The Bush administration is not involved in the current campaigns, and even if they were, its not there job to define Howard Dean. That's Howard Dean's campaign's job.

What is happening is simple, and its happened every 4 years for as long as anyone alive can remember. In the primaries you run to the extreme, and then shift back to presenting yourself as a moderate once the primaries are over.

Well, the primaries have yet to even begin. Blaming the Bush administration for the leftist representation of Howard Dean is about as absurd as declaring the earth to be flat.

I wasn't blaming them for it. I think that the leftist representation of Howard Dean is probably a little bit to do with him and his campaign, a lot to do with how the media has decided to portray him, and a lot to do with how Democrats interpret him and Republicans would like him to be interpreted.

I don't agree that Dean himself is trying to present himself as super-lefty, since I've heard him say in a number of interviews that he doesn't see himself that way and doesn't understand why so many people are jumping to portray him that way. He knows that all the McGovern comparisons can only hurt him.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Bush himself has little to do with the comparison, I think the Bush team would prefer it if Dean continued to be portrayed as so left as to be radical in the media.

No one wins a presidential primary by running as a moderate. No one. Howard Dean is trying to win the Democratic Primary and he is running to the left. When the primaries are over, if Howard Dean wins, he will then try to run as a centrist.

Howard Dean is being presented as a leftist, at this point in time, because his campaign decided to do this. It has nothing to do with the media or the Bush administration. Considering that over 80% of reporters who cover national politics identify themselves as "liberals," I seriously doubt that they would attempt to sabotage the Dean campaign's message.

I do think that Nader was a factor in Al Gore's loss and George W. Bush's vistory in 2000 just as I think Perot was a factor in George HW Bush's loss and Bill Clinton's vistory in 1992. Ralph Nader wasn't the only factor, but a factor. I do think that people should vote their conscience. If you think that a candidate is the best person for the job, vote for that candidate. If you think that a certain party best represents your opinions, vote for the candidate of that party.

I don't think Ralph Nader was a factor, and this is why. Even in Florida, the counties that had a considerable (more than 5%) turnout for the Green Party were counties that Gore won anyway (ex. Alachua and Leon). The states that Nader did okay in were the states in which Gore won (ex. Rhode Island). Gore won the popular vote--it was the electoral college that was the issue.


The problem facing the progressive parties in the United States is the same problem facing left-leaning parties all over the world--they are splintered. I suggest that the Green Party and similar political parties find their strength together, and support one candidate. The reason Berlusconi was able to win in Italy, despite having a minority of votes cast, is that there were too many parties of candidates running against him. I do not especially like the two-party form of elections, but perhaps we should work on those changes during a less critical election year.

I believe that only Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be split on a congressional district basis. All other states, including Florida, are winner takes all. If Ralph Nader did not run, Al Gore would have won Florida, and the entire election.

Yes, as a Florida resident, this is something of which I am very aware. :) I mentioned nothing of electoral votes being split.

If you think it's bad now, just wait until the election season really fires up. I read something on a Howard Dean mailing list today that suggested that the RNC plans to run "Willie Horton-style" ads on the subject of gay marriage to imply that Dean supports it. Russell is right when he says that no one in the current Bush admin. is directly involved in the Dean campaign, but the RNC's counter-campaigining really does have an effect on public opinion. Remember - at one point, Michael Dukakis had about a 12 point lead over Bush Sr., but once the Horton ads started running, Dukakis' campaign was dead in the water.

1) Al Gore was the one to introduce Willie Horton into the 1988 campaign
2) George Bush was probably going to win that election anyway due to the strength of the economy

Anti-Dean ads are already being run in Iowa and New Hampshire and they are not beind run by RNC. The ads are being paid for by Democrats. One ad starts off with a picture of Osama bin Laden and then goes on to say the George Bush would make a much better President because Dean is so weak on foreign policy. This ad is being paid for by a group that is led by a Kerry supporter.

Link to this story, please? I did some searches and all I could come up with were articles stating tenuous links between Kerry/Gephart supporters and the organization running these ads -- here, for example -- which, while it may be true that some Kerry/Clark/etc. supporters are anti-Dean, really has nothing to do with the candidates themselves.

It does worry me, though, that it's starting to seem clear that some of the Democratic candidates would rather have Bush in the White House for a second term than a Democrat if the Dem isn't them (and certainly the ads mentioned above make it clear that many Dems would rather have Bush than a Dem if the Democrat isn't their Democrat). The Democratic party is frighteningly fractured and I wouldn't be surprised if the guesses that it won't exist anymore in 25 years are correct. There are just way too many ideological differences between candidates and the party is trying to serve as a catch-all for everyone on the left side of the political spectrum which clearly isn't working.

Perhaps they don't want to support Dean because he's a racist? Well he did marry a Jewish wife, but she's about as kosher as a pork roast.

-Rudey

how is Dean racist? and what does that have to do with his wife?

His family was part of the Maidstone club. Jews and "colored folk" weren't good enough for the Maidstone club. A lot of his friends were in it too and when asked about it he just said "it wasn't that interesting." If it's not that interesting, you are not a part of it. If it is promotes disgusting ideas, you are not a part of it. Yes he didn't want this for his future, but he was still a part of that and doesn't outright condemn it (at least in the last NYTimes article anyway).

When he decided to marry a Jewish woman, his mother said she was fine with it and the fact that he wouldn't be in the Maidstone club. His response is a good hearty laugh followed by "She's like me. She says whatever comes into her head." I guess you're not racist if you belong to a club like this and keep these thoughts in your head and don't speak of them. I'm not exactly sure. Either way the fact that they belonged to this group is wrong. The fact that they don't condemn it, laugh, and feel their association with it was bad is wrong.

You can view this as racist if you want. You don't have to. It doesn't mean nobody else is or isn't, it just means, in my opinion, Dean has that history. People try to say his wife is Jewish so he can't have those feelings.

-Rudey

Hmmm, a whole lot of us could be considered racist. Until relatively recently, membership in the vast majority of Greek-letter organizations were limited to WASPs--meaning that Jews and "colored folk," along with Catholics and Eastern Europeans, weren't good enough for the groups that we hold dear.

Isn't it better that someone's seen the error of their ways and has moved on? I remember many people saying the same thing about Trent Lott and Sigma Nu.