portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

media criticism

The most shallow pro-Dean article ever published by Common Dreams . . .

This reads like a transparent editorial from a biased corporate newspaper - what a joke. Common Dreams has become one of the Dean-pimps, pushing anything about Dean in our faces regardless of the superficiality of the actual piece. Will this be in the other Dean-pimp publications too now? In Alternet, the Progressive, the Nation? Try writing an article like this about Kucinich and see if any of these will publish it. Good luck.
Published on Wednesday, September 3, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Why I Support Howard Dean
by Bill C. Davis

He's smart. He's clear. Neither qualities can be taken for granted when discussing the American presidency. His logic is crisp. He uses deductive reasoning. He speaks like a humane scientist. His positions seem to evolve from assimilating and interpreting facts. He does not seem to mold or withhold facts in order to promote a position in which he has an ego or monetary investment. He seems to take the mission statement of the Constitution to heart and applies an impassioned contemporary reason to it. He can be engaged. You get the feeling that if one frames a sensible argument he would integrate that into his decisions. His authority seems available to collaboration.
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0903-02.htm

.......................................
"He speaks like a humane scientist."

But is he one?

What 'humane scientist' supports targetted assassinations in dense urban areas by a military, no judge, jury or trial?

What 'humane scientist' supports the death penalty?

What 'humane scientist' supports not touching the military budget when national infrastructure, like libraries and schools, is falling apart?

What 'humane scientist' supports a ten year occupation of another country by an aggressive Superpower which conducted an internationally illegal war because he can't think of anything new besides what the corporations have decided?

What 'humane scientist' is against the Kyoto Protocol?

What 'humane scientist' does not support the necessary radical changes needed in our healthcare system?

What 'humane scientist' kills a medical marijuana bill in his own state?

What 'humane scientist' uses an internet attack squad to stifle dissent?

Dean.

Yeah, but 03.Sep.2003 19:18

Stranger on Wednesday

Ok, I grant the poster of this article's review all of his points. The article is devoid of anything solid. From beginning to end it's nothing but seems, appears, and I believes. Don't be too hard on the writer, though. Based on the literary style of the piece, I'd put his/her age at young and inexperienced. That's how old I was when I would've written something like that. Now I'm a little older and slightly more experienced. I'm waiting to see what happens in the primaries and I'm closely watching the polls. Unfortunately, the polls give me little reason for hope in the intelligence of the masses. I'd rather someone other than Dean or Bush in the White House, but I'll vote for Dean if he's the nominee, in spite of all of his obvious shortcomings. I count fewer on Dean than on Bush. I have to change my party registration to Democrat tomorrow if I'm going to be able to vote in the primary.

how many humane "scientist"-politicians are there in an inhumane country? 03.Sep.2003 20:29

a

I don't think we should trash people too badly who support Howard Dean in light of the alternatives on offer at the moment. Everyone here should read this very sober-eyed view of the Dean candidacy from a progressive journalist and fellow Vermonster:  http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0903-14.htm

"in light of the alternatives on offer at the moment." 03.Sep.2003 22:50

Fred

So if the only alternative was Hitler, you'd take Mussollini? And then you'd tell those who criticized him to shut up? How about Pinochet and Hussein? Which to choose? Corporate media has decided to shove Dean down your throat, and you're swallowing because they've told you there is no other way. Open your eyes.

What sort of world do you want to live in? At the rate we're going, it only gets worse and worse to keep playing the game that the corporations are cornering us into playing. Today it's Dean and Bushmoron, tomorrow it's Dean and Jebmoron, and on and on and on.

Stop playing the game. Vote for Kucinich. Vote Green. Don't vote at all. But don't vote for the man who wants 10 years in Iraq as a MANDATE when we haven't even been in there SIX MONTHS! And then tell people we HAVE TO because we have no choice?? It's insane.

Dean supports the continuation of an illegal war. Wake up.

this year's al gore 03.Sep.2003 23:00

wants real change (and is working for it)

howard dean is nothing more than this year's al gore, but more conservative. dean is ostensibly to the left of bush, but he is on the right on just about every meaningful issue that needs to change. a dean presidency would be another clinton era, i'm afraid -- pro-corporate policies that republicans can't get passed but that democrats can. wto, nafta, "end of welfare as we know it" -- clinton was a republican's wet dream, and dean will bring more of the same. if these are our choices, we're fucked.

fortunately they are NOT are only choices! true liberty, equality and community are created outside the presidential system.

Correction: Dean is WORSE than Bush 03.Sep.2003 23:05

GRINGO STARS

Dean is PRO-Palestine Occupation, PRO-Israel and PRO-AIPAC, *more so than Bush*

Dean is PRO-Iraqi Occupation *and wants to send MORE troops to Iraq than Bush has*

Dean is PRO-Afghani Occupation *and wants to send MORE troops to Afghanistan than Bush has*

Dean is for *MORE defen$e $pending than Bush is currently spending*

Dean is PRO-NAFTA, PRO-WTO and PRO-GATT (just like Bush)

Dean is PRO-Cuban Embargo (just like Bush)

Dean is capitalist, imperialist and colonialist (just like Bush)

Dean is ANTI-medical marijuana (just like Bush)

Dean wants to continue waging war in the USA (and overseas) against people who use certain drugs (just like Bush)

Yet Dean is PRO-Drug Industry (just like Bush). I guess THOSE drugs are somehow OK since corporations are profiting off of them, despite roughly equal amounts of death/addiction as illegal drugs,


Wow - Dean is more to the "right" than George The Second is. How can people actually claim that Dean is "better" than Bush? Especially since George Bush and Karl Rove are HOPING FOR DEAN'S NOMINATION, because Dean is so similar to Bush.


This is all assuming that we live in a democracy, which we don't. Remember selection 2000? Your vote meant nothing then, and will most likely mean even less now. Reformism is the worst kind of escapism.

Never Mind Candidates-- 03.Sep.2003 23:10

Yoo-Hoo . . .

REAL issue is the VOTING MACHINES.


what if the only things on the general election ballot are Bush v Dean? 03.Sep.2003 23:36

a

The point is, Kucinich will probably not be allowed by the Democratic party apparat to come anywhere near the nomination. If the only two candidates on most people's ballots are Bush v. Dean, it would hardly be irrational to hold your nose and vote Dean, no matter how much you dislike his conservative politics. Did you bother reading the piece I suggested by his fellow Vermonster and progressive journalist (and avowedly no fan), Joyce Marcel?:
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0903-14.htm

Remember Chomsky's quip about "expanding the floor of the cage.":  http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/ZMag/articles/mar97barchom.htm

Remember Mao's quip about "paper tigers." The imperialists are "paper tigers," because once the working class decides in earnest to overthrow them, their power can be quickly broken. But until enough people realize this and stop quaking and take action, the imperialists are still, in this relative reality we live in, very real and potentially lethal tigers. We should not trifle with them, nor take chances of exacerbating their reign of terror. Voting Dean at this point could be considered an intelligent, realistic tactical move by radicals who want to buy time for real revolutionary change, which can't come about at all if the maniacs running the US right now carry us all over the edge of the Armageddon so devoutly wished for by their grassroots Xtian fundie fans. Another world is possible, but only if a bunch of sufficiently powerful maniacs don't manage to succeed in destroying the world altogether first.


reply to "what if" 03.Sep.2003 23:45

doesn't like either

if it's dean vs. bush i won't vote for either, because i don't want to see either of them in the white house. a dean presidency does not appeal to me. neither does a bush one. the key at this point is to stop being distracted by this bullshit and work on real local issues in your community where you can make a difference.

vote for dean 03.Sep.2003 23:58

he smiles a lot

"Did you bother reading the piece I suggested by his fellow Vermonster and progressive journalist (and avowedly no fan), Joyce Marcel?"

Yeah, he calls him Clinton with Vaseline on his zipper, then says he's going to send him money. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor is that he was moved by a lot of flowery talk after knowing good and well about a lot of what's objectionable about Dean. Maybe next week he'll be moved by some flowery talk out of Bush. I'm not sure why I would even vote for Dean (pay close attention to some of the lists of his positions posted above)except maybe some promises on the environment, and conveniently he seems to have scheduled their greater manifestation for sometime well after his first term is up.

