CNN reports Dean to suspend campaign
February 18, 2004 6:32 AM   Subscribe

CNN reports Dean to suspend campaign.
posted by tranquileye (83 comments total)
 
It's sad, but there's always Edwards. (I just hope the new people he energized don't sit home)
posted by amberglow at 7:05 AM on February 18, 2004


phew, I'm glad you posted that here. I wouldn't have seen it anywhere else.

How about a look at the comments on Dean's "Blog for America".
posted by msacheson at 7:07 AM on February 18, 2004


I wonder if John Kerry is happy about this.
posted by NekulturnY at 7:15 AM on February 18, 2004


Amazing to watch a campaign built then and destroyed by the media in less than 12 months.
posted by the fire you left me at 7:33 AM on February 18, 2004


you're so right about the destroyed part, the fire, but i also wonder what part the DC Dems played as well.
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on February 18, 2004


So, I'm curious. All you Deaniacs: Do you feel more favorable towards Edwards or Kerry?
posted by jammer at 7:42 AM on February 18, 2004


Edwards. I mean, Kerry's fine, but I really admire the race that Edwards has run.
posted by anastasiav at 7:44 AM on February 18, 2004


This is distressing. I cannot get behind Kerry.

The party elite keeps taking its base for granted and keeps getting Bush-slapped. I feel like I'm in a Satre play. I hope that Chief Justice Scalia will make Justices Hatch and DeLay feel welcome.
posted by RavinDave at 7:53 AM on February 18, 2004


I'm not going to argue that the media wasn't unfair to Dean, but I'm really not convinced that was the reason his campaign imploded.

I'll tell you how the media destroyed my support for Dean:
1. I was initially a supporter of his due to his positions and some speeches I a read, I was pretty convinced he was my guy.
2. I watch the News Hour on PBS every night, they tend to play 3-5 minute clips of every candidate.
3. Every night, Dean impressed me less, he's just a really poor speaker, both Edwards and Kerry were far far better. And I'm not talking about the "scream" either.

I realize Bush gets a magical pass for not having any speaking skills whatsoever, but I don't think we can expect the same to happen for a democrat. This isn't me responding to CNN telling me he's not electable, this is me looking at him and saying it. I think there's a lot of democrats like me out there.

I'd recommend clay shirky's article:
exiting deanspace, he discusses some real problems with the campaign and the candidate without trying to pin it all on the media.
posted by malphigian at 7:59 AM on February 18, 2004


definitely Edwards--Kerry is just way too vulnerable on flip-flopping: from NAFTA to Iraq to Medicare to No Child Left Behind, etc. Why vote for someone who almost always voted the way the administration wanted him to while in Congress? And his bs justification that he had no idea Bush was going to fuck everything up is a terrible excuse--it makes Kerry out to be either an idiot or a liar.
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on February 18, 2004


>So, I'm curious. All you Deaniacs: Do you feel more favorable towards Edwards or Kerry?


I can't bring myself to support Kerry (yet), but Edwards creeps me out. I've been reading a lot of his literature and I just don't buy it. I think he'll be another Clinton, selling out to appease the right. Not that he would be really selling out as I'm not convinced he means a thing he says. That and he is just as much of an administration lap-dog as anyone in the Senate.

Fortunately I can still vote for Dean on Super Tuesday.
posted by jmgorman at 8:05 AM on February 18, 2004


Jammer: I could take or leave either of them.

I see both of them as ineffectual senators who just _really_ want to be President. Kerry comes off as a flip-flopper who jumps around to whatever makes him most "electable," yet does nothing (Medicare bill: "Oh, I'm gonna fight and vote against it!" Instead, he abstains. The wimp.).

And having talked to NC residents about Edwards it seems he's not too well liked by his own constituents, who feel like he didn't do much for them. Plus, having talked to at least one or two people who worked for/with him on the Hill, he's apparently just Mr. Ambition who is a mile wide and an inch deep. The fact that he decided to drop his senate seat after only one term (his only term in public office, correct?) only served to accentuate that poor view, even if there were questions regarding if it was even possible for him to win another term. I think Edwards has just been enjoying a lack of media scrutiny since he's been in third place for so long. We'll see what happens later on.

