Leaving Saddam in place would have continued the policy that the US has followed since the Gulf War. Using your broken logic, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB (for his first 9 months) were Pro Sadaam. And thus they indirectly suppoted murder, rape, and torture.
Broder and Brooks are a little different. In case anyone missed the byline, the article is written by Brooks. Exactly. That's one of the reasons Republicans should be careful what they wish for... And last I heard, Vermont was, by all accounts, a rural state and Dean has lived there for 25 years or so. The smear about Gore living in DC and pretending to learn farm chores in Tennessee played so well last time, they're gearing it up again to try and slap Dean. Won't work because Dean and his people don't care about that stuff. I also find it interesting that Brooks fails to mention similar criticisms of the current holder of the office-- Yalie Texan, not rooted, could be anyone for enough money, etc. Hmmmm. And who could this sentence have been written about... "At each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest. But over time he is incoherent and contradictory." Perhaps the GOP is trying to exorcise the Bush demons by reflecting their own problems on the Dems.
Rimmy, don't you know how much of a Texan Bush II, he went to Andover and Yale, and spent his time in the Reserves in Texas during Vietnam. Yee Haw Bush.
my bad, typing on auto-pilot. did you catch this? "I've seen a candidate who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream Americans who will make the difference . . . particularly in the South," Gore said. "He's going to send George Bush packing and bring the Democratic Party home." -- June 16, 1988, when he endorsed Michael Dukakis.
I was reading the transcript of the endorsement and Dean closes with a reference to Andrew Jackson... "And I look forward to the day, on January 20th, 2005, when we do what Andrew Jackson, another great Tennessean, did: We will open the doors to the White House and let the American people back in. " It's not important, I just like the symbolism and the implied comparison to Jackson, who occasionally said the wrong thing and was a bit hot-headed.
Yes, because Jackson opened it up to everyone, not just staffers or money men, or people who could afford to go to a ball.
From Paul Simon's hometown newspaper this morning... ____________ ... He was scheduled Thursday to announce his support for Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean but suffered shortness of breath and ended up in Springfield's St. John's Hospital, he said. He continued with the announcement anyway, he said, speaking to reporters from Iowa, site of next month's presidential caucuses, from his hospital bed. ______________ OK, Al Gore, Andrew Jackson, and now Paul Simon. I'm off to write a check to Dean.
Here's the word on Graham. He has everything Dean doesn't. He's never lost a race in Florida. Senate and Governor. He's got foreign policy experience out the wazoo. He was against the war in Iraq because it took away resources that should have been going to the "war on terror". i.e. aint nobody calling him a dove. Dean is from a small state. Graham is from Florida. Dean has no experience in Washington. Graham is a Senator. Dean has no experience dealing with the rest of the world. Graham has been on Senate For. Rel. Comm. for years. Dean is wild and unpredictable. Graham is steady and conservative. He's the grandfather watching over things, the way Dick Cheney was supposed to be. Why does he make better sense than Clark? For one, because he isn't running against Dean. Besides Reagan/Gore and Kennedy/Johnson, can you think of any Presidential nominee to give the second spot to one of his rivals. Clark has no constituancy. So he's Southern, big deal. Have Southerners ever elected him to anything? Has anyone? Yeah, Clark's wierd. He keeps a diary. He's uncharasmatic. Big deal. Dean's got enough charisma for the both of them. Dean's got enough strong leadership skills for the both of them. The VP isn't there for that. You don't want a VP that voters think would make a better P than the number one guy. See Dukakis/Bentsen. Remember the old Dukakis slogan joke? "Vote for me, maybe I'll get shot" That's all Clark has. His supposed charisma and his electability. (Unless you think he is gonna get Dean that pro military vote). The 2 spot is there for getting battleground states (FLORIDA), for making peace with discontented members of your own party, (establishment conservatives), and for showing that the country will be in good hands if you die. (Not when you die. Not great hands). It's for showing the country that it will be okay. Does Clark say that to any of you. Does he say, If Dean dies, I have the experience to take care of things. Foriegn and Domestic. I can get things done on Capitol Hill? Does he say, I can give the President my advice, experience and assistence in this political world that is much bigger than Vermont? Or does he say, I'm not really sure how we'd handle that. Clark is not a steadying hand. He is a guy nobody can figure out. He is a supposedly antiwar general that came close to starting a war with Russia after Communism had already fallen! He is a guy who has spent his entire life in the military. He has absolutely no political experience. (Which I think was great for Eisenhower, but Clark aint Eisenhower) I'm not endorsing Graham, by the way. Personally, I don't like him. I'd rather see Feingold, Gephardt, Gore, Clinton, Kucinich, Harkin, Jackson-Lee or a number of other folks. But that's just me. And I aint at the top of the ticket. Graham makes sense. Clark doesn't make sense. He KINDA made sense before he ran. But he doesn't anymore. By the way, he supports a flag burning ammendment to the Constitution.
It should also say "Graham's weird... he keeps a diary," instead of "Clark." But it's a great post. Can't argue with a single word.
Regarding David Brooks instead of the long time respected and somwhat liberal David Broder. I'm referring to David Brooks, the new columnist for the New York Times, old staffer at National Review and longtime senior editor at The Weekly Standard So you could expect a hatchet job. link
Serious black, you might have changed my mind. I couldn't see Graham as a presidential candidate. He looked just down right sleepy in the debate I saw. As VP and a southerner, maybe. BTW, Clinton, of course chose Gore after defeating him in the primary.
I can't either, except for these: Kucinich Jackson-Lee How's things out there in the wide-wide world of stuff, Batman?
I appreciate the post SB, but I just don't think it will be Graham. He's not the kind of choice the Deanies would make... no splash. I just don't see them playing to CW... maybe Mary Landrieu from LA? Also, I'm going out on a limb here and predict that Florida will go Dem big next year. Old people are slowly getting pissed about the Medicare Bill and will be mobilized by the election. The buzz in NM is that Bill Richardson is being considered. I don't know if this is coming from Dean's camp or Bill's camp, but he could be an interesting choice (Hispanic/foreign policy/energy strengths), though I would prefer no sitting Govs or Senators as we need to hold on to as many of those as possible without drawing down resources in a fight. Richardson is extremely bright and extremely ambitious.
Batman et al- Thanks for the props. Makes a guy that really should be studying for his final tomorrow feel good. Rimmy- Not sure how much of a splash Dean will be looking to make once he has the nomination. He already said Graham was on his short list (shortly after he dropped out). Of course, he also said Clark was on that list, but that was a long time ago... I guess Richardson wouldn't be too much of a surprise. Hadn't heard about that. Also, even though Graham is a sitting Senator, he has already said he is not running for reelection.
Actually, Brooks is generally a pretty good writer and smart guy...I don't think you can say he does a "hatchet job" on too much. And when did rimrocker steal my nickname?
