Howard Dean

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

long-time ILXors know that i like him a lot. and he's now a front-runner among the Democratic candidates for President. we've had John Kerry threads, John Edwards threads, Al Sharpton threads, but until now no Howard Dean thread.

i know that i'm not the only ILXor Deaniac hereabouts. so speak up! (even people who don't like Dean for whatever reason speak up too!)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

One of my favorite things about his campaign momentum is that his funding is based on smaller contributions from like 50+ thousand individual contributors rather than whopping mega-multi-million dollar bankrolls from corporate/special interest lobbies. It makes me feel as though he might actually, y'know, be representing people's interests or something.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm generally cool with Dean but think that his ultimate purpose will be to make liberals have an interest in the election until such time that he proves unelectable, and then John Edwards (who's been out of sight in the meantime) will emerge to be frontrunner. The longer we spend looking at a candidate, the higher the probability that we'll find something wrong with him, or just tire of having him around.

Also, it shouldn't matter but it does: Dean is not just short but incredibly short.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush is also short, so it will probably not be noticable.

I like Dean a lot, enough that I contributed money to his campaign and would really like to see him win. The only thing that makes me nervous is that he can come across as stiff on camera, and we know how well that plays with voters (see: endless criticisms of Gore that in retrospect don't make any sense).

Oddly after Gore's MoveOn speach last week he suddenly seems like the most obviously presidential person in the country, but it will never happen.

Dean is more conservative in some respects that I would normally feel comfortable with (pro death penalty, pro gun rights) but fully left-leaning candidates will never win the White House in the US because, like it or not, the country just doesn't feel the same way.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Wesley Clark, if he does decide to run, seems kind of appealing in an electability sort of way.

I guess Nader got a pie in the face at a rally yesterday.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Nader is incoherent.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush is short? I was under the impression he and Gore were the same height!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Like a literal pie? Wow. Well-deserved at this point.

As for Bush, I don't remember him being short but he hunches something awful.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

nick: that's one of the things that i also like about the dean campaign. (FULL DISCLOSURE: i've also made a [small] donation to his campaign.) i think that it's one of the major reasons why he has gotten such enthusiastic support b/c ordinary people (not big corporations and interest groups) feel that they really have a stake in his campaign and have a real opportunity to make their views known to Dean or his campaign people. as much as i liked gore, that sort of feeling among his supporters simply didn't exist.

i am well aware, too, that in some ways Dean is more conservative than i am. particularly concerning the death penalty -- though Dean has stated that he favors it only in certain, particularly heinous situations and doesn't have the itchy finger for frying people than Bush has. the gun control issue, though, is one where i agree pretty close to 100% with him and always have -- i do think that it is an issue that is best hashed out among the states, that a heavily urbanized state (like NY or PA) may have more of an interest in regulating guns than a more rural state (such as VT). i've always been a moderate on gun-control issues -- i think that some sort of regulation is called for (i.e., felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns) but i don't like rules that impinge upon otherwise law-abiding people (i.e., hunters).

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

at the risk of derailing this thread ... please PLEASE tell me that someone truly put a pie in Nader's face!

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Nader takes a pie as he endorses green candidate for gov

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

they did, and he actually had thee presence of mind to throw it right back

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/08/13/ba_nader.jpg

― Larcole (Nicole), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Larcole is my favoritist ILXor poster ever!

(and no, twas not i that i pied ralph. at least not till he comes to NYC ha ha ha!)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

(I bet it was Al Gore)

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

If it had been in New York I seriously would have believed it was Tad.

― Larcole (Nicole), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

It wasn't Clinton; he'd have been to busy eating the pie to throw it.</ObviousJoke>

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush is six feet tall. This article says Dean is 5'9" but I just talked to a guy I know who runs a radio station in Vermont, and he said Dean is shorter than he is, and he's about 5'4". (Dean goes to that station to cut PSAs and such.) FWIW.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I actually wouldn't wish a pie being thrown at imagine. I'm guessing it's actually kind of scary, for a split second you've no idea what's being hurled at your face.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

imagine = anyone

You can well throw a pie at "Imagine" for all I care.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Ok, show of hands -- who else would vote for Wesley Clark in a heartbeat?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Wesley Clark is pretty weird

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

But electable. He'll kill Bush on Homeland Security.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

My grandmother saved the cover of the New York Times on the day I was born.... the lead headline was Patrick Moynahan getting pied.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i'd like to hear more from gen. clark on non-security issues before making a decision. for instance, his position on the economy? the bush tax cuts? will he support repealing said tax cuts? what are his views on social issues?

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

He does not like the tax cuts one bit.