Dunno why I think this but if the reality is that the majority of people will not vote for Bush, the only difference I see in who's got the Dems nomination is where they actually stand on things.

yeah, i hear ya, i don't like either either, but... 04.Sep.2003 00:13

a

The thing is, to quote yet another revolutionary, Fidel, sometimes one man or a small group of men can constitute "objective conditions," as in the famous observation, "you can't have a revolution without the right objective conditions." When you've got a fascist regime pushing the most extreme ultraright agenda in the history of the country as hard and as fast as possible , your latitude as an activist on any number of other issues shrinks. You'll have less volunteers, because the harsh and repressive social policies of such a regime will diminish the pool of potential activists, as many people will struggle just to feed their families. You'll have harsh and repressive criminal justice measures, which will put more political prisoners in prison, like Sherman Austin, and scare and silence many more. In short, your task as a social justice activist can only get more difficult under the boot of such a regime. If you doubt anything I'm saying, try talking to any of the forest activists out there trying to fight off clearcutting. Try talking to any civil libertarians out there trying to preserve habeas corpus and other constitutional rights. Etc, etc.

The Leninist theory that "the worse things get the better (for us)" rarely works in practice, and is only itself true under certain favorable conditions (in 1917 Russia it was true, but only because the ruling class was weak and divided, and the underclass was emboldened by decades of escalating radicalism and the recent only barely aborted revolution of 1905). Usually in the history of social change it's the other way around. It wasn't under the most despotic of French regimes that the French Revolution came (Louis XIV), but under one of the more liberal (Louis XVI).

by the way, about those voting machines... 04.Sep.2003 00:36

a

You could make the case that the whole elections business is a big red herring anyway, since the crowd in power now have already shown their acumen and eagerness for rigging them. While that's true, I also tend to agree with Cynthia McKinney that the least we can do is make their rigging task more difficult by turning out a big enough anti vote that it will take sufficiently massive fraud on their part as to be very difficult to cover up or ignore, as the media chose to do with the Florida fraud. Naturally, we should also oppose allowing these criminals and their various willing accomplices and sidekicks in the various states and county electoral boards to deploy papertrail-less voting machines.

I think people who want to make the case that Dean is "as bad or worse" than Mr. Top Gun are getting carried away by their loathing of Dean. Dean is certainly distasteful in many ways. From the accounts by people who've dealt with him in Vermont, he's an autocratic little Napoleon in his personal demeanor and political style. And he's no progressive, not even close. He's a Rockefeller Republican, really. And yet, an old money Rockefeller Republican wouldn't be trying to push a radical imperialist agenda to build whole new classes of nuclear weapons (for instance), or willy-nilly ripping up treaties the US has signed. That kind of thing is bad for business. It makes your foreign partners unhappy, etc. It's not really "conservative," in the traditional sense, but extremist. Dean is a conservative; he's not an extremist, like the current aberrant clique that has seized power.

and on a final note... 04.Sep.2003 01:23

a

Anyone out there read that neat -- and fairly effectively chilling --
little piece by Thom Hartmann on the parallels between our current
American Fuehrer and the original Austrian model?
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Sorry to ask an unfair question, but, what would you have done in
the Weimar Republic of 1931-32? Would you have turned your nose
up at the stodgy old Prussian militarist Hindenburg in favor of
a protest vote for some write-in Communist or Anarchist? Perhaps
you'll say it wouldn't have mattered anyway, since the Brownshirts
were determined to ensure Der Fuehrer's victory by force and
fraud anyway, as you could say once again today about ChoicePoint,
and Diebold, and the Republican party, et al.

Still, reading Hartmann's piece can give one pause. Lest you accuse me
of being some kind of paid flack for Dean, allow me to reiterate that
I have no particular enthusiasm for him and his candidacy. I have
the utmost respect for the choice of people who refuse to vote on
the grounds of not dignifying a demonstrable charade with their
cooperation. Why should anyone retain much respect for the tattered
remnants of American electoral democracy after Florida? I can
sympathize wholeheartedly with those who refuse to vote for Dean on the
grounds of his being an arrogant rightwing prick (he probably IS).
And yet, I just think you shouldn't be too harsh towards those of
us who ARE considering voting for Dean at this point, whether
enthusiastically or not-so-enthusiastically. We may not be the
wooley sheep you dismiss as us.

