Opponents acknowledge that a Dean presidential nomination would dramatically change the party. They just contend that it would mean oblivion, a return to the days when Democrats lost five of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988. Back then, they were portrayed by Republicans as tax-raisers and weak on defense.Sounds like a GOOD thing to me ! Go, Dean, go !!
It is starting to look like the Clinton have some problems in the Party. Harkin would not do that unless he saw an openning. What is it: Clark for VP? Clark/Dean with Dean as the VP? The Clintons out altogether?
Or do I have this all wrong?
We will see how Heir Clark does, but it looks like the what is left of the "pre-Clinton" party is trying to take it back. If so that leaves two questions: 1) Is there enough left of the old party to revive it? 2) Has the country moved too far to the right to take the "new old party" seriously? The young blood in the party seems so left wing - even bordering on anarchists. They are in a way a wilder bunch than in the New Left days and they do not have the demogaphic bulge of the Boomers.
Pull his string!
What'll he blurt out next!
I'm running against Rush Limbaugh.
I want the guys with the Confederate flags.
Gore can't think on his feet.
I'm going to fire Terry McAuliffe.
I'll rescind all the tax cuts.
I want a fair trial for Osama bin Laden.