Clark has also been critical of the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001 and this year, saying “they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode” and that they “weren’t fair.”
Clark explained, “I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.”

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

thankee Kenan! (gen. clark is 100% right re the tax cuts based on that quote.)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Clark sure is handsome. IMO any of them would be crappy once they got in the WH - at least we should have some eye candy.
http://www.stephens.com/images/about/si_photo_wclark.jpg

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, that's not the best picture - he kind of looks like Mr. Rogers in it!

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm playing devil's advocate here to some extent, but Clark could end up the Perot of this cycle, which would not be good. He really likes seeing himself on tv. Also, mock turtlenecks - ew.

Dean is absolutely not "unelectable". He has big pluses and big negatives. Perhaps the latter outweigh the former, but I'm not sure anyone knows yet. The negatives aren't necessarily ideological (except maybe gay marriage, if that gets spun right). And he's arguably, despite their positioning, slightly to the right of both Gephardt and Kerry on domestic stuff. And ideology is getting way overplayed on the Democratic side. Personality is getting underplayed. Dean's pluses are his straight-talking, energy/aggressiveness, and somewhat self-generated buzz. His minuses are his sharpness - he's not a warm and fuzzy guy and that's going to turn a lot of people off - and his self-satisfaction (after a stormy denunciation of something, he breaks into this know-it-all grin at the applause; again, won't play well in many places).

(btw, who exactly are the corporate/special-interest lobbies supporting the other Dem candidates?)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

also, while we're on appearances, from his right side, Edwards looks a little like Tom Cruise.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

well, the trial lawyers' lobby for john edwards is an obvious one. gephardt has a lot of union support (though not the afl-cio endorsement). it's also a not-so-hidden secret that lieberman is the candidate of choice for the DLC (not to mention that he's gotten a lot of campaign contributions from the accounting and insurance industries for his senatorial campaigns. the insurance contributions are natural, considering which state he represents in the Senate ... one good thing about that is, and whatever bad things one could say about lieberman, he would support repealing the repeal of the federal estate tax [which makes the insurance industry (and t&e lawyers like myself) lots of $$$)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

his self-satisfaction (after a stormy denunciation of something, he breaks into this know-it-all grin at the applause; again, won't play well in many places).

But Bush is the MASTER of the self-satidfied smirk, and no one has even noticed this about him, apparently. I want to slap that smirk off his face. Dean's smirk is just creepy, which is a slight improvement.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

EVERYONE notices it Kenan.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

not to derail this thread again, but maybe a lieberman thread is in order here. he isn't my candidate of choice for any of a number of reasons, but much of his problem with dems seem to be bad pr and his schtick. his voting record is quite respectible and, on some issues, very good (particularly on environmental and labor issues).

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

trial lawyers, of course. but was tort reform opposition what nickalicious had in mind? i wouldn't consider the DLC a special interest. Lieberman likes options, ok. but which lobby do all of the rich lawyers and bankers donating to these guys (Kerry esp.) represent? or the Hollywood people, many of whom are helping prop up Dean?

Bush's smirk is that of the Texan disdaining the New Yorker. Dean's smirk is that of the class president.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Lieberman is a dirty censor. HANDS OFF MY VIDEOGAMES.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Lieberman got called out by the fucking *ADL* (chauvinist bastards) for engaging in "excessive public piety"!

But yeah, I'd vote for him over Bush, naturally.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

the question for me is: do any other candidates actually inspire much in the way of grassroots support? Kerry: maybe, I dunno. But are there really normal people who fervently want Gephardt to win? It seems to me that the democratic race boils down to Dean w/ enormous grassroots support, and everyone else picks up support on the back of the idea that they're "electable" and are better than Bush. But I don't know of anyone who is a true believer in Joe Leiberman.

Plus, I mean, Joe Leiberman: Droopy Dog. Check it out.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

From the little I've read of Dean over here, I wondered whether Dean = Bartlett. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but has there been any comment on this yet? If there is no comment because the comparison is a crock of shit, then please say so and puncture my fantasy.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

gabb: no, the DLC isn't a "special interest" group the same way that the AFL-CIO or ATLA is. i was using it as shorthand for the corporate interests who support certain Democratic candidates.

(i'm not trying to over-romanticize grassroots organizing and support, btw. but corporate contributions are a reality for both major parties and will always be in some form IMHO.)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess i would have to go with dean by default, but i cant say it makes me happy. he is to the right of where i feel comfortable on some social issues (guns & death penalty). i also feel like the media has mislabeled him as an ultral liberal, which tends to muddy the waters for voters who do not actively seek information on candidates. I am a bit concerned to that his backers are actively renforcing those false reports in order to get big numbers in the pre primary polls.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry about typos!