Dean IS worse than Bush - look at his stances on the issues, "a" 04.Sep.2003 02:12

GRINGO STARS

See my previous comment on this thread for Dean's stances. He is MORE imperialist than Bush. I am not carried away by my "loathing for Dean" - I am trying to get it into your soft brain that the smiling stranger you endorse is openly worse than Bush IN EVERY WAY. And by the way, you refer to Bush & Co as an "aberrant clique." They are not an aberration at all - they are typical. The USA has a long history of waging war for moneyed interests. Indeed, it is the *only* reason the USA has ever fought in *any* war; to make the top cream of the industrialists richer. Your typical ignorance of context is understandable given the overwhelming propagandic, indoctrinating power of the US "education" system and its "free" media. Look at history and you will see that Bush is merely a little less secretive in his connections with the ultra-wealthy than his predecessors.

We are now very much in a situation that Germans of '38 were. It is our duty to fight the system by any means necessary. Voting didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now. Comfortable middle-class politics is incredibly irrelevant.

if this is like germany, what do we do? 04.Sep.2003 08:01

doesn't like either

i agree with a couple of the commenters above that it's beginning to feel more and more like germany in the 30's. what, then, do we do? at the moment, i think we have two options: leave the country or go out into it. that is, expatriate, or hide in the woods/countryside and raise our own food. the second option might well be unavailable too within 2-3 years. if dean is elected, perhaps the second option is extended a little longer, but perhaps not. dean doesn't want to roll back the patriot act, etc., as far as i can tell. it'd be a good idea, in my opinion, to be looking into both of these options right now, and see which is right for us individually.

in any case (dean or bush) things are gonna get a helluvalot worse in the next few years. disaster of some sort is approaching soon; check the weather today. we're in for another hot one. this is the hottest summer on record (as shown here:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271167.shtml). the environment could make a big change that makes these arguments about pepsi/coke/dr. pepper irrelevant, and survival will be the top thing to worry about. if that happens, the cities will probably be terrible places to be, as most folks here don't know how to live without hte industrial machine feeding and clothing them, and it will undoubtedly become violent and dangerous. for those of us who are unwilling to become violent, survival will be challenging. to live in another country or go out into the country with other trusted friends is to find/make a community that can survive.

i am not interested in, nor can i support, any candidate who is not addressing the big issues of our day (environment, peak oil, GMO food, water), since these are the issues that are about to be on the forefront. dean will not be making any marked or significant change in these areas. if you say he's not as bad, then okay, i'll buy that, but i'll illustrate it this way: our grave is still being dug, just with a slightly smaller shovel. what we need to do is STOP digging our grave and turn that shovel over to the important work of organic gardening, forest and watershed restoration, etc.

btw, i have not slammed on dean supporters in this thread or called them sheep; i've concentrated on dean and his policies. if you take it personally, that's your choice.

"a" - who is this? 04.Sep.2003 08:59

Fred

"The thing is, to quote yet another revolutionary, Fidel,"

This is how the Deanies work - start off trying to show you're everyone's friend and how you agree with them - here, it's the 'anarcho-revolutionary friend,' who let's us know who he is by quoting Fidel.

Then comes the "BUT . . . .."

"In short, your task as a social justice activist can only get more difficult under the boot of such a regime."

(Now he's tranformed from anarcho-revolutionary to social justice activist) Yes, this is true. Maybe. But maybe not. Would we have gotten over 100,000 marching in Washington when Clinton was in? Would we have gotten that if Gore was in? No. AND YET, far more Iraqis died silently under Clinton, far more African Americans have been imprisoned under Clinton for drug laws which would have put both Clinton and Bush in prison themselves, etc.

No one can say what blowback will happen when the boot comes down. Or won't.

"The Leninist theory that "the worse things get the better (for us)" rarely works in practice, and is only itself true under certain favorable conditions"

If everything only followed exactly what had already happened in history, we wouldn't exist, now would we?

Putting Dean in does not make thing better, in the same way that NOT voting for Dean is not a vote to make things worse - it's doing whatever is right to you as an individual. I feel deeply that I cannot vote for someone who will open the gates to the murder of the Palestinians and who will get on his knees for corporate entities, on the illusion that if I do what the commercials on tv tell me to do 'it'll all be okay.'

I have no respect for this man who has lied to me - personally. He has mailed solicitations to me claiming to be a progressive, while telling reporters he laughs at anyone who calls him that. That's lie number 1 out of a growing list that I'm not going to waste my time starting in on.

I don't live my life by someone else's interpretation of 'the history of social change.' I listen to what people say, watch what they do, and make my own decisions.