But the guy who has been hailed by even Republicans as being the only guy with a true Democratic agenda in governance over the long term (I came to him on issues before the anti-war stuff), the one who pushes the party to show a backbone, the one who energizes people again. HE'S the one who gets crucified. Once again, it's image over substance. And makes me angry beyond belief.
posted by tittergrrl at 8:06 AM on February 18, 2004


This is distressing. I cannot get behind Kerry.

Get over it. All of the major Democratic candidates are exactly the same. Put down the red Fischer-Price guy and pick up the green one.

(I'm not suggesting that having a Democrat in the White House is completely meaningless, but it's close. We can slow it down, but the bad guys are going to win eventually, anyway.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2004


AllahPundit on Edwards...
You hate Kerry for being pinko
You hate Dean for being a nut
You hate Bush for begin born

Meet a man guaranteed not to inspire strong feelings of any sort

posted by PenDevil at 8:11 AM on February 18, 2004


Can y'all find somewhere else to chit-chat about this?
posted by Witty at 8:12 AM on February 18, 2004


This campaign is going to be analyzed for years to come.

Where did the whole thing fall apart? Was it Dean's tepid response to the swift fall of Baghdad ("The ends don't justify the means") or the capture of Sadaam ("This doesn't make us any safer")? Was it his insistence that the "Bush tax cuts" be completely overturned, which would have resulted in a tax increase to every single American taxpayer? What role did his wierd wife or his draft-dodging flunked physical play?

I think all these things contributed to his failure, but most of all, I believe that the voters (yes...even Democrats) became tired of his angry, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-establishment schtick.
posted by Durwood at 8:18 AM on February 18, 2004


Edwards creeps me out. I've been reading a lot of his literature and I just don't buy it. I think he'll be another Clinton, selling out to appease the right.

Probably true.

But Clinton won. Twice.

I'd give anything for Bill Clinton again; someone who can defang Dubya on nearly every issue. Edwards is closest, and to boot he probably doesn't get BJ's from his interns.

He's a moderate. Moderates win, plain and simple, unless you lie in the campaign and say you're a moderate when you're really not. I want Bush to lose, so I need to sacrifice my lefty tendencies when choosing a Democratic candidate. That's the way it goes, and we need everyone to unite to kick this idiot out of office in November.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:22 AM on February 18, 2004


Actually, Durwood, from virtually every person I talked to about Dean.. the answer was he was "angry."

Not one of those things you mentioned has _ever_ come up, ever. It was always "oh, he's just too angry!"

Oh, everyone tended to agree with his positions and were impressed with his accomplishments. They just couldn't seem to wrap their brains around how someone so "angry" could manage to do all those things and still get re-elected so many times.

People are inscrutable.
posted by tittergrrl at 8:22 AM on February 18, 2004


I disagree. What happened was Kerry and Edwards picked up the anti-Bush, anti-war, and (laughably) anti-special interests Dean message and ran with it. Dean had little left besides his record to run on. And it was that original angry message that resonated.

His true legacy is going to be the amazing way he raised more money in $70 checks than the rest did at their $2 k a head fundraisers.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:24 AM on February 18, 2004


Can y'all find somewhere else to chit-chat about this?

yeah, move it over to the muppet thread already.
posted by chrisege at 8:25 AM on February 18, 2004


I had high hopes for Dean... I really did.

Then, I heard him speak... multiple times he dissappointed me with his speaches. We are a nation that is just not ready for Dean. He has some good ideas, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't feel like he could ever get them through congress.

I too will have a hard time backing Kerry. I don't agree with alot of his stance, but it seems no matter what he says, it's not as bad as what Bush proposes. I think Kerry, at least, has *some* grasp of the US Constitution.

Edwards... funny thing is, as long as he has been in the race, I havn't heard very many original ideas from him. Perhpas it's just me, but he seems to be a follower. That's not so bad though... public officials are supposed to listen to their electorate.
posted by LoopSouth at 8:25 AM on February 18, 2004


Oh, and to note what PV was saying... he was also "too liberal" to win, ignoring the fact that Dean was one of the more moderate/conservative people running. A strict fiscal conservative, he managed to keep his state from falling into the massive deficits pretty much the entire country finds itself in now. Yes, he brought health care to his state but in a way which locked into our current system, rather than rewriting everything to start. Dean's policies have always been about incrementalism... small victories which grow into larger ones. Getting things _done_, and moving from there.

