Karl, I like and respect you and admire your idealism. But Dean was never the great messiah some people regarded him as.
He came along with just the right issue (Iraq) at just the right time. His combative style resonated with Democrats who felt frustrated and cheated by the Bush administration. And his very innovative use of the internet is now a mandatory topic for study by all serious candidates. But if you take away the bombast, his policies are not really much different from those of Wesley Clark. So Dean tried to stand out by attacking fellow Democrats almost as much as he attacked Bush. Even in December, when he was getting high profile endorsements from people like Al Gore, Dean felt compelled to continue his puerile attacks on the DLC. If he had spent some time mending fences within the party instead of making snippy remarks about large numbers of Democrats, he might still be the frontrunner rather than an also ran.

Please don't blame the public for seeing his faults or the media for displaying them. That's what campaigns do. I was disappointed that Clark did not cope better with "gotcha journalism", but that's part of the process.

Before you criticize the way things have worked in the past, take a close look at why they did work and how they came about.
If you were able to remember the 12 years of Reagan and Papi Bush, you would know why Bill Clinton, a founding father of the dreaded DLC, was so appealing.
Looking back, what sort of Supreme Court would we now have if G.H.W. Bush had appointed right wing fundamentalists rather than Clinton's choices of Breyer and Ginsburg?

If you only vote for candidates who agree with you on 100% of the issues, you may end up never voting for anybody. Hell, even you BOR guys don't totally agree with each other. lol

Sen. Kerry is not my first choice, but I will strongly support him if he is the nominee. If he takes all the states Gore took in 2000 plus NH, WV, and NV, you will have a Democratic president in just over 11.5 months.

Tim Z,

You mean those Bush Sr. "right wing fundamentalists" like Souter, right? Didn't think so. Look, Bush only batted .500 when it came to SCOTUS nominees, so courts wouldn't be in that much better shape if he had won in 1992. Besides, you also assume that the late-Justice White would have retired under a GOP President. From his public comments, that is unlikely.

For what it is worth, I used to think Kerry was the least electable Dem candidate. Dean's performance in January: "Job is my favorite book in the New Testament" and the "I have a scream" speech changed that, and now I'd prefer to see him win. Kerry is still the No. 2 candidate I would pick, if I couldn't have Dean. Well, probably he is. It depends how much wackier General Clark gets, but for now, Kerry is my second pick. A multi-millionare liberal Senator from Massachussets, with a voting record to the left of Ted Kennedy, no substantial legistative accomplishments, and an arrogant and aloof demeanor that seems condenscending towards the people he talks to. We'll have a field day. Elitism doesn't play well with the American people. My early prediction (which, of course, is utterly meaningless, since it assumes nothing changes between now and election day, which is absurd) is that we beat Kerry by at least as much as Clinton beat Dole, 8 points.

Sherk

did not cope better with "gotcha journalism", but that's part of the process.

An excellent point. Instead of bemoaning the high pressure tactics used by the press during a campaign, you should recognize this as submitting the candidates to a political boot camp - a simulation of the intense pressure they can be expected to face every day in the Oval Office. And if a candidate cannot even handle it on the campaign trail, lord help the electorate who would place such a person in the White House.

I find it odd that Dean supporters really believe that Howard Dean is really more electable than John Kerry. If Howard Dean were the nominee forget about Arizona, hell forget about minnesota, wisconsin, iowa, pennsylvania etc... Hello Deanites we do need to win some states.

From what i understand Howard Dean plans a guerilla warfare tactic to win the nomination. Can someone say nut job. Not only will he lose but he will have no future in the democratic pary or any other party for that matter.

Sherk the way things are going dubya will be lucky to get out by eight points.....in the electoral college

P.S Liberal civil-union vermont governor is no better than liberal massachusetts senator CARL

I find it odd that Dean supporters really believe that Howard Dean is really more electable than John Kerry. If Howard Dean were the nominee forget about Arizona, hell forget about minnesota, wisconsin, iowa, pennsylvania etc... Hello Deanites we do need to win some states.

From what i understand Howard Dean plans a guerilla warfare tactic to win the nomination. Can someone say nut job. Not only will he lose but he will have no future in the democratic pary or any other party for that matter.

Sherk the way things are going dubya will be lucky to get out by eight points.....in the electoral college

P.S Liberal civil-union vermont governor is no better than liberal massachusetts senator CARL

"Not only will he lose but he will have no future in the democratic pary or any other party for that matter."

I disagree. I think that if he drops out, Dean should go for Jefford's Senate seat when he retires. We know he can win Vermont!
Personally, I feel that Dean has done great things for the party, and will continue to if other Dems can manage to not knock him down at every turn.

Hey Sherk, growing up in Canada, did you ever hear that saying about the pot calling the kettle black ?
It seems that Republicans think they can score points by painting John Kerry as "elitst".
He has money and does come from that rather academia friendly state of Massachusetts. Though he did serve in Vietnam rather than with the "champagne battalion" of the Texas Air National Guard.
Of course the GOP has nurtured the myth of George W. Bush as some good ol' boy who achieved success strictly through his own efforts. In fact, Dubya is part of the fourth generation of a rich and powerful family who regard privilege as their birthright.
Former GOP activist Kevin Phillips has written a book which details the rise of the Bush clan called, American Dynasty. This book should be read by every Democrat. I hope it is out in paperback in time for the fall campaign.
Here is the official book site.
http://www.americandynasty.net/
An NPR interview with Phillips about the book is here.
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1595494.html
And this is a review from the CSM.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0113/p15s01-bogn.htm

So as for charges of elitism, Bring 'em on!

Occasionally a Supreme Court justice disappoints the ideological expectations of the president who appointed him/her. With David Souter, the Papi Bush White House was looking for someone who had no paper trail on hot button issues like abortion. That backfired because the lack of a paper trail meant that even the GOP didn't know that much about Souter. Of course, G.H.W. didn't make that mistake again. The cynical appointment of Clarence Thomas showed a continuation of support for conservative judicial activism that started with the appointments of Rehnquist as chief justice and Scalia as associate justice by Reagan.
Republicans would love to pack the court with neocons in their 40s so that their legacy will extend well into the middle of the century.

Tek-XX, it's Karl-Thomas with a K. Not a C. Not a biggie but also not that hard to remember since it's like 4 inches away from the comment link.

Tim Z,

What the heck does growing up in Canada have to do with being a hypocrite? I just don't get it. I've lived under a quasi socialist system, know that it sucks, and never want to see it come to America. How is that hypocritical.

As for conservative "judicial activism," it is only activism in the sense that it dumps the last seventy years of judicial precedent. However, that precedent was invented out of no more than a liberal desire to see things that way, and has no constitutional foundation. Sorry, but contrary to 1930's and 1940's era Supreme Court rulings, the 10th ammendment does in fact limit the power of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court should rule that way. It isn't activism to return to the original meaning of the constitution or to believe that the law is what lawmakers intended it to be, not an activist judge. Nor is it activism to dump Roe, when Roe has NO foundation in the constitution, as even the decision admits, saying you have to gaze into the pneumbras and emanations of the constitution to find it.

Sherk

Sherk-

If you long for the decisions of the last 70 years to be overturned, particularly those dealing with states' rights (as evidenced by your 10th Amendment comment) does that mean that you want to see Brown v. Board of Education overturned and see a return to segregation? I'm not really trying to fuck with you but I am curious.

-Andrew D

Geez Sherk, have you and Howard Dean been drinking from the same vat of Jolt Cola?

Just to spell things out, I was trying to bring up a possible linguistic difference in a humorous way which would help introduce my first point. You probably know that in spite of close proximity, Canada and the US still have expressions which have remained on their sides of the border, eh? One of the funnier Canadianisms I've heard is "gaunch pull", what an American would call a "wedgie". lol

Being a Chicagoan, if I wanted to call you a hypocrite, I would not have beat around the bush.

BTW, as an amateur astronomer, I'm big on penumbras, as well as umbras. Though I wouldn't take too kindly to a gaunch pull.

"WEE" THE PEOPLE.......AN AMERICAN SCHEME!
HAS UNCLE SAM EVER OFFERED A DREAM AND TAKE THE REST AWAY?
NIECES & NEPHEWS TIRED OF SLEEPING WHILE AWAKE?
WHERE IS AUNTIE VIGILE & HER SWEET MILITIA BREAD?
CAN'T SEE THE "LIGHT MAYOR" FOR THE NIGHTMARE?
REMEMBER THEE JUST JESUS!