Now, onto the next comment . . .. on the voting machines.

Again, classic technique of the Deanie - start off with an agreeable line that shows you are on our side:

"You could make the case that the whole elections business is a big red herring anyway, since the crowd in power now have already shown their acumen and eagerness for rigging them."

Yes, we already know about the rigging. Here's the "BUT . . . " part.

"While that's true, I also tend to agree with Cynthia McKinney that the least we can do is make their rigging task more difficult,"

This is actually a BUT I agree with, except that it smells funny.

First off, there's no evidence that a big number will necessarily make any cover-up 'difficult to ignore.' It was most likely pulled off even after Wellstone was murdered (yes, or possibly just died in an accident) and that was a feat. The evidence for fraud is in bold face type all over the 2000 and 2002 elections and it is going no where - why? I don't see the Democrats trying to open it up. Why should I vote for them when they're leading us to the slaughter over and over and doing nothing to fix it?

Second, radically changing the numbers of votes to bring about this new awareness of fraud is unlikely given candidates like Dean, who lie their way from one stump to the next, and the fact that we'll have continued corporate media sell-out from people like Dean, so there will NEVER be an incentive under him, to report on fraud.

Now here's more . . ."I think people who want to make the case that Dean is "as bad or worse" than Mr. Top Gun are getting carried away by their loathing of Dean."

Okay, so the point has been defined. Funny, I don't really know any anarchists who use phrases like "Mr. Top Gun." But whatever. Apparently now we're carried away. Maybe hysterical. Okay, so let's start with the Deanie formula of agreeing with us to get us on your side - "Dean is certainly distasteful in many ways."

Yes - YAWN - we know this, and your saying doesn't make us like you. I'm sorry to inform you but you'll have to find friends in other ways besides trying to say you agree with us on Dean, then turning it around in the next sentence. I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a script that simply adds in new phrases to an already defined structure, since it's SO repetitive - jesus christ . . . .

Here's a gem - "He's a Rockefeller Republican, really."

That's right guy, so you're telling us to vote for an RR to get Bush out - finally you've exposed yourself. He isn't really even a DEMOCRAP. What anarchist tells people to vote for a RR?

Here's the "BUT . . ."

"And yet, an old money Rockefeller Republican wouldn't be trying to push a radical imperialist agenda to build whole new classes of nuclear weapons (for instance), or willy-nilly ripping up treaties the US has signed. That kind of thing is bad for business. "

Exactly. And the Dean sort of RR is focusing on screwing the local populace right here in the US for every last cent, building his empire quietly on the backs of the poor all over the world. He loves things like NAFTA and GATT and other ways to silently strangle third world brown people just as he's extracting his last coins from them. He'll continue to cut taxes on the super wealthy and find every loophole in the book for them to raid from the work of the poor and the renters. Until the real Hitler comes along and then we're all broke and exhausted after years of a RR on our backs . . .

So here's the final cut:

"Dean is a conservative; he's not an extremist, "

As a researcher I'm really amazed to see the way these postings have evolved, the subtle yet formulaic way they try to fit in with the local setting. This whole post feels like a Deanie trying to pose as an anarchist to appeal to other 'anarchists.' Maybe he is a real anarchist, but if so, I'm getting the heck out of their bloc in the marches! Picture it, "Anarchists for Howard!"

Hilarious, but also, a nightmare.

And yes, I've read the Thom Hartmann piece. I've passed it along to others. The Bush Cabal is doing it's best to become the Nazi Regime - so what's new?

Unfortunately, read your Dean literature a little more closely - Dean has already sold out to the biggest money bags in the entire country while claiming he's doing it all in $50 packets from the likes of you and me. But he won't try to change anything to upset those behind the money bags that he's already sold out to, like AIPAC and the NRA. So it's only a matter of time before we have the silent murders what happened under Clinton, and people imprisoned for fascist reasons, which Dean has shown he will be willing to engage in by showing he thinks a man who *might* be guilty should stay in prison rather than risk freeing him. This is choosing to side with the flag wavers and the nationalists. He's already shown he'll let his brownshirts out on the reporters and the public on the internet to strangle meaningful debate.

Please take your fake anarchist posting and go away.

Dean is an idiot.

Kucinich is a fake Progressive 04.Sep.2003 09:08

maxomai

What amazes me is how the hell Kucinich ever earned the "progressive" label. This man's record on gay rights, abortion rights, civil liberties and free speech is absolutely pathetic:

- voted the pro-life party line 100% of the time
- voted the anti-gay party line 95% of the time
- supported the anti-flag-burning amendment
- Denounced by ACLU over and over again

If Dennis Kucinich is more progressive than John Kerry or Howard Dean, then you're a one-issue voter. It's that simple.

yeah.... 04.Sep.2003 10:09

that one guy from that show

>Kucinich will probably not be allowed by the Democratic party apparat to come anywhere near the nomination.

more like "kucinich will probably never get enough votes in the primary to come anywhere near the nomination".

I will not vote for Dean 04.Sep.2003 10:14

voter

I will not vote for Dean. Voting for someone who is essentially working against all the things I would stand for is something I will not do.

Particularly it is interesting to me to see the liberal institutions and media running to Dean's camp. It is a huge sellout. I believe the Dean bandwagon is a giant manipulation and lots of well meaning people are being suckered in.

On Dean 04.Sep.2003 12:42

Jennifer

This Dean mania is awful. I can see that great effort is going into electing a candidate whose one redeeming quality is that he is not quite as bad as Bush. :::sigh::: it is going to be a long year...

again 04.Sep.2003 12:44

voter

"Dean's not a radical."

For me the point is not whether Dean is a radical, but that Dean is not sane.

Response 04.Sep.2003 12:58

Michael

Dean is a politician and avoids the fundamental challenges of our time. If he becomes the candidate who is next selected, he is going to do terrible things in the world. People can debate whether the terrible things he is going to do are a little less terrible than Bush.

I also refuse to vote for someone who is going to wreck untold misery on others. I refuse to play the rigged game that we are being offered. I refuse to put my stamp of approval on another killer in the White House.

not just politics -- it's access two 04.Sep.2003 13:37

ndw

As of 1:00 PDT a link to cursor.org [startribune.com] is down. Why? "Access forbidden."

Speaking from years of experience in both technology (applications/network programming) & mainstream/alternative journalism I believe the bigger issue here is not only coverage of candidates but proper establishment, implementation & following up on the technology that hosts all the forums covering such things.

The original poster gripes about Davis' article and CommonDreams. Davis is just one author and CommonDreams just one of many sites reviewed & approved by small groups of editors. This particular cadre of editors, like the staff at the NYTimes, could change periodically & perhaps not do so transparently.

In these modern times with Internet access better defining group & committe rules, plus increased implemenation of new types of electronic access casts anyone who rallies behind "the brand argument" as both a fool & irrelevant. "An author on CommonDreams said this." "Somebody at NYTimes said that." Yes the fact those are mainstream venues cannot be disputed or ignored. However making an argument for or against an editorship means you're acknowledging not just the story written or angles covered but the espirit de corps that delivers those stories & angles on time.

I strongly argue for people to actively protest the existing forms of ownership in newspaper & e-zine operations (not "how much ownership" like FCC Committee rulings that's another post). One good, progressive reason to protest corporate ownership is that the Old World concept of stakes & shares seems to exclude almost everything & everyone else endowed with a cooperative nature because they can (this being the stubborn, monoculture enterprises most resistant to change). What I mean by this is while it may be trivial to get a letter-to-the-editor published it's very difficult to get signed on with the editorship because the monopolists strive to protect their brand. The positive angle on this is that it establishes identity, e.g. NYTimes is not VillageVoice. The negative angle is that this restrictive capitalism is having the opposite effect an informed public wants -- narrowing the scope of media delivery enough to exclude and even censor others' viewpoints. The answer? Create more forums. Please don't stop there. There also needs to be new cadres of people who provide timely ratings or honest critiques of these fresh news sites & that information must remain in the public commons at all times without hinderance or fear of being taken down by silly litigation (unwarranted accusations of libel/slander).

Personal blogs and community-owned forums are one answer to relieving the monoculture that misinforms & provokes the public today. Simply put, diversity of opinion is healthy for democracy. Unfortunately there are very, very bad people in policymaking and IT positions today with too much power at the moment but tomorrow it will be stripped from them before they even know what happened. :)

Viva la Internet revolution!

~Nick W.

Corvallis, Ore.

women 04.Sep.2003 16:26

carpool

Since many of us are frustrated/pissed off that there is no great candidate, but can acknowlegde Dean may be better than Bush...I offer this thought. The rights of women and homosexuals would be FAR BETTER OFF with Dean. So instead of scrapping your vote, cast one in the direction of women. That would make a huge difference in many ways including health insurance covering contraceptives, reproductive rights, comprehensible sex ed in schools, the public funding of faith-based "crisis pregnancy clinics" [which severly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics, etc] and more...Women have lost a lot under Bush and his administration. That's all...resume the arguements...

"cast one in the direction of women. " 04.Sep.2003 16:44

Fred

Agreed! Vote Green! Why are women voting for the parties that never even have a woman VP candidate, as Nader did last year, and as the Greens most likely will again this year?

to 'carpool' 04.Sep.2003 17:49

farcool

"instead of scrapping your vote, cast one in the direction of women"

--i agree with the reasoning on the issues you have raised about Dean (or any Democrat) vs. Bu$h.

Of course, we all understand that a party calling themselves the Democrats is attempting to unseat the Republican Bu$h from office, and that Dean is one of the major players in these races.

at this stage of the campaign, the only thing any American can do to even "cast one" vote in the "direction" of Howard Dean is to *register as a Democrat* and vote in the *primaries*, with no certainty that he will be the DNC nominee to run against Bu$h in November 2004.

there's NO ELECTION YET--

do ANY of you on these Dean postings UNDERSTAND THAT??!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!????????

there

IS

NO

ELECTION.

it's just primaries.

OK?

after 9 more months of this,

THEN--and ONLY at that time--the DNC will be choosing a representative presidential candidate to face off against Bu$h.

and really--if we all even "trust" the Democratic party a *teensy-weensy* bit--don't you people think that after all the nationwide primary vote campaign results are in,

that the Democratic National Committee WILL IN FACT make a decision to choose a "winnable" candidate or ticket vs. Bu$h (no matter *who* gets attention or "front-runner" status during primaries)?

[unless you happen to believe in some sort of bizarro 'conspiracy theory' that the DNC would deliberately choose a *losing* ticket vs. Bu$h . . . ;-)]

so all of this rhetoric of "Dean vs. Bush" is a waste. It's really Dean vs. his Democratic primary challengers at this point (**all** of whom are "vs. Bu$h").

AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY WE KEEP ASKING THE DEANIES TO SAVE IT FOR democrats.com or democratic underground,

leaving it off of Portland IMC,

because IT IS IRRELEVANT here.

thank you.

Yay For Fred 05.Sep.2003 22:04

!

No thanks to Deadly Dr. Dean!

Two centz 05.Sep.2003 23:37

asz

Vote for the crazyest looking one or the cutest, maybe just close your eyes and poke.
IT AINT GONNA CHAINGE SHIT FOR US>

After the Florida stunt, its pretty clear cut VOTING DONT MATTER>

Please spend your time worring about something else.

the worlds best write in canidite.... "NO ONE", what if they won!!!

yeah 05.Sep.2003 23:54

yeah guy

>the worlds best write in canidite.... "NO ONE", what if they won!!!

yeah.... but they won't.

What about... 08.Sep.2003 22:24

TK TommyK@hotpop.com

I was (admittedly) a fervent Dean supporter for a month or two when I first heard and saw an online ra ra campaign on the internet. A friend of mine was over the other day and mildly handed me a Dennis Kucinich card. I finally got around the time to check him out and I started singing on the front porch into the midnight air that there really COULD be a benevolent God in the universe. At any rate, as far as Kucinich's views on the Gay/Abortion/Etc rights, the media has DEFINITELY made that their little target of choice for interviews with him, to nullify his reputation in an expediete manner. It angers me that they don't ask the other 98% of relevent questions that COULD be asked of him and his campaign. And he is really has a good stance on those issues from what I can see. Nader endorsed him from what I have heard and I have already decided to put volunteer efforts toward him.

I would also like to add that if anyone has the chance to check out this other man below. He is one of the most profoundly interesting people that I have heard this year. Definitely worth repeating his name, whether you agree or not....
Lyndon LaRouche. Take in a small 3.5 hour lecture on economics in modern American and make some popcorn, there's plenty to hear!


 http://larouchein2004.net/index.html

503-533-8056
17240 SW Lisa Street