Another Dean article from Salon.com
Hi everyone! I'm back from my self-imposed hiatus, and here's the first article that came to my attention today. Go over to Salon and grab a day pass (top right header bar - view an ad and get the day pass), then check out this article.
Jake Tapper (who is hit or miss, IMO) covers Dean's "whirlwind" week in New York City. Putting aside Tapper's contention that the candidate is "pretending" that the domestic agenda matters, there are a few gold nuggets in this article. The first is that Judith Hope has endorsed Dr Dean. According to what I googled, Hope is the New York State Democratic Committee State Chair, so this is huge news. The article quoted her as saying that she endorsed Dean despite intense pressure to go with another candidate: "I just could not do it, because I feel so strongly that Howard's the real thing. And that comes so rarely in American politics." I couldn't agree with your more, Ms. Hope.
There's also a few choice quotes from Terry McAuliffe (pardon me while I visibly shudder), who is obviously trying to remain neutral at this point. He calls Dean "a spectacular individual who's brought energy, enthusiasm, and excitement to this party." Well Terry, at least you got that right. Read the article for the rest of McAuliffe's statements.
Tapper states that Dean has focused on his domestic agenda during this recent trip. With war dominating the national dialogue, do you think it's wise for Dean to remind the electorate that he's not a "single-issue candidate"? I do, because what orginally attracted me to his candidacy was his national agenda. The anti-war stance is just a bonus for me rather than "the thing" that draws me to the campaign. I'm sure it's going to be hard to force a dialogue on the State of the Union at this point in the race, but I think it's smart to try and let the people who are attracted by the anti-war stance know that there is much more to our candidate's platform.
Jake Tapper (who is hit or miss, IMO) covers Dean's "whirlwind" week in New York City. Putting aside Tapper's contention that the candidate is "pretending" that the domestic agenda matters, there are a few gold nuggets in this article. The first is that Judith Hope has endorsed Dr Dean. According to what I googled, Hope is the New York State Democratic Committee State Chair, so this is huge news. The article quoted her as saying that she endorsed Dean despite intense pressure to go with another candidate: "I just could not do it, because I feel so strongly that Howard's the real thing. And that comes so rarely in American politics." I couldn't agree with your more, Ms. Hope.
There's also a few choice quotes from Terry McAuliffe (pardon me while I visibly shudder), who is obviously trying to remain neutral at this point. He calls Dean "a spectacular individual who's brought energy, enthusiasm, and excitement to this party." Well Terry, at least you got that right. Read the article for the rest of McAuliffe's statements.
Tapper states that Dean has focused on his domestic agenda during this recent trip. With war dominating the national dialogue, do you think it's wise for Dean to remind the electorate that he's not a "single-issue candidate"? I do, because what orginally attracted me to his candidacy was his national agenda. The anti-war stance is just a bonus for me rather than "the thing" that draws me to the campaign. I'm sure it's going to be hard to force a dialogue on the State of the Union at this point in the race, but I think it's smart to try and let the people who are attracted by the anti-war stance know that there is much more to our candidate's platform.
Comments