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

If'n ya haven't yet, chiggiddy-check out http://www.blogforamerica.com - his official campaign blog!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

dirty censer:

http://www.edgarlowen.com/b2526.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

that dean is more moderate than some have made him out to be, or than some want to portray him, doesn't really bother me. partly because the older i get, the more i've realized that i'm more of a moderate and less of a liberal than i'd originally thought. (my encounters with real-life and online Naderites in 2000 quickly disabused me of any vague notions that i had of being a "lefty.") with the exception of the death penalty (which i do not support under any circumstances), just about all of dean's positions do coincide with mine -- i.e., i favor a balanced budget (though, unlike Dean, i don't fetishize them); i believe that the war against iraq was wrong and not in our national interest though, like dean, i am not per se against militaty intervention under the right circumstances (kucinich would be the real peacenik candidate); i favor repealing the bush tax cuts; and i agree with dean's approach to national health insurance (i.e., the only way it can pass is if it's incremental).

the "liberal" tag comes from dean's opposition to the iraq war and the fact that he signed the VT gay civil partnership act. the second may be right AFAIC, but i concede that it might be problematic if one is trying to attract more conservative voters. the first seems to rely on the assumption that not being knee-jerk pro-war is bad and underestimates people's ability to understand nuance in policy. whether it's a boon or detriment will depend on how well the iraq occupation goes.

i also think that the liberal tag comes from some of the people who are supporting dean. in my antecdotal experience, he has gotten support from those who either voted Nader (but aren't hardcore Naderites, they did it as a protest vote), supported Gore rather unenthusiastically, or supported no-one at all last time around. that dean's appealing to such people is a good thing, for no small reason because that will mean that there will be less people for Nader to poach this time around. if he can do that and still appeal to moderates -- and i think that he's the candidate who has thus far shown the best potential in that regard -- then he has a real chance to get the nomination at the very least.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

he is to the right of where i feel comfortable on some social issues (guns & death penalty)

you mean like more than 50% of the country?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:14 (twenty-two years ago)

It's funny to see how the momentum of his grassroots campaign has affected the entire Democratic Party race, whereas, rather than 10 candidates bouncing around all willy-nilly like it would be without him/his movement, it's become more like a Dean-vs-the-most-unDean candidate, and all the others are trying to distance themselves from him to the point of making personal attacks (esp. Kerry).

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Which may work to Dean's advantage.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

a lot of dean comes from what might strike some as an oxymoron -- the "angry/militant moderate voter." which is what i am coming to consider myself, and which is very much a product of the hard right positions that the current oval office occupant has pursued.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

a lot of dean's support, i meant.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

On the gay-marriage issue (which might end up playing a big part in the '04 election) ie "The Federal Marriage Amendment" vs. "The Civil Unions Bill", he says:

We don't have same-sex marriage in Vermont. Our bill says marriage is between a man and a woman, but same-sex couples may enter into a civil union and achieve all of the same legal rights.

And I think that's important.

Let me tell you why I think this is important. Marriage is a complicated business because it's both religious and civil. It started out as only religious. We decided we would leave the marriage to the church, that we were not going to tell any church that they had to marry people if they thought they shouldn't marry.

That is not the business of the state, that is the business of the church. But we also decided that everybody deserves exactly the same rights under the law, hospital visitation, insurance, inheritance. There's a zillion legal rights that you can only get if you're married.

Here's why I believe that. I believe that every single American deserves the same rights that I do. I've said before we were all in this together.

When you run for president, you meet extraordinary people. There's no such thing as a boring American, and I've met some extraordinary people.

And I'm going to tell you a story that happened to me about eight months ago or so in Washington. I gave a speech -- I've forgotten who the group is and I forgot what the speech was about, but after I got down off the stage, a guy who was 80 years old came up to me and said, "Governor, I'm 80 years old. I want to thank you for the Civil Unions Bill."

And I was shocked, so I said, "Oh, thank you very much. Do you have someone in your family who is gay or lesbian?" He said, "No governor, I'm a veteran. I was on the beach in D-Day in Normandy. A lot of my friends were killed, and I'm gay."

Now, there's a guy who did what all of those people in the White House who never served a day in their life abroad talk about all the time, a guy who was willing to give his life for the United States of America, whose friends did die in the service of the United States of America, defending not only American freedoms, but the freedoms of the Western world. If that guy doesn't deserve exactly the same rights that I have when he comes home, then this isn't the country I think it is. And I think this is a great country and he's going to get those rights."

(from an Aug. 7th speech - I got this quote from http://dean2004.blogspot.com)

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Pro-gun + anti-war is a great, extremely rare combination. I find Dean really compelling.

