Howard Dean says that he hates Republicans and what they stand for. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/30/104654.shtml http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15406
I kinda of like Dean, minus his politics and overall psycho-ness. He actually stands for whatever it is he stands for. With that said the Democrats have lost their minds if they think he will help them. They got Pelosi, Kennedy, and Boxer as their "leaders". Kerry being a baby on television. They need help. Dean is not the answer. I think the Brazil/Brozell?-lady that was Gore's campaign mananger would have been a much better choice. Or anyone else.
None of the far-left democrats are electable nationally. The party won't make another mistake by running a northeastern liberal with a long Washington record to defend. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry just didn't cut it. No, some southern moderate and Washington outsider like Carter or Clinton, who sucessfully captured the moderate voters, will come out of nowhere. I wonder what John Breaux's plans are?
He would be an excellent choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, but he would never win the nomination. Those northeastern and West Coast liberals would never allow it. He is more conservative than more than a few Republicans in Congress. Bush needs to keep him busy on his tax and energy committees for awhile just to be safe. :thumb:
