Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2217)	12/10/2003 12:23:12 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

The Dean Machine Now it's Gore-powered nationalreview.com It's come to this: Howard Dean will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2004. Today, the remaining Democratic candidates will be brainstorming furiously, trying to figure out a way to prevent the inevitable. But the only way is to take off the gloves and start throwing punches at Dean's fast-moving mouth — and they'll decide not to do that, in part because Al Gore this morning warned them not to, in part because the candidate who attacked Dean would not only drive up Dean's negatives but also his own. In other words, whoever brought Dean down would benefit not himself but another candidate in the race. Such a spirit of self-sacrifice is not evident within this field of wannabees. It's come to this: Either Al Gore will be asked to be secretary of state in 2004, or Hillary Clinton will be asked to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. It's one or the other, it can't be both. Did you notice that Gore said this morning that he wants to "remake the Democratic party"? Well, he's taken the first step: The Democratic nominee next year will be his boy, not the Clinton's. It's come to this: Hillary Clinton now leads the moderate wing of the Democratic party, the faction that favors a muscular foreign and defense posture. Today, Gore branded Dean as the antiwar candidate, the candidate who believes it was a mistake to liberate Iraq from a genocidal dictator, the candidate who thinks Iraq is a Vietnam-like "quagmire." Until now, Dean has been careful to be ambiguous in these regards. Until now, he has attempted to have it both ways, to say on some occasions that he wasn't sure it was better that Saddam was gone, on other occasions that it was a good thing to have toppled the tyrannical Baathist regime. Sometimes he says we were wrong to go into Iraq and that we need to get out, but other times he says that to pull out would not be responsible. To be the antiwar candidate at a time when most Americans support the war is a high-risk strategy. But ten months from now, if we aren't making visible progress in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the war on terrorism (or if Americans aren't convinced these are fronts in the war on terrorism) the Gore/Dean analysis may look prescient. It's come to this: Howard Dean is picking up the flag that Al Gore dropped, and rightfully so. Al Gore is not just a former vice president and presidential candidate. He's also a former tobacco farmer, mule driver, homebuilder, inspirer of Love Story, discoverer of Love Canal, and creator of the Internet. He has reinvented himself more often than Madonna. As David Brooks makes clear in his New York Times column today, Howard Dean also exhibits this chameleon-like skill. It's come to this: Republicans are getting their wish. Dean is the candidate most have prayed for (assuming, I guess, that Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosley Braun weren't going to pull off an upset). But those Republicans breaking out the cigars and bongo drums should get back to work instead. Exactly which states that Gore won in 2000 are slam-dunks for Bush today? I can't think of one. And do you remember a few years ago when the Democrats were battling for the California gubernatorial nomination? It was Jane Harman vs. Al Checci vs. Gray Davis and most Republicans wanted Gray Davis to win because they thought he'd be a terrible candidate. Turns out they were wrong. He was a good candidate, even though he became a terrible governor. Howard Dean could be cast from this same mold. — Clifford D. May was communications director for the Republican National Committee from 1997-2001. A former New York Times foreign correspondent, he now heads the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

To: calgal who wrote (2217)	12/10/2003 12:26:49 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 90947

Spare us the conspiracy theories. Right, Gore endorses Dean because he secretly wants him to lose. That makes a lot of sense. Dean has just as much chance of beating Bush as anyone these days. Even though Kerry looks better on paper he has nowhere near the excitement quota Dean has. Don't ask me to explain it but it's true. Dean gets people fired up just like Arnold did, though they're in different parties. Gore could have had the nomination himself if he'd really wanted it, and this is the year to beat the GOP. Bush's boondoggles and failures are legion, despite the Bushie spin to the contrary.

To: calgal who wrote (2217)	12/10/2003 8:06:59 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

If Gore is so confident that he and Lieberman won in 2000 and should be in the White House right now, why doesn't he support his own running-mate, who, like him, won the popular vote, and would be running for re-election? right now If they'd won, today Lieberman would be just a heartbeat away from the presidency. Yet, Gore's endorsement of Dean shows he doesn't think Lieberman's the right man for the job. With Gore admitting he was wrong in 2000, why would we think he's right now? This election cycle points up exactly what I've been saying about the dems: It's all about power and self-aggrandizement, not what's best for people or the country. The dems will say or do anything to get elected.