That Wesley Clark quote (way above, “I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation”) is ignorant enough about American history to basically prevent me from even considering voting for him, although I agree with his position on Bush's tax agenda.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Few of the people who would have benefited from progressive taxation would even have been allowed to vote when the country was founded!

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

what personal attacks? who is distancing other than Lieberman? the rest are trying to ignore him, to reduce the buzz, or out-Dean him. it's not Dean v. Undean, but Dean v. Kerry on their quasi-hometurf in NH, and there's been personal animosity there for at least two months, largely arising out of Kerry's attempt to co-opt Dean strategies/message. or, if you want to read it broadly, Dean v. fake-Dean (though maybe Dean is the fake Dean).

(that speech won't change the mind of anyone freaked out by gay sex who, even if they make it to the civil union/gay marriage distinction, believes that civil unions are just as much a state endorsement as marriage)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

hurlo is correct re the history (though it's a nice talking point for gen clark). on the other hand, bushco's actions are a direct assault on the very notion of progressive taxation. that would be a very long and boring conversation, though.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, if you expand the definition of progressive taxation to include the concept of fairness in taxation (and that seems to be Clark's point), then you could argue that the rallying cry of American independence - "No Taxation without Representation" - was an example of this.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd be pretty surprised if the majority of the US is anti civil union. If anything the new right-wing attempt to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriage will push the issue more into the light and sway undecideds into a more moderate area. Maybe I'm naive but I don't think that over 50% of the US hates homosexuals.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(maybe ignorance is a political asset now?)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

"Progressive taxation" has a very specific meaning. I guess Clark could plead ignorance of that rather than of history, but that probably renders him even less palatable as a presidential candidate.

I'm just mad about the rhetoric, though, not about his politics. I get all riled up come electiontime. Kill the speechwriters, let the candidates talk -- it'll be a whole lot easier to decide who should run this joint. Can you imagine Bush being forced to speak for himself? We would never have had to endure this fucking outrage.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

He does speak for himself occasionally (it's usually when the weird born again stuff comes out, e.g. "crusade" and "a log in their eye") and the results are pretty arresting.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Seymour Hersh to thread re: Wesley Clark (though you'll never see the right bring it up)

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

also I think that this thread has, um, flourished while Edwards and Kerry threads have basically languished is a good sign somehow

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Edwards doesn't even register on the media's radar right now, I'm not sure why. Too young? I don't know a thing about him except that early on everyone said he was the front runner.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, my conservative (well, conservative now though he liked Clinton so I guess he's just a royalist) dad's heard of Dean a little bit and couldn't pick Edwards out of a lineup (and we live in a state that borders North Carolina).

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

So, who is / are the liberal candidate(s) in the race, if Dean is not a liberal?

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Sharpton

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Kuchinich also alas

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

In order for Dean to have a chance in the general election, I think he's got to convince voters that he has a strong, assertive foreign policy and that he's tough on terrorism, despite being against the Iraq war. In theory, this should be easy - since he's hawkish in the Middle East, pro-Israel, and by no means a pacifist in general. He could - and probably should - make the case that the Iraq war has actually distracted us from pursuing Al-Qaeda and strengthening homeland defense - and every day that we don't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq strengthens this position. But it's anyone's guess whether the voting public will buy it.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, no matter what Paul Begala says, next year's election is a national security election.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

English professor Michael Berube, responding to William Saletan's recent article about Lieberman in Slate.com:

"A lot of moderate voters," we're told, "love Lieberman's record and message." Perhaps so -- I'd assumed his standing in the polls was just simple name recognition, and I thought that most people who were really familiar with Lieberman were put off by his lethal combination of sanctimoniousness (see his posturing on popular culture and his tag-team efforts on campus with Lynne Cheney) and unctuousness (see his pathetic non-debate with Lynne's husband Dick in October 2000). (Then there's that weird resemblance to the Chancellor / Emperor in Star Wars, which can't bode well either.) But from Saletan I learn that Lieberman fans admire his "soft-spoken integrity."

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

it may be more about economics than national security if nothing terrible happens between now and then. the american people seem to suffer from ADHD, the political climate can change in the drop of a hat. or a thong!

