Is Dean screwed now?

Nope not screwed in the least.

Did they find WMD and prove that this war was justified? Otherwise I don't see how he could be screwed.

I don't know, if there's anything we should have learned from the past couple years, it's that people's memories are, miraculously, even shorter than the most cynical of previous estimates - and that their attentions can be spun on a very thin dime...so nobody's screwed. Also, this fragmentation of the dems is a bit of an illusion, I think. It only seems that way because people have their favorites right now and the percentages paint a weak picture - but I think for most people, they're not going to care so much who the candidate is as long as he's the one in the position to oust Bush. Once there's a nomination, I think you'll see unity, hardcore.

It only hurts Dean in the sense that it helps John Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman. This will inevitably move some portion of the Democratic base more in favor of the war (those parts that aren't defined by opposition to the war, see the union voting block for more details). It'll give those three a better cover story as to why they voted for the war. And it will make Dean further qualify all of his statements against the war. "Of course it was good to liberate the people of Iraq, and of course it was good to bring Saddam Hussein to justice, but..." After a few more of those equivocations it will begin to sound like a pretty good idea all the way around...

Dean isn't dead in the water until and unless stockpiles of WMDs are found. However, every genuinely positive piece of news coming out of this conflict must hurt him a little.

Lieberman blasted Dean on the Saddam issue. I'm thinking if they hammer him on the issue they may trim the lead. Stranger things have happened. John Hoynes lost a huge early lead to Jeb Bartlett. He went on to be President so it can happen.

Every time something goes right in Bush's war, Dean isn't screwed.

Every time Dean says something another Democrat disagrees with, Dean isn't screwed.

Every time a Clinton backs another candidate, Dean isn't screwed.

It is heartening to watch the conservatives here obsess over it so much, though. You're scared, and it's showing.

Fact is, Dean's candidacy isn't totally based on being anti-war. That's a facet of it, yes, and still a very viable facet, but he's actually got plenty of other opinions too. If anything, his candidacy is based on being an alternative to Bush. As long as Bush continues to suck (and he does), Dean will have a good shot.

You know what? I'm not even slightly scared that Dean will say something "insanely stupid." He's smart enough to say what he needs to say. He generally knows what he believes, says what he believes, and is mostly right. Exactly the opposite of Bush, who is clueless and stupid. And it shows. Watch Dean speak. You can tell that he understands what he's saying, and he cares about it. Then compare it Bush's dull, uncomprehending monotone. It's night and day.

No, Dean isn't a good candidate because he's anti-war. Dean's a good candidate because he's a smart, opinionated man, not a mindless corporate whore.

If he's a politician he's a whore to someone. The next debate should be interesting to see if they all jump on Dean.

And if Dean was going to make a speech on not finding Osama and Saddam it would have been funny as hell if he did it a week ago. There wouldn't be enough towels to wipe the egg off his face.

*oh Bunny D. Jeb Bartlett is on the West Wing.

ah...more labels. I'm a supporter of Dean so I guess that makes me angry and wrapped around his schlong!

Wow....not only do you label people but you also have a crystal ball! IMPRESSIVE

and to keep it on topic. No I do not believe Dean is screwed.

Well sweet cheeks, if I read your 'wrapped around the cock' bit wrong, my apologies for jumping the gun. It's just that I get sooo frustrated with people who label.

Besides, an angry person wrapped around ones cock does not make for a good photo moment....

You got a set of brass ones? Wow, that's even more IMPRESSIVE

Perspective from a Republican:

Dean is not screwed. He is not screwed by any stretch of the imagination. His supporters will still support him just because we caught "some dude". It makes no difference: catching Hussein does not justify the war to them (it BARELY justifies it to me, and I was for this thing).

Dean will get the nomination. He's a smart dude, and relatively shrewd. He's also the most dangerous candidate to Bush. But that's not saying much-- he'll probably get crushed like a baby mouse under a sledgehammer. (Which I will be grateful for, but let's not get cocky-- frankly, Dean scares the shit out of me.)

So, I know my conservative friends are excited. But my friends, this means VIRTUALLY NOTHING. Its great. I'm ecstatic that we got this psycho. But lets ratchet down the rhetoric a little bit-- please. I'm not saying don't be excited, but no "NannyNanny BooBoos, stick it in your poopoos" style rubbing it in. It won't work, because it doesn't make much sense in the general scheme of things. And it Especially won't effect Howard Dean.

