That was pretty much my position (in addition to the fact that the state result was pretty much set in stone).
Quick, what was the context of the “scream”?
After winning in either Iowa or New Hampshire, wasn’t it?
I thought it was after losing a state 
Well, no, it is not exactly irrelevant.
It simply reinforces that the Democrats hereabouts have learned exactly nothing from either of the last two elections. Here we have an imaginary election, pitting Bush against the only candidate who ever got much support on the SDMB - Anybody But Bush[sup]TM[/sup]. And Bush lost. (Never mind the margin of error as long as the poll tells you what you want to hear).
Ergo, the basic idea of the campaign in 2004 must have been a winning strategy. Presto! Instant validation! Never mind the actual results of the election. This poll is what should be used to shape the Democratic strategy.
Fine with me, obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
The “Scream” was taken out of context.
Dean was delivering his IOWA concession speech. Forced to shout over the cheers of his enthusiastic audience, Dean didn’t realize the crowd noise was being filtered out by his unidirectional microphone, leaving only his full-throated exhortations audible to the television viewers. To those at home, it sounded as if he was raising his voice out of sheer emotion. Recordings from within the crowd made it clear that Dean was shouting in order to be heard over the cheers of the crowd.
The speech:
Some follow-up
I’m dying to know which fine upstanding Republican potential candidates you think are worthy of succeeding your esteemed leader in 2008.
BobLibDem That is a great question.
Shodan, who do you want as your candidate in 2008?
I gotta admit you’ve got me scratching my head.
On the one hand, you’ve got a guy who’s seemingly doing his level best to destroy the country. And on the other, you’ve got a guy you’ve got ‘issues’ with, but who probably won’t leave the Republic in noticeably worse shape than he found it.
Those must be some damned big issues.
Hell, if the Dems had exhumed Richard Nixon and run him against Bush, I’d have voted for Nixon. And Nixon was evil. (Hey, even Bob Dole admitted as much.) But he was just enemies-list, steal-an-election-that-didn’t-need stealing evil; he wasn’t destroy-America evil. I’ve got damned serious issues about Nixon, but they would have paled.
It’s worked for them twice now - getting the media focused on nitpicky problems about the Dem, and ignoring the GOP candidate’s glaring deficiencies.
Isn’t Ken Lay available?
Well, he gave the impression he was more competent, but since he could never seem to get across what his plan was, it was hard to tell.
I do not owe my vote to anyone. You want it, you have to earn it. You do you get it by default unless the other guy is Hitler(and while Bush is pretty bad, he’s not Hitler).
If you run againest Alfred E Neumen, it shouldn’t be that hard to convince me you will do things better. If you fail at that task, It doesn’t give me a lot of confindence in you.
But don’t expect me to vote for a piece of dry toast just because I dislike the other guy. Put up a good candidate and I’ll vote for him. Put up kerry and I’ll shop some place else.
I agree with what you said, I followed this logic in 2000 and voted Green Party rather than Bush or Gore. I decided Bush was such a threat to America as I knew and loved it, that I would have to vote against him. Kerry was a horrible compromise. I still think even he would have been better then more Bush years.
IMHO:
Bush not as bad as Hitler =Yes
Bush worse than Nixon or Carter = Yes
Kerry better than Bush = Probably
I would take the chance while still hating the fact the Dem’s could not get a centrist candidate to take on Bush.
I’m hoping Condi Rice changes her mind. That way, the Dems will need assholes like Sharpton and Jackson around to call her an Uncle Tom and a closet lesbian. This will hurt your credibility as a party.
Or maybe Hilary can convince me she really is a centrist.
Of course, it is three fricking years until the election. God only knows what the current issues will be by then, or who the new faces are. So all of this is speculation.
The only certain thing is that Bush will not be running, and he is still all y’all can think about.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you for reply to BobLibDem. I did not realize you were more of a moderate.
Is McCain or Giuliani unacceptable to you? These are my leading choices.
I concur with the first sentence but disagree with the others. I hope Condi runs. But we don’t need to call her Auntie Tom or a lesbian. Just simply being closely associated with the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the nation will be more than enough to defeat her.
Well, if you say so. Although I seem to remember another candidate even more closely associated, who seems to have scraped out a win. 
As Bob Dole supposedly replied when asked, “Boxers, or briefs?”
“Depends”.
There are relatively few Republicans and/or moderates who are unacceptable at this point. On the other hand, Condi says she doesn’t want to run, so I have no realistic leading choices. Like I said, it’s three years, so who knows what will be the important issues. So, it depends - on the size of the deficit, the state of the nation, the state of the War on Terror, on some hot issue that isn’t even yet on our radar.
No doubt Giuliani’s marital troubles will leave him open to a lot of sniping (from both sides) about family values, and all that stuff about how a politician’s sex life is private unless it impacts his performance will disappear instantly once he announces. I have read McCain’s book, and he is certainly a brave man, but he is awfully old and his health is a question in a way that I don’t think Reagan’s was. And I am a little leary of nominating a Senator based on his Viet Nam service.
But like I say, I don’t really know.
Regards,
Shodan
See, now, you’ve gone and done Arwin’s homework.
The idea that someone giving a speech intended as a rallying cry to his supporters could be taken as the act of a “poor loser” is just pathetic.
If Bush could run again, do you think that the popular opinion of the war in Iraq would help him or hurt him? In 2004, it was a positive. Now, it would be a negative. In 2008, it would be even worse. Bush’s success (relatively, I will believe to my dying day that the election was rigged) in 2004 was when the war was relatively well supported.
Interesting points, I would hope Rudy could overcome the Family values issue.
McCain’s record as Senator and the loudest moderate in the Senate is what I would be voting for, but the age and health issues are valid.
I am waiting to see what either party puts up.
We need an extreme righty and a very Liberal to give us their choices; just for points of interest.