Of course, once you told people that... you would occasionally get the: "Oh! Wait! See? Everyone's gonna leave him now, because he's NOT a liberal. You silly supporters, you just don't understand!"

Arrrrgh. I'll shut up now. :(
posted by tittergrrl at 8:27 AM on February 18, 2004


A black friend of mine was behind Clark because he was the only guy who ever actually worked closely with black people (in the military). Dean, he said, was the whitest guy in the race. I think he's behind Kerry now, for reasons that seem like selling out to some but are just pragmatic politics. The Republicans never seem to have trouble coalescing around one less than ideal figure. The Democrats always chew themselves apart. I kind of liked the Dean message though not the fumbling execution, like his confederate flag remark and the poorly considered attempts to seem religious.

I am glad that Edwards is still in the race, so I don't have to vote for Kerry on March 2, but I will have no problem voting for Kerry in November. I would vote for a dead dog in the street over the appointee.
posted by Slagman at 8:29 AM on February 18, 2004


UPDATE: CNN reports East and Central dry, storms in the West.
posted by Witty at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2004


Witty, why not just read some of the other threads?
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:32 AM on February 18, 2004


msacheson is right, though, those Deaniac posts on the Blog for America are keeeerazy.
posted by Slagman at 8:35 AM on February 18, 2004


where's bluenote...or whatever his name is???

a president edwards would be awesome, to beat bush he needs to find some aging cream, a whisps of grey hair, and about 4 more years of public policy experience .... plus kerry is stronger on the environment, which should be the #1 issue on anyone's plate.
posted by specialk420 at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2004


plus kerry is stronger on the environment, which should be the #1 issue on anyone's plate.

No offence... but I'd rather have affordable healthcare or a better job market before we clean the air.

I take 6 meds... and even with health insurace, it's alot to afford each month... and if I lose my job and can't find another one, something likely in today's current market, I am *litterally* dead.
posted by LoopSouth at 8:47 AM on February 18, 2004


I look at Bush as that rancid stinking junk of rotting, cocky, dictator-meat you find accidentally smelling up your trashcan. Anyone who can throw that shit to the curb and spray some lysol on this country's situation gets my vote.
posted by Peter H at 8:49 AM on February 18, 2004


Witty, why not just read some of the other threads?

Already did. But now I'm blatantly abusing this blatant abuse of a thread.

Look what MSNBC is saying:
Dean to abandon bid for White House.

The similarities are eery.
posted by Witty at 8:49 AM on February 18, 2004




I liked Melanie Goux's perspective on the disintegration more than Shirky's.
posted by whatnot at 8:50 AM on February 18, 2004


I liked Dean, but this isn't an election over who is the best candidate. It's an election-in-crisis (history will clearly prove this, despite what you think) .. this is not an election over who is the best Democratic candidate, it is more critical. It is about removing the current administration from power. Anyone enjoying the freedom to post their thoughts on this should agree. And therefore, with -anyone- being better than Bush, I happily throw my cap to whomever is there at the end of the primaries. hooray democracy! (while we still have it, that is)
posted by Peter H at 8:55 AM on February 18, 2004


i think i may use this opportunity to vote for that little known fringe party ive always meant to vote for but never did.

you people should to.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:55 AM on February 18, 2004


Dean's blog is expecting a statement within the next hour. {deep breath} Let's join hands please.
posted by Witty at 9:04 AM on February 18, 2004


Dean's biggest mistake was wasting the $40 million in his warchest. I still don't see how that was possible and it's practically criminal. Was there a "hit" put out against him by the media and the Dems in DC? Most likely, but those are the things you have to deal with, especially as a Democrat.

Still, Kerry & Edwards would be eons better than the current Miserable Failure.
posted by owillis at 9:05 AM on February 18, 2004


I think Dean best can best serve the left behind the scenes. He won't cave to the right, knows fundraising and might be able to build a tighter alliance between the left and center of the party. He renewed energy and restored faith that the left can take on GW. But for whatever reason, he doesn't seem to play well on camera (judging by the high number of negatives in the polling info). I hope that Kerry or Edwards - and the democratic world as a whole - will find a way to include Dean. And I hope Deaniacs won't lose the faith - just because their boy won't win doesn't mean he didn't have an impact on the party. Neither Kerry or Edwards may be your perfect candidate, but they are both leaps and bounds better than what we have now.
posted by blefr at 9:24 AM on February 18, 2004


So, I'm curious. All you Deaniacs: Do you feel more favorable towards Edwards or Kerry?