Lets be reasonable and objective to differentiate ourselves from the others. If thats possible.

Yes, by attacking the poor, minorities and non-Christians! Republican values ahoy!

But Dean wasn't electable in the first place. Especially after December 13-boy got behind him.

You mean the guy who won the popular vote in 2000?

Oy, this is a delicate issue...

Now anyone who's paid attention to me on these boards (both of you) knows that I'm a major leftie and not a Bush backer in the least. I really don't think we can take another 4 years of the Bush White House. But having said that, I (and I would wager most of my leftie brethren and sistren as well) think that the capture of Saddam is extremely good news and something that all americans should be happy about. Hostilities are not going to be over for a long time, but this is a big victory in a war that has been short on them sense the mission was "accomplished." Everyone knows that Saddam's a bad guy, nobody's disputed that, and knowing where he is now is infinitely better than wondering.

The above is not a statement on the legitimacy of our reasons for going to war etc. etc. etc, just a common sense observation. A captured Saddam is many times less dangerous than a free Saddam, whether he's shacked up with Osama as lovers or not.

That said, I do have the feeling that this is likely the end of the Democratic run at the White House. Bush the Elder got out in one term at least partly b/c he didn't bring Saddam down when he had the chance (okay, there was the economy too). Now Dubya has that feather in his cap, and I think many voters will be swayed by this "ass-kicking" that he can take credit for.

Again, not a comment on legitimacy, just a statement about voter sentiment. Some voters will look at other issues when decided what vote to cast, but many will just remember that Dubya got Saddam, and that will be enough for them.

I'll still be listening to the debates. I'll still try to make my vote on a number of issues. But I seriously doubt the Dems will be able to overcome this goodwill unless something pretty drastic happens between now and election time.

To recap: capture Saddam == good. Me + America == love. Dems in 04--

This will be a non-factor by FEBRUARY, let alone next November.

The fact that W has screwed up so much and yet analyst still call it a "close race" instead of a major landslide by the Democratic party tells you about the incompetence of the Democratic party itself. As much as I would like W out of office, there really isn't any other person that could get him out of office. This btw, reminds of Mayor Marion Berry being elected after his drug scandal. Who was so bad that they couldn't beat this cokehead?

Don't you think the fact that there are STILL 10 people trying to run less than a year before the election has something to do with it? Hard to get behind 10 people tearing each other down for the privilege of facing an uphill battle against an incumbent.

Saddam getting picked up now will have little affect on how Dean does in February. Dean's worst enemy at this point is himself. That said, I think if the Bush Administration coughs up Bin Laden in 6 months, then the Dems may have a difficult time sewing up the 04 White House race.

When did I once mention "values"?

At least I take the time (which isn't much considering they are almost all pithy one-liners) to read your posts. And that means now after I was sufficiently chastised in the past for not reading through threads all the way.

Lets talk about the subject of this thread now, which is the fate of Dean in light of Saddam's capture.

I think Dean is Better off now. He can harp on WMD like never before and remind people about the main justification for war.

Dean already screwing up?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515/

Nah. Bush has already set the bar so low for mendacity and "misspeaking," that it would take someone with 67 times the skill of the Iraqi information minister to out-lie him.

As a minority myself, I don't buy the "only Republicans" hate minorities thing. Racist stupidity doesn't care who you vote for.

Is Dean screwed now?

No, but this does present a significant opportunity to his main competitors. As you have already seen, Lieberman went for the jugular, giving away a quotable item that will surely be used by Karl Rove.

Kerry is just hopeless in my opinion, but Clark and Gephardt could take advantage of this. I would pick them 2 as the most likely to gain from it.

It's like that annoying cell phone commercial...

Is he screwed now?
Is he screwed now?
Is he screwed now?

Dean doesn't have to say a word to win this election. Just a compilation of Rumsfeld's, Fleischer's, McKellan's, and especially Bush's speeches going on and on about how they KNOW the whereabouts of Iraq's arsenal should do.

What makes people think the Bush administration would change its ways in its second term? Or have you forgotten already?

Yeah, Dean's not the one saying "insanely stupid" things...

Funny how you keep asking, then. Maybe it has something to do with the way his polls keep going up.

Matt, is the NR afraid of Dean?

I mean I am somewhat confused about the cover which says, unusally, PLEASE NOMINATE THIS MAN with a picture of Dean...