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:40 (twenty-two years ago)

no, it's gonna be a national security election - economics will get some play and if those employment numbers don't get alot better it'll get alot of play, recovery be damned, but in terms of national security vs. economy 2004 is decidedly not 1992.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I have to agree with Blount here. The first Gulf War was a typical US police action - maybe on a bigger scale than Panama or Grenada - but basically of the same type. Sept. 11 was the closest thing we've had to Pearl Harbor in 50 years.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I think post-war Iraq is gonna be the central issue (which is why I wish the Dems would spend more time focusing on that instead of yellowcakegate - I don't think the intel bungling before the war is half as scandalous or tragic as the organizational bungling and general 'say yes to mission creep' rampant in Bushco's approach to after the war)(the Dems should have hammered the phrase 'winning the peace' into the American public's head to the point of it appearing in Leno monologues), gay marriage might be like the pledge of allegiance '88 but I think (despite some recent backlash polls) that issue and public support are definitely moving in the right direction and I think Bushco know it hence little more than gestures toward the hard right on it - it's clearly not an issue they wanna spend alot of time talking about.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I reckon that the next election will be won by a hawk, but not by Bushi. In a year's time Iraq will still be a mess and US soldiers will still be getting killed every couple of days, but no one will be willing to be tagged as a softie by calling a halt to the madness. so someone - either within the Republicans or a Democrat - will oust Bushi on an "I WILL win this war" ticket.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:01 (twenty-two years ago)

and who's that?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.universohq.com/quadrinhos/images/sgt_rock_367.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

oh I dunno. it's not like I'm american or anything.

by the way, my analysis of the coming demise of GWB is based on a possibly eroneous mapping of him onto LBJ.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

no republican would run against bush. they don't work that way.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Afghanistan is still a mess. Bin Laden is still on the loose, most likely in Pakistan. North Korea is becoming more and more dangerous. Our European allies are feeling alienated. The way things are going, there will probably still be a sizeable contingent of US forces on the ground in Iraq come next November, probably still being shot at. (No way are we going to let the UN take over with all that oil there.) But despite all that, I'm afraid voters are still going to see Bush as the guy who won two wars against the bad guys.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you know anyone who thinks of him as the guy who won two wars against the bad guys?

I know we all live in more refined environments than the backwaters of rural america, and I know we surround ourselves (largely) with similiar minded friends, but I'm still astounded because I don't know a single person who feels this way, including people who voted for Bush in the last election (ie: my in laws). I don't think the support is going to be there among anyone but the rich.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you know anyone who thinks of him as the guy who won two wars against the bad guys?

Well, appearing as soft on defense-related matters has been a longstanding Achilles' heel for the Democrats. I'm worried that people have a tendency to back someone who's willing to use the military option, even when said option does not accomplish the stated aims for using it, and even when it arguably makes the situation worse.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

no offense, but fuck off with that more refined enviroments than the backwaters of rural america talk

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

It should be blatantly obvious to EVERYONE that the difference between urban and rural life is that urban people have things to be stupid about thrown at them constantly while rural people have to invent things to be stupid about.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

also: life ain't nuthin but a funny funny riddle....

― john denver (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah as soon as I posted that I realized that came out differently than I intended it to, I was trying to be slightly sarcastic. Sorry about that.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

If it's any consolation, I read it as being slightly sarcastic.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

And just to reiterate, my point was not that voters are dumb (although they might be), but that they tend to equate military hawkishness with strength.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

meanwhile, back in the jungle, somebody's jealous

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

"It is the biggest political story in the country? That's interesting. That says a lot. That speaks volumes," Bush told reporters at his Texas ranch. "Oh, I think there's maybe other political stories. Isn't there, like a presidential race coming up? Maybe that says something."

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

they say it's hot down there

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

They're all afraid that with Schwarzenegger as their representative, the Repulicans will get a new reputation as fag-lovers and baby-holocaust-enablers.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Glad someone finally started this thread, I was tempted to but since I gave the Dean campaign a donation (may give more, I can't afford to but I can't afford anything, so what's a little more debt, eh?), and I've been to a couple meetings. I may in fact go to a local one tonight to talk about website work. Incidentally there's a site for web developers/designers who want to help, it's not official, but check it:
Graphic Designers for Dean

I actually went to the site that helps one choose a candidate to support (SelectSmart.com) and found my own stance on the issues matched Dean's, I'm more of a fiscal conservative than I had been in the past, and probably a moderate in general. I do note that Dean was against the Iraq war because sufficient evidence wasn't presented, not because he is against military intervention, point; this too I appreciate and agree with, not to mention the fact that he has not wavered from his stance, while half the Democratic field seems to be trying to do a sudden about-face.

I was rather stunned the other day to read a short biography of John Kerry, who I think is a good candidate but not at all likely to beat Bush; Kerry made his name in politics initially as a protestor of the Vietnam war after returning from it, and from how he's played up fighting in that war on the campaign trail, I'd *never* have guessed.

To add a snarky remark about John Edwards, there's a guy in Iowa (a Republican in fact) who goes to get his photo taken with all the Democratic candidates and has an extremely funny & neat-looking website: Nine Dwarfs.. in which he nicknames Edwards "The Breck Girl."

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

er, I didn't finish my first sentence did I. My reason for not starting the thread in the first place was, I've already given them $$ and stuff. :)

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah "breck girl"'s been official rnc nickname for edwards for about a year now, though they're clearly frightened of him (I think they misunderestimate Dean also)

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

This was written by a friend of mine. Thought you'd all like to discuss it.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

(I'm certain that my friend would be mortified to discover that Rush Limbaugh used his article as a source; most gay black men don't like providing support to the extreme right.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that site to be trusted? My results:

Your Results:

1. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (100%) Click here for info
2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (96%) Click here for info
3. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (91%) Click here for info
4. Green Party Candidate (89%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (78%) Click here for info
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%) Click here for info
7. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (75%) Click here for info
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (74%) Click here for info
9. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
10. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
11. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
12. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
13. Socialist Candidate (65%) Click here for info
14. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (64%) Click here for info
15. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
16. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (60%) Click here for info
17. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
18. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (54%) Click here for info
19. Gore, Former Vice-President Al - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
20. Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (47%) Click here for info
21. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (47%) Click here for info
22. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (43%) Click here for info
23. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (42%) Click here for info
24. Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (42%) Click here for info
25. Libertarian Candidate (35%) Click here for info
26. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (20%) Click here for info
27. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (17%) Click here for info
28. Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (14%) Click here for info
29. Bush, George W. - US President (13%) Click here for info
30. Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (10%) Click here for info
31. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (5%) Click here for info
32. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (4%) Click here for info
33. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

the internet is responsible for the overwhelming majority of Dean's grass roots support (larger by far than anyone else - I don't see Doonesbury running strips about Liebermaniax) and war chest (which holds its own with Kerry and Edwards), to successfully naysay it you gotta explain why Dean's on the cover of Time and Newsweek all Springsteen stylee, and tustling with John Kerry instead of Dennis Kuchinich.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

the media are dominated by the kind of people who are Dean supporters?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

oh come on

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

The media are dominated by the kind of people who are liable to make you throw yr hands up in dismay b/c they're always declaring Bush unbeatable.. Eh, I already feel frustrated by the amount of column inches wasted in newspapers/magazines on speculation about the election results rather than actual coverage of the race. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if I had the cable news channels.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

eh, they're just covering the governator

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 23:24 (twenty-two years ago)

i was speaking in terms of demographics, not politics

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Demographically, you may have a point. In terms of politics though, you don't have to be a liberal to want to see Dean in the media spotlight. Everyone by now has heard the story of how Karl Rove was at a parade and saw a couple of Dean supporters going by and muttered under his breath, "That's the guy we're rooting for" - or words to that effect. The upshot being that Rove likes the odds on Bush vs. Dean better than the odds on Bush vs. Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman or _______. So supposing for the sake of argument that there are liberal journalists who like writing about Dean because they like his politics, there may also be conservative publishers who like publishing stories about Dean because they want to characterize the Democratic field as being further to the left than it really is or because they would like nothing more than to see a Bush vs. Dean contest in the general election.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 14 August 2003 00:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i've never heard wesley clark utter anything thoughtful ever. dean is considered a moderate here but well to the left of most of the country. kucinich is a loony. kerry is too much of a dandy to win. gephart has union leadership support but a lot of the rank and file love bush. the economy is starting to heat up now, iraq will be softened by the election so basically this current crop has no chance. watching dean attempt to prevaricate in that clintonesque manner is sad, it speaks leagues about howard that he is not as competent as a liar but unfortunately he doesn't have the same ability to portray himself opposed 180 degrees from his actual positions. hillary would be the only viable candidate against bush only because she would be sainted by the media.

― keith (keithmcl), Thursday, 14 August 2003 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Re: Hillary. Are you insane!? If there's one person in the whole fucking country who doesn't stand a chance of winning it'd be her. I mean, there's no chance of her running, but still. A full, like, 40-some percent of this country hate her with a seething, stupid, blind and unreasoning passion.

― Dan I., Thursday, 14 August 2003 01:09 (twenty-two years ago)

And don't forget that "the media" also includes, like, AM radio, for instance.

― Dan I., Thursday, 14 August 2003 01:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you know anyone who thinks of him as the guy who won two wars against the bad guys?

Yes, I do.

I haven't learned more economics than a high school semester, but I don't understand how balancing the budget and repealing the tax cut are going to provide enough money for a national health care system. It seems like balancing the budget would make that even harder to do.

― Maria (Maria), Thursday, 14 August 2003 01:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think Rove does anything at all without complete calculation. He said that about Dean because he wants us to think oh no, Rove wants to run against Dean. I'm quite willing to believe they fear him (though maybe they want us to think they fear him, and they don't).

Actually, I've rethought Clark a bit. I've been saying for a while that this election is about non-ideological men. They're the swing voters. To beat Bush we have to play on his turf and at least equal- if not out-man him for enough of the undecided 20% in the middle. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the middle are the "Security Moms". They would eat Clark up - he's both a general and the male Oprah. It doesn't matter if I think he's weird.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Edwards is being way underestimated. Dean getting so much attention now will hurt him in the long run -- press honeymoons can only last so long, and more performances like his on Meet the Press a few months back will sour voters on him (i.e. he ain't the straight shooter, John McCain McMach 2 that he portrays himself as). Gephardt shouldn't even be running. No one trusts that man. Same with Bob Graham, who 50 years ago would've been on the pro-segregation front lines. Edwards is the next Bill Clinton, and he and Lieberman might be the only two candidates with a real shot at Bush in 2004. I don't think Dean can do it. He's got Mondale and Dukakis written all over him. Plus his neck's too thick.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and a Clark-Bush race would be Giuliani-Clinton ugly. I think the far right would tar and feather that man with everything that they had.

God, Bravo reairing the first season of the West Wing makes me wish for a real president so badly. Hell, I'd glady settle for Kevin Kline in Dave right now.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree that Edwards is underestimated and could be the next Clinton. But are middle-American men going to like him as much as women will? Maybe I'm projecting backwards, but I thought even during the 92 campaign that Clinton had a certain authority that Edwards doesn't. And I can't imagine anyone duplicating Clinton's (air of) self-unconsciousness, to make up a phrase.

I just realized that I've been thinking Edwards is dumb for waiting while everyone else gains traction. But now I'm wondering if this will work for him - everyones' weaknesses are starting to come into greater relief. Kerry's getting more disappointing every day. Maybe Edwards is letting them eliminate each other.

I think Saletan could be onto something wrt Lieberman, notwithstanding Berube's obvious response. But even with the falloff in Bush's popularity, which could go further, I think people need a reason to vote for an alternative, not against Bush, and I just don't see Lieberman exciting enough of the swing voters, and he turns off much of the base for ideological or stylistic reasons.

Mondale and Dukakis were spun into wimps with little difficulty. I don't see how they're going to spin Dean that way.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Dean's the governor of a liberal, Yankee state! You don't see how that'll be spun? Is there any way Dean can win Florida or Pennsylvania or Tennessee? Not a chance. The Democratic candidate HAS to be a southerner. Because otherwise the GOP will take the south, thus guaranteeing a win. Any Dem candidate has the northeast and the west coast locked up. Bush has the midwest locked up. So it comes down, once again, to the southeast, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think Edwards is the only candidate who has a shot -- no matter how miniscule -- to take any of those states. And I do think that playing it low is smart for Edwards. Very early in the election -- like last year early -- Edwards was the press' golden boy (fawning profiles in Vanity Fair and the New Yorker, to name but two), but it became quickly obvious that Edwards the human being couldn't match the aspirations that journos were throwing on him. So the big scribes started hopping on other campaign buses, and in the time since, Edwards has really started to find his voice. He's totally channeling '92 Clinton, and that's a message that can still work. Your question, gabbneb, about whether men will vote for him is an extremely good one. But what Dem candidate can you see men voting for?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

(last Democratic president NOT from the south -- Kennedy)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I take the Southerner point, but I think it's possible that the Southern candidates won because of personal characteristics and not the paper fact of their geography, and Northern candidates lost because they lacked those characteristics. So theoretically, despite the correlation between the geography and the personality, a Northerner with the right characteristics could win. Dean's the governor of a liberal state (and he's also a New Yorker, originally), but he's also the governor of a rural state. And while Bush is a cowboy (maybe Westerners, not Southerners, are the winners), Dean's a wrestler (if he wasn't actually, which I think he was, he certainly looks the part). But I'm not from the South, so what do I know?

I could see more men in the middle going for either Dean (aggressive) or Kerry (tall, Kennedyesque though he's a little old for that) or even Gephardt (with strong Teamsters backing) than for Edwards. But, as you say, Edwards is in the making.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

also, who would Edwards' running mate be?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 03:02 (twenty-two years ago)

and Edwards might not be enough of a Southerner - his Senate seat doesn't sound all that safe.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 August 2003 03:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Running mate? Jesus. I have no idea. Someone with a strong military background/image would be a must. But I dunno how many Dems can pull that off.

As far as NC goes, being a trial/class action lawyer, I'm surprised that Edwards managed to get the gig, considering the tobacco cases of recent years.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 14 August 2003 03:25 (twenty-two years ago)

hypocrite on the death penalty among other things.

― anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 14 August 2003 03:33 (twenty-two years ago)

That's moral triage I can deal with. If his preferences on capital punishment were made into law I would be much happier than with the current stuff. The prez can't do much about it anyway besides appoint federal judges who feel the same way he does, can he?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 August 2003 03:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure - it may be the same setup as with governors-state prosecuted capital crimes. I'm not sure if Timothy McVeigh was waiting for a phone call from Bush or not.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 14 August 2003 04:04 (twenty-two years ago)

it wasnt moral triage, it was jumping ship, cause you cant win in america w/o being will to kill those who are more poor, more sick, more fucked up, more latin or more black.

― anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 14 August 2003 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

quaint anthony

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 14 August 2003 04:22 (twenty-two years ago)

which of those was timmy mcveigh again?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 14 August 2003 04:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know what he's said about it, just what I've read. Are you saying his positions changed over time, anthony? I read somewhere that he was agin it, except for kid-killing and cop-killing. An incremental rollback like this could be good. Then again the strongest challenge to the death penalty seems like it's coming from the problem of wrongful convictions - that you can't make people pay that price if you can't be 100% sure. Being 90% sure about cop-killers doesn't address that. I think the wrongful conviction strategy is doomed to fail though: if it succeeds it overturns our entire system of criminal justice!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 August 2003 04:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm kinda baffled by the high expectations for the Edwards campaign at this point. Is it really a strategic decision they've made to lay low for a while, or just that nobody is much interested? Looks like he's on a bus tour around Iowa in the "Real Solutions Express" bus.. trying to channel Clinton and McCain at the same time? good luck.

Now that I think of it, perhaps what strikes me most as I look around other candidates' websites and read up on them, is this difference between the Dean campaign being far less centrally organized and message-controlled from the top down - while for Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman it's more tightly scripted and strategic. Perhaps it's not a very remarkable observation on my part and it's certainly not a good reason to choose who you vote for.. and yet I still think overall that the, uh, no-bullsh!t, non-Washington insider/non-professional politician factor for a Democratic candidate far outweighs the advantage of being from the South.

― daria g (daria g), Thursday, 14 August 2003 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Is it really called "The Real Solutions Express"? Oh dear.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 August 2003 05:37 (twenty-two years ago)

that's just written on the bus dude. there's a 60-page booklet for yr perusal. I bet the put a big f*&king PDF file of it on the website, to reach out to the internet users, see.

― daria g (daria g), Thursday, 14 August 2003 05:56 (twenty-two years ago)

er, "they put." OK, I should get some sleep. But yes, the bus is called that.

― daria g (daria g), Thursday, 14 August 2003 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

-- Dean increasingly seems like the only viable candidate out of the pack. Not perfect, but possible. Kerry's gonna fade, Lieberman and Gephardt are never really gonna get going, and Edwards isn't even going to show up. Why? Partly because none of those guys have much by way of "leadership" credentials. Governors always seem more executive. If Kennedy was the last non-Southern Dem, he was also the last member of Congress to be elected president. And even within Congress, only Gephardt has a real track record of leadership and legislative accomplishment. Kerry's mostly ridden Teddy K.'s coattails, Edwards hasn't been in office long enough to do much of anything, and Lieberman is more of a grandstander (and pompous twit) than a great legislator.

-- Isn't Clark a logical veep candidate, with Dean or whoever? Would help neutralize some of that military/security anxiety.

-- And yes, I know lots of people who think Bush is a brave warrior who has beaten the bad guys and revived the economy with his wondrous tax cuts. They're called my in-laws.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 14 August 2003 06:59 (twenty-two years ago)

is Wesley Clark the US general who tried to start a war with the Russians in Kosovo? he would be a great President.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 14 August 2003 08:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim McVeigh was poor.

― anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 14 August 2003 08:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Dean was the first person Clark mentioned in this CNN interview and not in a negative way; I'd put money on him standing out this election and waiting to be asked for a VP position on a Democratic ticket.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Thursday, 14 August 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

so a family member of mine works at a relatively high level in Congress (for the dark side). i talked to him recently about the race, and he thinks dean will get the nomination and could go all the way. he also raised this idea - a Howard Dean (at the top)/Hillary Clinton ticket.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 August 2003 01:42 (twenty-two years ago)

four years pass...

Snakes On A Plane!

― Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:25 (eighteen years ago)

Eh?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:28 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.