I feel like staying home until November, and then holding my nose when I ink my ballot.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:40 AM on February 18, 2004


A vote for anyone but Kerry is a vote for Bush.
posted by stbalbach at 9:41 AM on February 18, 2004


A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush-esque.
posted by xmutex at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2004


Kerry is a talking head. It's a sad day for the democratic party when he is the best they can muster.

I would rather see Edwards get the nod. If for no other reason he isn't a life long career politician (yet)

Left or right, I don't like career politicians. We need more independants, people tired of the status quo to shake things up.
posted by a3matrix at 9:48 AM on February 18, 2004


I was looking forward to voting FOR Dean. Now I guess I have to vote AGAINST Bush.
posted by keswick at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2004


And I hope Deaniacs won't lose the faith - just because their boy won't win doesn't mean he didn't have an impact on the party.
But is the impact just lipservice (as Kerry is giving), or for real? That's the real question, and the one that will determine whether people stay home. I'm much less excited about my primary on super Tuesday now-- I wonder if others are too.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 AM on February 18, 2004


I would like to think there was a better way to select candidates for office, but good luck at getting them adopted. I'm seriously considering not voting for a president (but still voting for local candidates and issues).
posted by tommasz at 10:01 AM on February 18, 2004


A vote for anyone but Kerry is a vote for Bush.

That's the same crap some UW-Madison college student parroted on NPR this morning. Speaking as a neutral party, why? Isn't the point of a primary to vote for the candidate who best matches your beliefs so those are represented by "your" party? Color me impossibly naive, but why did everyone start worrying about a candidate's electability in the past few years? It transforms the primary process from an election into the kind of beauty pageant they used to have (and maybe still do) in British newspapers, where a random voter is chosen to win a prize, but that voter's name is picked only from the group that voted for the eventual winner*.

* This was used as an example in Economics classes and ascribed to John Maynard Keynes. I have no idea if such a thing truly exists.
posted by yerfatma at 10:02 AM on February 18, 2004


Dean's speaking as I type - watch here, if you're interested
posted by ascullion at 10:03 AM on February 18, 2004


We need more independants, people tired of the status quo to shake things up.

Exactly, someone even more radical than Bush!

Isn't the point of a primary to vote for the candidate who best matches your beliefs

No. The point is to pick someone you want to represent your interests in office. Most notably on how to spend your tax money. Everything else is BS.
posted by stbalbach at 10:15 AM on February 18, 2004


stbalbach: Is there a book of correct answers you are getting this from?

Last time around a vote for Gore was a vote for Bush if you wanted Nader. Quit being a demagogue.
posted by thirteen at 10:25 AM on February 18, 2004


Amberglow (and other Dean supporters): what is it about Kerry that bothers you so much? He's a member of the elite (so is Dean). He is stiff. He's waffled on some things and didn't vote against the Iraq war (though Dean was in a very convenient position on that - able to criticize from the outside without having to vote). But he's more liberal than Dean, has more experience and - by most accounts - has an impressive if not spectacular record as senator. Throw in the fact that he's a decorated veteran. I really don't see what's so distasteful about him. What about him makes him such a bad second prize?
posted by blefr at 10:29 AM on February 18, 2004


cause amber had money on dean becoming president : )
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:36 AM on February 18, 2004


What about him makes him such a bad second prize?

He's a bad second prize because he's second. Do you ask the guys who lost the Super Bowl to feel good 'cause, hey, the team who won was a good one?

I have no rational explanation for this. I don't dislike Kerry. I'm just not inspired to do anything other than vote for him. I've said before that I'll work like hell to make sure Bush gets voted out, but why would I want to work for someone who doesn't give the appearance of wanting anything but my vote?

Howard Dean was the guy who articulated my anger at the Bush Administration and my hopes for America. He was the one who made it seem (and, yes, I know it's all about appearance) like he needed more than votes or money. He needed my voice. And after years of feeling voiceless (or like I was some kind of traitor for speaking out), here was a candidate who said, "I hear you. I won't fix everything for you, but I'll sure as hell be your voice."