You guys DO realize that in the polls taken over the weekend AFTER this revelation that Dean was still so close to Bush in a theoretical matchup that he could've won within the margin error, right?

And this is a survey of yokels who rated the President a lot more favorably on this one photo-op alone. Be careful what you ask for...

No worries here.

What polls are these, btw?

Wall Street Journal/NBC

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3721220/

The head-to-head polls before and after the capture showed:
Bush at 51%, Dean at 39% Before
Bush at 52%, Dean at 31% After

The sampling error was 4.3%. The change in Bush's support was within the margin of error. That is, if you are refering to the NBC poll cited above.

I think you misread that, Micah. The rise in Bush's numbers was within the margin of error, not his lead over Dean.

Bush - 52%, up from 51%
Dean - 31%, down from 39%

Jon Voight beat me to the punch - he must've posted just as I was starting my post.

Actually the poll seems to say Bush has a good lead over Dean, but the article is a bit confusing, maybe somebody can clarify:

OK, Bush : 52 +- 4.3

vs 31 +- 4.3

Am I misinterpreting the poll? (actually the article, didn't see the actual poll results)

EDIT : OK, I guess we all read the poll at the same time. The problem is the article is a bit poorly written, I got confused by the margin of error comment too.

People always like the back up quarterback till he gets in the game. That's what Dean is right now. He's been annointed the frontrunner by the media by the attention he gets and he really hasn't been hammered by his opponents.

That will change if he gets the nomination. Then Dean gets to face a guy who could have 150+ million in his war chest who has great photo ops and people seem to like(not counting New York and California).

I highly doubt Bush is scared. And if Nader gets in Bush will definatly win.

You got me there. I was looking at two different paragraphs in two different browser windows. I stand very much corrected.

Well, I think the article is a bit confusing.

Either way, it's waaaaaaaaay to early for polls still. The most relevant ones I guess are for the Dem primary.

Gauging Dean's chances against Bush aren't really the point here, since Dean isn't running against Bush yet. Dean is currently in a race against other Democrats. Of all the Democratic contenders he has most firmly built his race on an anti-war position (not that others aren't anti-war, it's just that Dean's campaign is defined by that position). Any event that alters the perception of the war among rank-and-file Democrats affects him. A piece of news that is very negative toward the war (say, having 100 Americans killed in an ambush) would help Dean VS THE OTHER LEADING DEMOCRATS. A piece of news that is very positive toward the war (say, capturing Saddam Hussein, which removes the embarrassment of having the guy free) would hurt Dean VS OTHER LEADING DEMOCRATS. Nothing will deter his core constituency, of course, since those voters are against the war on principle, and any news of any sort makes no difference at all. HOWEVER, for the rest of the Democratic party faithful, good war news can tilt people away from Dean and towards, say, Kerry, Lieberman, or even Clark.

EDIT: Brain fart.

Not that confusing. I was just multitasking. The "not decided/neither" is basically the swing vote, and whichever guy gets it...wins.

Just for LlamaRama

From that bastion of conservative thought The New Republic:

Anti-Bush hater attacks Dean

Looks more like the Left is scared of a Dean blowout rather than the right. Ouch.

I wouldn't say "the Left," but that guy makes a fairly good case for why Dean may be more of the same carp we get from Bush.

Thanks for posting that article, Burke. I found most of the "anti-Dean" tidbits very encouraging. Same as Bush? Hardly.

His admits his stance on NAFTA changed, but characterizes himself as previously being a mild supporter instead of a strong supporter. Next to the sheer volume of lies we get from Bush every single day, I think I can stomach this. And I like a leader that can change his mind if he feels it necessary.

He claims that the capture of Saddam doesn't make mainland Americans any safer? He's right.

He doesn't guarantee that he'll encourage his supporters to vote Democratic if someone else wins the nomination? Good for him. There are a few of those guys that could drive me to vote Green.

You can find a "left-winger" who doesn't support Dean. I can find right-wingers who don't support Bush. This is a movie board, so you should know backlashes are a way of life.

I'm not a Dean supporter because I think he's a picture perfect candidate (i.e. Wesley Clark), I'm a Dean supporter because he's a strong, principled leader whose platform is not a mishmash of poll-produced opinions. Sure, a Dean presidency is hardly assured, especially a year prior the election, but I'd rather take a gamble with him than make a safe bet with a mini-Bush pseudo-Republican like Lieberman.