An easy way out, but completly understandable.

Yes Dean has stumbled, but the main reason I still like him best is because of the leadership he showed at the beginning of this race. If it weren't for him, Bush would probably still be getting a free pass.

Another thing I was thinking of is that the media has already picked him apart during the primary race. Unless they find something that was missed, we know all Dean's 'warts' by now. I don't think we can say the same of the other candidates at this point, and I wouldn't like us to be finding out about their warts after our guy is nominated and trying to beat Bush. Just my 2 cents...

Byron, I've become even more impressed: you've accumulated, and you're exhibiting, wisdom way beyond your years by observing, "... the best thing I can do is ... work on local races ...."

Byron L, and other liberals,

It seems like electability is a fairly important criteria to you, for obvious reasons. I'm curious, though, what if you knew for certain (say, through divine revelation or something equally guaranteed to be true) that no Democrat could beat Bush come November? Would it change who you support?

I mention this because forty years ago, there was really no one we could nominate to beat LBJ, and everyone on our side knew it. We went with the conservative, Goldwater, and got badly spanked in November. However, conservatives today are almost unanimous in thinking nominating Goldwater was the right call, since it moved the party well to the right and began the process of turning the GOP into the conservative party, setting the ground for the Reagan Revolution. If beating Bush were no longer possible, would you support Dean (or a Dean type candidate) to turn the party to the left and away from Clinton's relative moderation, or would you rather go with a candidate who would lose by less to avoid hemmoraging down the ballot?

Just wondering,

Sherk

Shrek(lich),

1. The Democratic Nominee is going to win against Bush. In fact, the latest polls show Kerry, e.g., as leading against Bush. Hence your question is moot.

2. Dean is NOT a liberal (ask any Republican, or any Democratic for that matter, member of the Vermont Legislature - oh yea, and the NRA too). Therefore, your assumption a priore unravels your question to the extent that it is purely hypothetical.

3. If your question is directed towards all Democratic affiliated blogers, not all of us think Clinton made a mistake. Several of us, who consider ourselves moderates, or who eschew such labels altogether (as I personally feel), believe that Clinton did a great job for the Democratic party by focusing on working solutions to real world problems and not blind ideology.

In fact, your question reveals much more about the questioner than those who may answer: first, that anyone left of a Right Winger must be a "liberal;' and second, and most importantly, that extremist ideology is much more important than any working policy solutions.

So, to answer your question (if it was ever directed at me), "Do I believe in Barry Goldwater's 'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?'" I believe it it no more than in Niccolo Machiavelli's "The ends justify the means."

I like your logic, Sherk and I think that it can be reversed also. If you knew for 100% (as WhoMe? seems to) that we would beat Bush who would you want for President? Someone who is pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-war, pro-affirmative action, fiscally sensible with a sound plan for universal health care or someone who is wishy washy on those issues? I'd say go for the liberal, and like it or not Howard Dean is liberal when it comes to national politics. In Vermont, where Bernie Sanders (a Socialist) has been elected statewide 6 times, he's a moderate. Elsewhere, he'll be seen as a liberal, but one that's proud to be so.

Passing this along :

Who isn't presidential?

Dean isnt proud to be a liberal, Andrew! he denys that he is a liberal. In fact, Clark is the only major candidate who has openly embraced the liberal label. So, to say "hes proud to be so" is grossly misrepresenting Howard Dean. Really, its unexcusable.

Byron, et al,

I wasn't asking you to agree with the premise of the argument. Up until early October 1996 I thought Dole had a fighting chance against Clinton. I was just asking, if you accepted the premise, what your reaction would be. Which is pretty much what Byron posted.

To answer your question, Andrew, if I knew for a fact that Bush would loose in 2004, or that Hillary would win in 2008, I would favor nominating a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-tax relief, pro-War on Terror, pro-privatizing Social security, pro-... everything conservative except on immigration Republican. If we are going to go down in flames, there is no reason to betray any of our principles in the process. Just wondering if you felt the same, and apparently Byron doesn't. There is something to be said, after all, for living to fight another day, and much as I am glad we nominated Goldwater, LBJ's coattails gave him a big enough majority in Congress to enact Medicare.

Sherk

WhoMe?

Just a random question. Why do you call me "Shrek(lich)"? I mean, I know you intend it to be insulting, but what I don't get is why you want to insult me.

Granted, we disagree on almost every issue, but that is no reason to be rude. I've tried to be respectful in (most of) my postings to those of you on the left, even though I think many of your positions are nuts, and in the case of the abortion issue I believe you support the murder of innocent children.

Why be personally hostile? We've never met, and I wouldn't recognize you if I saw you on the street. I mean, what's the point? What not just have a civil discussion/debate/argument on the issues with out trying to be personally offensive? I've called Mark and Owen on it when I thought they were stepping over the line, why do you seem to feel that that line doesn't exist?

Curiously,

Shrek(lich)

Sherk,

In all candor, part of my reason why I am so outspoken in denouncing everything you say is because of the nature of the medium in which we communicate. It is easier to be more outspoken in what is essentially an anonymous forum, where you never actually meet anyone.

I know you might not believe it, but I am actually very conciliatory in person. I defintely have a "Type A" personality, but am by no means a hostle person.

The other reason is that, and please do not take this personally (in fact you may even take it as a badge of honor), you and your views are dangerous. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who believes in the divine righteousness of their cause.

By the way, Shreklich is German. Sie koennen es im Woerterbuch suchen.

WhoMe?

Fair enough, and no offense taken. In one sense you are right, there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. And lets be honest, you are as equally convinced of the rightness of your cause as I am of mine, at least on issues that have nothing to do with religious values (ie., taxes, not abortion).

Shreklich

P.S. German, that's kind of neat. My family line (at least on Dad's side) traces back to german speaking serfs in Switzerland in the 15th century of the name of schurch, with the double dot over the u, so it makes sense.