And now I'm going to turn off CNN and watch my TiVo'd collection of "The West Wing." Is it so wrong to want a government that wants to make people's lives better?
posted by RakDaddy at 10:41 AM on February 18, 2004


Oh, and what the Sarge said. I made two bets on Dean winning the whole enchilada. I'm not looking forward to paying them out, not because of the cash I've lost, but because of the gloating.
posted by RakDaddy at 10:43 AM on February 18, 2004


Dean's biggest mistake was wasting the $40 million in his warchest. I still don't see how that was possible and it's practically criminal. Was there a "hit" put out against him by the media and the Dems in DC? Most likely, but those are the things you have to deal with, especially as a Democrat.

But in 2000, Bush spent through more than $40 million and was out of money around the time of South Carolina.

Yes, there was a hit put out for Dean. The news about it came out this weekend. For more, search for the phrase "americans for jobs."

If Kerry gets the nomination, and doesn't win the election, this would be another case (like in 72) of the powerful in the Democratic party sabotaging an election to remain in control of the party.
posted by drezdn at 11:06 AM on February 18, 2004


With regards to Dean's speaking, it seems that when he was on top, he was incredible, but lately he has had a sore throat and in turn has sounded sick.
posted by drezdn at 11:08 AM on February 18, 2004


What about him makes him such a bad second prize?

Well, for one thing he waffles. Badly. He always uses 50 words when 15 will do. Slate summed it up recently better than I ever could: "He never walks into a sentence without leaving himself a way out. "

Plus, I've never understood the whole 'angry' knock against Dean. I'm glad he's angry. Damnit, I'm angry. I think more of America should be angry -- angry that we've been lied to; angry that our soldiers died for that lie, angry that Bush spends money like a 14 year old at the mall with Daddy's credit card, and most of all angry that so many of our fellow citizens seem to be going along with all this without a whimper.

Dean tells the truth, even when the truth is unpleasant (like the impending need to raise taxes to pay the debts that Bush has run up). Dean isn't afraid to say what he actually believes, unlike Kerry and his constant struggle to say only what he thinks the electorate believes.

Plus, I don't see Dean as 'entitled' in the same way as Kerry or Bush. I've been to Kennebunkport and I've been to Shelburne -- there's no comparison. Perhaps Dean came from a wealthy background, but he chose to build his life in a small community where it was his skills and personality that mattered, not his parent's money.

Don't get me wrong -- I can support Kerry. I admire his entire Vietnam experience, and -- hey! -- he's not Bush. But he's not a candidate to be passionate about. I doubt he'll inspire the passion and loyalty that Dean, Edwards, and Clark inspire ... but I want some passion, truth and empowerment in my political experience. I don't see that from a John Kerry campaign.
posted by anastasiav at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2004


A vote for anyone but Kerry is a vote for Bush.

I disagree. The more the primary looks decided, the less press it's going to get. A horse race is free publicity for the Democrats and can only hurt them if there is too much mudslinging. I voted for Edwards because a) I like him better, b) I think he's more electable (charisma, "of the people" vibe), c) I want to keep a horse race, and d) don't put all your eggs in one basket until you have to.
posted by callmejay at 11:18 AM on February 18, 2004


I mostly agree with Anastasiav. The only reasonable attack against Dean was that he has no foreign policy experience, but Bush didn't either when he was elected.

Kerry is just another Senator who had years to take a leadership role, even to stand against Bush on things like the Patriot Act, but he didn't.

Honestly, if yesterday is any indication, Edwards is more "electable" than Kerry. As ancedotal evidence, my parents who voted for Bush in 2000 voted for Edwards yesterday because they agreed with most of his positions and are very concerned about jobs. They were OK with the Iraq war at first but are fed up with all the set backs, but their main issue is jobs and they feel Edwards has the best position here.

If Edwards were the nominee, I wouldn't mind volunteering for his campaign (though I do disagree with his position on Nafta), with Dean, it would have been the same. Kerry just seems like a Dole, a weak attempt to guess what voters want or a sacrificial lamb.
posted by drezdn at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2004


stbalbach: Is there a book of correct answers you are getting this from?

It is called "The Reality of the Situation".

last time a vote for Gore was a vote for Bush if you wanted Nader

Huh?! Gore had a chance to win. He almost won! A vote for Gore was a vote for Gore. Nadar wasnt even on the radar. A vote for Nadar was a protest vote, no one expected him to win, everyone knew that, that's a silly example.

The reality today is Bush is favoured to win. He has more money, more special interests, leads in the polls. The only way the Dems will win is 1) focusing the Democratic vote on a single canidate and 2) whooing the borderline conservatives who are disatisfied with Bush. The only canidate who has demonstrated the ability to do both those things is Kerry. Kerry appeals to the conservatives more than Edwards (because of his military background) and he has more broad support from Dems than Edwards (as seen in the election results).

If you want to beat Bush, vote for Kerry. If you dont want to beat Bush, vote for anyone else. If you cant deal with that, then your living in fantasy land and the Repubs will win again and rightly so.
posted by stbalbach at 11:30 AM on February 18, 2004


We need more independants, people tired of the status quo to shake things up.

I sympathize, but be realistic. If Bush does not get elected we will have at least two years of gridlock. If Kerry were to beat Bush, we'd have gridlock; if Dean beat Bush, we'd have gridlock; if Nader beat Bush, we'd have gridlock. A Democratic president is going to be able to do nothing but duck and weave Republican attacks. The revolution is not happening yet. (Not that it would anyway.)
posted by furiousthought at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2004


I don't need to tell any of you Dean's impact or legacy on the 2004 race, but here's what the NYTimes thinks.
posted by Bag Man at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2004


I sympathize, but be realistic. If Bush does not get elected we will have at least two years of gridlock

Isn't gridlock a 100% better than Bush just getting his way? We've had that for the past two years and look where it has gotten us.
posted by juicyraoul at 11:45 AM on February 18, 2004


It will be interesting how Dean stays involved in politics. A good thing, I think.. Something needs to shake the shit out of the government staleness. Like, get rid of 75% of the idiots currently in office draining taxpayers' bank accounts. There are a lot of roads in need of repair from this harsh winter, after all.

As for the Kerry/Edwards thing, I grudgingly would support Kerry before Edwards - Edwards strikes me as a hood ornament, and I can't get past that September (October?) absentee voting record he had from the senate floor: 90%! Makes me wonder what he'll do in the White House. OTOH, Kerry's wordiness annoys me. As Edwards responded to Kerry in the debate the other night: " That's the longest answer *I* ever heard to a yes/no question."

That being said, I'm still a diehard anyone but Bush.
posted by yoga at 11:58 AM on February 18, 2004


Well, there goes any enthusiasm I might have had about the 2004 election. I'll still show up and vote for whoever isn't Bush, of course, but I don't plan to pay much attention to the whole process in the meantime. Oh well.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:06 PM on February 18, 2004


I didn't have money on it, but drezdn summed it up really nicely for me: Kerry is just another Senator who had years to take a leadership role, even to stand against Bush on things like the Patriot Act, but he didn't.
Honestly, if yesterday is any indication, Edwards is more "electable" than Kerry. As ancedotal evidence, my parents who voted for Bush in 2000 voted for Edwards yesterday because they agreed with most of his positions and are very concerned about jobs.


I'm going to vote Edwards on Super Tuesday and he's my hope for the nomination now that Dean is gone (but i'll vote Kerry in nov. if he's the nominee bec. i have no choice)--his ability to attract people like drezdn's parents is a giant plus (and something Kerry hasn't shown he can do).

I also do not want this to be a fixed process, where it was decided long ago in a smoke-free room somewhere in DC who gets to be the nominee, before a single vote is cast (which reminds me of Dole in 96--it was his turn). It's one of the reasons I loved Dean's grassroots thing. Also, and very very important, Senators don't get elected (at least not in my lifetime)--it's too easy to destroy them on their records or lack thereof. The repubs must be rubbing their hands with glee about Kerry.

and on preview: what juicyraoul said...there's also a lot of damage control that needs to be done.
posted by amberglow at 12:12 PM on February 18, 2004


Howard Dean had released the vocal tracks alone, specifically for the convenience of remixers.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:20 PM on February 18, 2004


Senators don't get elected

Johnson may be the only one and JFK and Truman.
posted by clavdivs at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2004


Johnson may be the only one and JFK and Truman.

