No idea what this means, but I love it.
Might want to y’know, actually look for yourself before you go around calling people liars. (I’m guessing you got your info from dem blogs?) The only appearance of the words “Soviet Union” that I see appear in this paragraph:
DEAN: Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let’s act now so we don’t have to have a confrontation which may result in force, which would be very disastrous in the case of North Korea and might be disastrous in the case of Iran.
Look, it doesn’t mean anything. He obviously had a brain fart; we all do. For most of his life, Russia pretty much was the Soviet Union. But the point is that it would be evidence of utter incompetence and the butt of Leno jokes for weeks if Dubya had said it.
New Hampshire has a long history of spanking the front runner down. Maybe it’s their way of letting the elite know who is in charge… That’s why Dean is so hesitant to call himself the front runner (or was); his team have done their homework…
I repeat: If Dan Quayle had ever uttered a paragraph half as tortured as that one, it would have been all over the news.
Only because Quayle has already established a track record of being informationally challenged. There’s a difference between one data point and a recurring trend, y’know.
If Al Gore’s endorsement is so wonderful, why the hell isn’t HE running for president?
My opinion is that this only makes one real difference. It kills the funding of all the other candidates except Clark. Because all the other candidates have been relying on establishment money and the idea that they are more electable than Dean. Clark is the only person who has generated grassroots even similar to Dean.
I’d say that Dean is Clinton’s choice. Clark is trying to make it look like he is the Clinton’s choice because basically that is the only way for him to get any airtime. Hes been doing that from back when he first announced and claimed that Hillary would be a campaign staffer for him. Clinton on the other hand has always praised and defended Dean. Especially when Dean was governor.
I think that this more than anything shows that you just have not been paying attention to this race. Dean is not the insider candidate. He is the one who smart money said last year was a fringe candidate that had no chance getting the nomination. He managed to get where he is because regular people sent him money and supported him while all the pundits were claiming that he would lose and had no chance.
There is also your assertion that Bush’s records are unsealed while Dean’s are not. That is false as well. Dean has sealed about 30% of his records. In your article it also says that Bush has sealed part of his records.
Theres a handy thing you can do in cases like this. Press control-F. Then you can type in former soviet union and find it.
Its near the top.
Oh and one last thing. As far as Iowa and NH being a predictor of who will win the nomination I don’t think that anybody has ever lost after winning both.
Until the Clintons actually come out and endorse someone, I don’t think they’re an issue. Saying Gore is endorsing Dean against Clinton’s shadow endorsement of Clark (who hasn’t publiclly ruled out Hillary for VP, then again he hasn’t publically ruled out Triumph the Insult Comedy Dog, to the best of my knowledge) is little more than conspiracy theorizing.
Bush will be tough to beat. While I agree that it’s both undemocratic (small “d”) and unwise to truly declare Dean the winner now, it’s time to start thinking this way. Heneeds to start building his machine and turn his attention to the President very soon if he even has a prayer of winning.
Bull-puckey.
Howard Dean has been the darling candidate of the internet and other groups, and I haven’t heard a single news report in the last six months that was dismissive of him- most touted him as one of the big ones to be beaten in New Hampshire. Find me one person who said last year that Dean had no chance.
Dean may not be an insider, but right now he is the candidate of the insiders- ergo Gore’s support. And you can talk all you want about “regular people” supporting him, but the fact remains that he has been annointed the winner before any vote tallies have taken place, and will likely win not because he has support, but because he is perceived by the media as having support and being a winner. That sounds great, but as soon as he messes up and the media decides to label him a loser, the Dems are going to have another Dukakis on their hands.
Cite?
Here, read this while you’re trying to substantiate. I’ll highlight the important parts:
Emphasis added by me. The article does state that some of Bush’s records are still sealed, and that Dean is not planning to pick this up as an issue now.
John:
So? Whenever a nomination becomes decided, the nominee pretty much automatically becomes the candidate of the insiders. What else are they going to do? Your attempt to paint him as a tool of the shadowy forces manipulating the Democratic Party may play well on RW talk radio, but it’s still, well, not reality-based, ya know?
Really? All those polls must somehow have found only media members to reply, then. The media attention has followed the popular support, it hasn’t created it. Remember who you’re dealing with - the national political media is another Beltway subculture, comfortable with other Beltway types whom they won’t abandon unless forced. Dean was, and mostly still is, an outsider to the Beltway media culture just as Clinton was. If they haven’t been negative to him yet, it’s because they haven’t taken him seriously until now, and that’s about the situation as of 12/91, as well.
Naw, Dukakis did a fine job by himself of showing that he didn’t really want the job and wasn’t big enough for it. The media followed that; they didn’t create it. Or are you asserting that all those liberal reporters really wanted GHW Bush and a continuation of Reaganism, instead of a real live Massachusetts leftie? Somehow I doubt that.
Geez, hyperbolize much? All I’m saying is that the pundits and talking heads within the DP have fixated on Dean as “the one,” which I see as an astoundingly bad decision when he’s so unknown.
Really? Seems to me that Dean got a bit of a internet groundswell- certainly not what I’d call “common folk”- the media played it up, people started focusing on Dean because the media did, and then the media declared him the front runner because they had talked about him so much that he was the most recognizable name in the field.
Are you telling me that the national media didn’t take to Clinton? Please- the national media fell in love with Clinton in early '92, and ignored serious questions in return for playing his lap dog. Read Primary Colors or 1992-era Doonsebury strips if you don’t remember that.
The media loves a story, and they love a new story that sells papers. If anything, the inside-the-Beltway media is bored to death with inside-the-Beltway people, and prefer to focus on the outsiders.
This is the second time you’ve insulted me with such, Elvis, and I once again ask you to prove that I have at any point made any intimations about a ‘liberal’ media.
sterra wrote:
I believe you are incorrect.
Bill Clinton has been quoted as saying that the Democratic Party has two stars: Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton. Sounds like an almost-endorsement to me.
Hillary has addressed potential VP questions (regarding Dean) and Clark as discussed the possibility of Hillary. I don’t think Triumph the Insult Comedy Dog has made any position statements yet. Maybe if he bites one of the candidates…
I’m with Sam’s assessment. It looks like a back room brawl between Gore and the House of Clinton.
How do you arrive at that from the link you offer, Magiver? Even Fox itself couldn’t stretch it that far.
Yep, the Clintons are in cahoots with the Liberal Media and the International Jewish Conspiracy and the Illuminati to rig this election. Get off it, guys. You got boring long, long ago.
John, Dean got to the top of the polls first, then the media “anointed” him the frontrunner. That’s kinda their job. Now, this implication you’re spreading that the Dean supporters either aren’t real people, or aren’t thinking for themselves, is a pretty self-defeating argument. Don’t complain about being insulted if that’s your claim. As for the “liberal media” comment, I’m just trying to expose your argument as the crap it is. If it isn’t, you can support it yourself. But if you’re trying to use a novel, a work of fiction, mind you, as an actual cite, then you may as well not bother, okay?
Dr. Deth hit it on the head, earlier. Gore does not want Dean to win, if Bush wins, Gore will be the “hands down” front runner in 2008, with Dean’s people and apparatus right behind him.
Clark is Clinton’s boy. Of course, Clinton does not really want Clark to win either, because that means an aging Hillary Clinton will have to wait until 2012 to run again, and by 2012, I think the Clinton’s will be a fading memory.
2008 will be interesting, because Clinton and Gore will be rivals, and possibly behind the scenes heated rivals, Gore blames Clinton for him losing in 2000. The Democratic nomination will be between Gore and Hillary, with still popular Dean (who lost a North versus South electorial contest in 04’, plus Bush has funked something up) backing Gore.
I’d bet all my money that Al Gore come November pulls the switch for Bush.
ET
I don’t see this at all. Gore has cast his lot with Dean. If the war goes badly, Dean may get elected, in which case Gore’s best hope is a cabinet position. If the war goes well, Dean loses, and GORE loses. He’s become an anti-war radical, and his political fortune will ride or fall with that outcome.
I think what you are seeing here is a major split in the Democratic party. On one side is the Democratic establishment, with the Clintons at the top. Terry McCauliffe, the head of the party, is a Clinton boy. Hillary is the current power in the senate. This is the side of the party that is moderate, contains the Democratic Leadership Council, and warily supports the war. Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and John Edwards belong to this wing of the party, but Wesley Clark is the chosen standard-bearer. He really is a Clinton candidate - He didn’t run until he met with the Clintons and got their advice and approval, and his campaign is staffed by ex-Clinton people. Bill Clinton has said that the Democratic party has two stars - Hillary and Wes Clark.
The other side of the split in the party is the left-wing, activist, grassroots side. At its head is Howard Dean. It’s anti-establishment, radical, and most of all, angry. The spitting mad democrats are moving into this camp. They’re the “Bush stole the election” guys, and their hatred burns with a white-hot temperature.
Al Gore has cast his lot in this camp. Did you guys see that endorsement speech? Gore was almost out of control. Angry, shouting, hair flying… He looked like some old populist shouting from a balcony. I have to believe that this is as much a calculated act as his previous controlled, robotlike performance was. I think he’s pissed at the Clintons, because he thinks Bill’s shenanigans cost him the Presidency. On the other hand, Clinton is mad at Gore because Clinton thinks Gore would be president today if he had embraced Clinton’s leadership during the campaign instead of avoiding the subject (Clinton’s probably right, btw. Actually, they both are).
So there you go. That’s the current state of the Democratic party as I see it. This campaign is not just about the candidates, but the direction of the party. If Dean loses the nomination to Clark, or wins the nomination but loses the election in a landslide, then the Clinton DLC wing will be firmly in control for the next elecction (with Hillary as its candidate). If Dean wins the Presidency, then the Clinton wing is going to be seriously weakened. Hillary will be out of the running until at least 2012. So the stakes are very high for the party, regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election.
One of two things will happen now - either Dean will have such a huge lead that the other side will fold and hope he tanks in the general election, or Clark will place well enough in the first primaries to make this a race - in which case it’s going to get really ugly.
You think that’s ugly! Just wait till American Spectator comes out with the love letters Dean wrote to Jane Fonda!
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690
So, were you arguing with me on that part? Your cites are proving my arguement.