even when they are lying. Whereas too many Dems give the appearance that they may not be speaking the truth even when they are -- I include Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt in this category. That is where Dean has it over the other candidates.

I'm really looking forward to the Dean / Bush debates.

Oh no....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079324/

Marie, I agree 100%. You got it. Kerry is a fine guy and I would be happy to support him, but he is too vulnerable on the grounds you cite. He is too vulnerable to the GOP sewer/destruction/ridicule machine and all of the pundit whores' petty petty sniping. Dean just has the demeanor and presence and whatever to side-step it.

But he needs money to be able to defend himself. The GOP could make Christ seem worse the OBL with all of the resources and talent and experience they have smearing people.

sxs - thanks for enlarging upon what I was saying. I keep trying to think how RoveCo is going to attempt to trash Dean and can't come up with anything. The civil union thing will only matter to those who will vote for GWB even if he were shown falling down drunk.

It tough to trash someone who will fight back and doesn't have anything to hide. That's also another advantage of speaking honestly.

Marie,
Yes the Repubs will attack Dean on the gay marriage thing--that's an easy strategy in the south Dean can fight in most of the country. He'll also be called an ultra liberal. No sweat. However, I'm really afraid that Rove has something more sinister planned. Rove will go after his family and will dig for every little detail in Dean's family's past, no matter how innocent. It doesn't matter to them that Bush has greater sins. He who defines the campaign, wins. I believe that Dean is the person who is most capable of being President today. However, I hope he is prepared for what as going to be a full out assault on him personally--a lot of people will know they're lies but the majority may not. I really wish that someone would finally investigate Rove and put him behind bars for the next few years--we all know there's stuff there, someone just needs to do the work.

And for anyone who's curious as to what crimes Rove has committed, how about sending a tape to Gore's campaign to set them up (yeah, sure it was that assistant...). How about reporting a false breakin into a campaign office to setup Democrats in the 80's? There's more that I could look up. Its all out there. The man has no ethics and Bush just does what he's told so he can "get revenge for Pappy."

Mike the Analyst - since you're so up on a Lieberman candidacy, and the only way Lieberman would win a presidential election is by peeling off a large amount of those 90% of Republicans who think Bush is God (since Lieberman can't excite the Dem base), then let us hear of your intention to vote for Lieberman instead of Bush if those two are the candidates!

Furthermore, your analysis of Dean's liberalism is so far off the map. When did balancing the budget become a liberal position? When did supporting new federal agencies (even though they don't fund them) become a conservative position? When did NOT supporting gay marriage (Dean's position on gay MARRIAGE) become a liberal position? When did State's Rights become a liberal position? Plus, your analysis (other than the Child Care issue, which is admirable) is either shallow, of a pick-and-choose banquet of positions to make your point. Dean is way more economically conservative and responsible than most of the other candidates.

Dean has the gay loby out in force. Its like gay pride day every day. Eeek!!

And Bush has the bigot lobby out in force, and in leadership positions to boot. One is a uniter, the other is a divider. One has a vision of tolerance and respect, the other of intolerance and discrimination. One has values consistent with the majority's, the other panders to a discrete and powerful minority.

Who should be president? You decide.

Yes Bush has values consistent with the majority, while Dean has no respect for the laws of nature.

A vote for Dean is a vote for homosexual matrimony.

Tom tom, what is it about gay marriage that disturbs you...? I know, its unnatural. But marriage is a STATE issue, and Dean supported the voters of his STATE on this issue. If a STATE wants to make "civil unions" it has a right to do so.

Nice try with a new meme. But back in 1992, we elected a skirt-chaser who knew how to jump-start an economy over a supposedly (Jennifer Fitzgerald) moral Bush. Dean apparently doesn't even chase skirts, and gay people vote too. And

up.We learned a hard lesson with Clinton. But he was the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans. That took over every pinnacle of power in the country since Clinton showed

Bigots and proud of it! Amazing.

But you miss the mark anyway. Dean is against gay marriage you idiots. He signed a law allowing for civil unions that confer certain legal standing re inheritence rights, etc. He rejected legislation allowing for gay marriages.
Duh!

So are you and your man in favor of legal discrimination against gay couples? How do you justify that? Many religions accept gay unions as legitimate and not immoral or wrong. Are you trying to force your religious views on other religions? Or are you just ignorant bigots?

Would you want a 20 year old man sleeping in the tent with your 14 year old daughter because he is the "troop leader." I didn’t think so. But then you insist that a gay man have that right with your son.

That’s not bigoted, that’s common sense. Why can’t the lunatic fringe understand that.

The Republicans want to make a moral crusade out of this. But when our 410k's become 201k's, we elect Democrats. You can't eat "civil unions". Clinton proved that abundantly twice.

In addition: its a state issue. If I were Dean I would simply repeat that fact, and would state that the FEDERAL position would be to recognize what the states do on this issue. Neither pushing nor discouraging, simply to go along with whatever the states decide on a case-by-case basis.

"Would you want a 20 year old man sleeping in the tent with your 14 year old daughter because he is the "troop leader." I didn’t think so. But then you insist that a gay man have that right with your son.

That’s not bigoted, that’s common sense. Why can’t the lunatic fringe understand that."

What the hell are you talking about? I happen to be leader of my son's cusbscout pack, and there's only one man or woman allowed to sleep alone with a scout, and that's the scout's parent. What kind of lunatic are you? What does that have to do with civil unions?

It has nothing to do with civil unions, obviously. Statuatory rape is an issue that can involve BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Statuatory rape is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE issue from marital rights.

Hell, Judy Shepard has gone around advocating gay marriage! Most partisan Democrats support gay marriage. It's only the Democratic politicians who are cautious on the issue. Like it or not, gay marriage is going to happen, and you rabid conservatives had better get over it and move on to more important issues.

Eric, I agree with you about Rove. But really, what's he going to say about Judy Steinberg?...she's "too shy"? That she's the "anti-Hillary"?

Dean better make sure that his kids have no skeletons in their closets, but I'm sure he's already prepared for that possibility.

Dean isn't a liberal...he's a common sense politician for the people. He defies labels and if you were at all familiar with him you would be quite surprised with how close his views are with middle America. He's smart, smart, smart and gets things done. He's tough on crime, responsible with money, has strong moral values, and finds value in investing in GOOD programs. He won't invest in fluff crap that doesn't reap rewards. And the Civil Unions bill has turned out to be a good thing. I wasn't comfortable with it at all when it was first signed. But after giving it more thought I like the idea. It's not just about rights...it's about responsibilities too. Why should gays be able to mess around and not have any consequences and responsibilities or have to deal with any of the negative stuff of relationships? Now in Vermont those who enter into civil unions have to go through the same crap I did when I got divorced if they split up. It's only fair. And for the conservatives, why on earth would you NOT prefer civil unions when they promote responsible behavior and discourage promiscuity? You'd think you'd rather have civil unions than a bunch of single gay people out looking for a partner, because then you don't see it. Out of sight is out of mind...and the same would apply to the kids of conservatives. Homosexuality isn't going to go away, so why don't the conservatives choose to support something that teaches and encourages monogamy? Oh...civil unions saves tax dollars, too. Think about it...

The topics I chose to analyze Dean came (as I said) directly from his web site. (Look at "On the Issues".) As for the above replies:
- I consider "balancing the budget" and "budget deficits" to be neutral issues - there are examples for both parties (state and federal) pushing to balance the budget, pushing for line-item vetos, and agreeing to run up deficits to fund their pet programs. BOTH do it, so Deans "fiscal hawk" status has no impact on the host of other "liberal" views.
- Again, I don't mean to insult someone by calling them "liberal", I usually don't indulge in name-calling. I consider "liberal" to be a valid term meaning the opposite side of the political spectrum from "conservative." Why this term incites some still is a mystery to me.
- I don't LIKE Lieberman, I just think that he'll win the nomination. My personal opinion (if you didn't guess) is that Bush is doing a fine job. I like to look at things and try to predict what will happen.
- I still maintain that Dean's stance on guns is NOT a purely centrist position. I illustrate by asking a hypothetical question. If Dean is President, and Virginia (or Wyoming) decides that all guns can be legally owned and can be carried by everyone, is he going to say "ok, the state has decided." He has an "upper bound" that he would not let states go over. (By the way, my personal views are probably to the LEFT of Dean on this anyways.)

"And for the conservatives, why on earth would you NOT prefer civil unions when they promote responsible behavior and discourage promiscuity?"

Because the right-wingers want to make homosexuality 'go away' ALTOGETHER. The legal recognition of civil unions only serves as a reminder to them that they can't control other people's sexualities.

Mike the Analyst, what is it about Bush's job performance that makes you believe he's doing a "fine job"?