Hi Nerd,

Again, more inferences without factual basis.

" You believe that Kerry has the air of a statesman and Dean does not. Why? the media has told you so."

No the media had nothing to do with it. Only my personal observations of the style of campaigning.

As to the lobbying issue, both Dean and Kerry have received
corporate money. Lobbyists money. But not a lot compared
to the Bush coffers.

"Is it a "scurrilous attack" to suggest there may have been some quid pro quo?"

Yes, because without proof it is spin. The question I have is
what good does it do to attack Kerry on this level? It makes
the Democratic Party look so petty and gives the Bush Party
credibility. The RNC people apparently don't do this to each other.

"Finally, people who claim that MY attacks on Kerry will cause Bush to win are both craven and wrong."

Not necessarilly your attacks on Kerry. If they in fact can be
substantiated by fact rather than invective, then they may be
useful in formulating an unbiased opinion. But as long as they
are tempered by the anger that has been fueled by this campaign,
then they are not good for the Democratic Party.

"They're craven because I didn't hear them standing up when everyone was attacking Dean. At that time, the candidate with the most "momentum" was being attacked from every quarter, and the Democratic establishment said nothing."


This is very telling. It shows that Dean is not able to
mobilize the Democratic Party to his behalf. Now why is that?

You also say that the DNC says,

"whoa, don't do that! You'll win the election for Bush!" I am sick of that kind of self-serving hypocrisy.

It was true the last time when Nader helped to split the votes in 2000. It's not self-serving to want to rid the country of Bush.
As to Dean, if he can garner support on his merits, the more power to him. I agree with a lot of what he says but I don't like his
style of campaigning. I don't agree with some of what Kerry
says such as supporting the Resolution and I don't think the world is safer because Saddam was caught.

You say,

"They're wrong because the Republicans already have a huge file on Kerry. He almost lost his 1996 election in the Senate to Republican Bill Weld, partly because of a long ad campaign from the opposition that highlighted all the issues I have raised and questioned Kerry's ethics."

The same thing would happen with Dean. They'll go after him tooth and nail and question his ethics and dig up the same spin on him.


"My attacks are insignificant."

There are a lot of Deaniacs out there who think their candidate
walks on water. It's always that way in a political campaign.
Every candidate has flaws. With Dean, it might be style and
maybe he is responsive to some corporate lobbying groups as well.

With Clark, he is a military guy. Joe Lieberman is Bush-lite.
Edwards is young, inexperienced and has some good things to say
about America divided. Dennis is the one I agree with in principle but I know that his chances of beating Bush are negligible. I
even like what Al Sharpton says. Same problem.

Your attacks on Kerry will not get Dean elected so what good
are they?

The only way Dean has any chance is to get off the yapping-dog-at-the-heels approach and hone his message. If he can get it across,
great. But so far, it hasn't really happened.

I believe that Kerry is not responsive to the large lobbying interests that Bush is and doesn't have the corporate backing
that the RNC has.

Dean is at present outspending Kerry on his campaign.

You bring up the "confederate flag" issue.

"If you want to bring up the confederate flag issue, let's go there. What Dean said was not, "I approve of the confederate flag." What he said was not "nigger." What he said was that people who have the confederate flag on their trucks ought to be voting democratic. Is this a crime?"

The inference was that people who fly the confederate flag should
vote for Dean because he was trying
to woo the stereotypical idea of the white Southerner. The confederate flag is the same as the Nazi symbol to African-Americans.
Jesse Jackson exonerated Dean on this but to bring that symbol
into the campaign was risky for him. It made it seem like he
was on the side of the "yahoo brigade" and many Southernors took offense at this "Northern" stereotyping.


"Does it make sense to say that the Democrats don't want those people's votes? That they'd rather lose?"

These people are being appealed to on the basis of their support
for the confederate flag.

You say,

" Dean has made his deep understanding of this issue clear on repeated occasions, including a speech about the "Southern Strategy" and why we need to unite Blacks and Whites around issues of self-interest,"

Then why didn't he say that? Could it be that he thought that it wouldn't play? This statement was not a way to unite Blacks and Whites.

More to follow.

Frank