Johnson and Truman weren't elected. They ascended.
posted by tittergrrl at 12:31 PM on February 18, 2004


From Calpundit:

Good for him. I was never very enthused by Dean's candidacy, but there's no question that he played a huge role in putting some backbone into the Democratic field, and I honor him for that.

On a personal level, of course, it must be devastating to come from nowhere the way he did, become the undisputed frontrunner, and then suddenly collapse. I hope he recovers from that and that his "new initiative" is as big a contribution to the upcoming campaign as his own candidacy was to the primaries. Ditto for Wesley Clark, who I hope stays active in Democratic politics and becomes a real force.

So the bottom line is this: Thanks, Howard. You weren't my candidate, but I sure appreciate everything you did. If we win in November, a big part of the victory will be thanks to you.


America is at least a decade behind Dean, of course. That, incredibly, is about the same amount of time it took for the great mass of people in this bloodthirsty country to finally understand that our little incursion into Vietnam was criminal. Over that time, two national treasures named Johnson and Nixon had been elected by America.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:02 PM on February 18, 2004


I sympathize, but be realistic. If Bush does not get elected we will have at least two years of gridlock

Bush 2004: just do what we say and no one gets hurt.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2004


I am annoyed as hell that the nominee has essentially been picked and I haven't even been able to vote yet! California is still way too late in the process. Sure, they moved our primary up, but not enough. Screw it, I am doing what I have always done and vote/write in my conscience in the primary and vote to win in November. I don't like it, but Bush has to go, no matter what.

I don't think Edwards stands a chance, although I feel better about him than Kerry. Does Edwards remind anyone else of John Ritter looks-wise or is that just me?
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2004


Isn't gridlock a 100% better than Bush just getting his way?

Oh, shit yes. I am not not not a Bush supporter, guys. All I'm saying is, the Great Liberal Revolution isn't waiting around the corner.
posted by furiousthought at 1:33 PM on February 18, 2004


As a matter of fact, gridlock is damn near my ideal form of government. Perhaps I should have clarified that. A sleek, efficient government, able to speedily resolve any problems it identifies - god! Stuff of nightmares. Gridlock may not be the very best feature of a democratic government, but it easily makes the top five. Go gridlock!
posted by furiousthought at 1:43 PM on February 18, 2004


Gridlock only works when we have divided government, not the one-party dominance we currently have. It's a checks-and-balances thing, I think. If we won back the House and Senate, but lost to Bush we'd have it too.
posted by amberglow at 2:22 PM on February 18, 2004


Hence my wanting to get rid of Bush! Actually, if you gave me a choice between the two, I'd prefer it if we won back the House and Senate instead. Not that that's gonna happen. Now, there's an argument to be made that even if Democrats took all branches of government, we'd still have gridlock, given how much we like to fight each other...
posted by furiousthought at 3:08 PM on February 18, 2004


Johnson and Truman weren't elected. They ascended.

Johnson and Turman were both elect once, just ask those Dewy and Goldwater guys.
posted by Bag Man at 3:13 PM on February 18, 2004


Bush 2004: just do what we say and no one gets hurt.

Don't forget this slogan:

Bush 2004: Because God can see you in the voting booth!
posted by Bag Man at 3:15 PM on February 18, 2004


just ask those Dewy

Dewey
posted by Bag Man at 3:16 PM on February 18, 2004


did al queda want dean in or out???
posted by specialk420 at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2004


speaking of that, special, i read somewhere that Al Qaeda is the best election tool Bush has--they're bigger boogeyman/demons than us gays.
posted by amberglow at 3:40 PM on February 18, 2004


Except for the fact that Al Qaeda can (and did) actually harm America and gays cannot.
posted by jonmc at 4:02 PM on February 18, 2004


From Andrew Sullivan:
Kerry needs to explain why what's good enough for him isn't good enough for a gay couple. He hasn't. He won't. He wants to pander to prejudice while maintaining he is in favor of equality.
posted by Mick at 4:44 PM on February 18, 2004


Totally agree with specials link , Al-queda's strategy is working brilliantly.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:50 PM on February 18, 2004


johnson was JFKs' running mate thus he was elected.

November 7: Truman is elected vice president of the United States
posted by clavdivs at 2:14 PM on February 20, 2004


« Older Mickey Moose   |   Mr. Smarty Pants Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments