Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start!

According to the latest Newsweek poll, Wesley CLark is already in the lead. Not bad for someone who just announced his candidacy less than a week ago and is only known to mostly those who watch cable news channels.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=CB10

And he'll be participating in next week's debate afterall. I hope he does well because many Americans and Democrats will be learning of him for the first time. He'll either surge forward or sputter.

What I can't believe is that polls also show that Democrats would still favor Hillary Clinton if she entered the race! What the FUCK?!?!?! Democrats had better start waking up to the fact that if they want to see Bush beaten in 2004, they better nominate a moderate who can get the centrists'/independents' votes and beat Bush. I know many of you are wanting a "real" leftie (i.e., liberal), but someone too liberal CANNOT BEAT BUSH!!! And I want that fucker out of there!

I seem to recall a conservative President George Bush being beaten by a liberal from Arkansas called Clinton. And if I remember correctly, President Bush had recently fought a very popular war against Saddam Hussein of Iraq and nobody thought the Democrats could ever beat him.

Any relation to the Bush and Clinton you're talking about?

Having said that, I still like Wesley Clark too. ABW (Anybody But Dubya)!

Clark will turn out to fizzle as he endures the pressure of examination and once the Honeymoon is over. He is inconsistent and has more sides on a single issue than a rubix cube.

Edwards is a fraud.

Dean is dangerous.

Gephardt is too whiney.

Kerry is to plastic.

The actual best candidate is Lieberman, but unfortunately he comes across too mousey. I think he is principled, experienced and has personal integrity. It will be a fun ride.

>The actual best candidate is Lieberman, but unfortunately he

>comes across too mousey. I think he is principled,

>experienced and has personal integrity. It will be a fun

>ride.

You've got to be kidding! The little Liebershtein has been bought and paid for by the zionist lobby. I suppose you missed his playing the "race" card against Howard Dean recently? Also, how can orthodox jew who does not believe in mixed marriages be acceptable as President of multicultural secular nation. He should rather be President of the Bob Jones University in South Carolina or Prsident of the Knesset!

>Clark... ...is

>inconsistent and has more sides on a single issue than a rubix

>cube.

>

>Edwards is a fraud.

>

>Dean is dangerous.

>

>Gephardt is too whiney.

>

>Kerry is to plastic.

That's what Faux News and the conservative machine want you to believe! I don't care for Kerry or Gephardt (too fucking little too fucking late to question the war they approved now!), don't know anything about Edwards (though his announcement on the Daily show was funny), but DEAN IS DANGEROUS??? Yes, to the machine! He's actually got a domestic agenda instead of a platform made entirely of bullshit (leave no child behind, etc...), and is FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE... a lot of conservatives are starting to wonder where HALF A TRILLION dollars has gone exactly!

But it's good to see that the machine has moved the inconsistent, flip-flop man label off Dean and onto the latest front runner. How's the AWOL reserve shmuck going to compete with a top of his class West Point graduate? Bush has the mental capacities of a shrub, it shows, and there are fewer and fewer people who want Bush/Halliburton 2004.

>The actual best candidate is Lieberman, but unfortunately he

>comes across too mousey. I think he is principled,

>experienced and has personal integrity. It will be a fun

>ride.

Hahahahahaha! Best candidate for the conservative machine, because they've already shown even a barely literate moron can beat an opposition that has him on the ticket! I don't see anything *presently* about Looserman that is redeeming in the slightest.

Wesley Clark is THE candidate who can eat Dubya for breakfast. I've been hoping he would jump into the race, and he finally has. Things just got more interesting and unless Clark does something foolish or Bush declares himself Supreme Dictator for Life, Idi Amin style.....I think we'll have a new president elected in 2004.

>I seem to recall a conservative President George Bush being

>beaten by a liberal from Arkansas called Clinton.

Clinton is generally considered a moderate for he has fairly conservative views on such things as the death penalty and the use of the military (he used it quite extensively for a liberal). And Gore is even more of a "moderate" with his more hawkish views on foreign policy. For example, he was one of only (I think) ten Democrats who gave Bush SR. authorization for the original gulf war.

>I think we'll have a new

>president elected in 2004.

I hope you're right, though I'd prefer Dean... Dean/Clark Clark/Dean would also work...

I just hope we're not too far gone. Read about all the different things that went on in Florida, or the peculiar results already achived in a couple elections by the new machines made by companies that give $$$ to the Repulican party...

And one more thing, I recall a couple of months ago where Bill Clinton very publicly called on the Democratic establishment to "move more towards the center" if they hope to beat Bush in 2004.

When all is said and done - the election is not for another FOURTEEN MONTHS!!!!!

How on earth do you guys stand all this nonsense? How can anybody seriously campaign for more than a year? No other democracy on earth does anything as crazy as this. For the rest of us, campaigns run for a couple of months at the most.

Who knows what can happen in the next fourteen months. Bush may die and Dick Cheney become President. US troops may find Saddam Hussein and put him on trial. Ossama bin Laden may crash a burning oil tanker into the Verazzano Narrows Bridge. Attorney General Ashcroft could be exposed as a regular client of some of the guys on Hoo Boy.

At least we can say there is a Presidential race at last, and that Bush is now clearly beatable. Here's hoping that he gets thoroughly flogged!

King Henry VIII told a great story about how the world can change unexpectedly.

"The King of France had a horse thief brought before him. The penalty was death, and the King was about to pronounce sentence when the thief begged him for mercy.

'Your Majesty, in 12 months I can make Your Majesty's favourite horse talk!' said the thief.

The King was so astonished by this that he gave him 12 months to get his favourite horse to talk.

As the thief was being led away, one of his friends said to him:

'That was a crazy thing to say! You know you can't get that horse to talk. Why did you tell the King you could?'

'Ah,' replied the thief, 'just think what can happen in 12 months. I may die. Or the King may die. Or the horse may die. Or the horse may talk.'"

>When all is said and done - the election is not for another

>FOURTEEN MONTHS!!!!!

>How on earth do you guys stand all this nonsense? How can

>anybody seriously campaign for more than a year?

In the case of the Democrats, it's because they're campaigning for two different things -- the nomination and the election. The first Democratic primaries occur in about five months. The DNC has the primaries scheduled this cycle so that a huge number of delegates is to be picked during the first three months of the primary season. So if your campaign is not completely ready to go well before January, you may as well forget it. "Completely ready" means that you have an organization in each state that is ready to start knocking on doors, sending out mailers, arranging events for the candidate, and driving voters to the polls. You think it's possible to raise the money to pay for such an organization and create it in just a few weeks? Candidates start many months before primary season because that is how long it takes to do the work involved in winning the primaries. It's not as though they have nothing else to do.

During the last cycle, McCain won the Republican primary in New Hampshire and upstaged Bush because he practically lived in the state for a year before the primary. They do it because that is what it takes to win.

>No other

>democracy on earth does anything as crazy as this.

Oh really? Did you notice that Italy has a prime minister who also happens to own the most influential media organizations in his country? What would you say if Bush owned a major television network and one or more major newspapers here?

>For the

>rest of us, campaigns run for a couple of months at the most.

For countries like Britain and Australia that have a parliamentary form of government, that may be in part because elections are scheduled at the discretion of the government rather than by the calendar. Some of us happen to think it's crazy to allow the government in power to pick the time of an election so that it has an advantage over the opposition, but that is what certain other countries allow. Right?

>>No other

>>democracy on earth does anything as crazy as this.

>

>Oh really? Did you notice that Italy has a prime minister who

>also happens to own the most influential media organizations

>in his country? What would you say if Bush owned a major

>television network and one or more major newspapers here?

Well, Woodie, for all intents and purposes, Bush does "own" various portions of the television media here....Faux Channel for one.....and a host of others who are just drooling for Michael Powell's FCC action to stand so they can have it all.

And William Safire's column in the New York Times on September 22 pretty well illustrates the Republican strategy against Wesley Clark......paint him as Clintonesque.

Of course, that strategy may backfire, if enough Americans remember how much better off they were during the Clinton years, as opposed to the national catastrophe known as "The Bush Administration".

Actually, no, a large number of parliamentary democracies have fixed terms for their parliament. This applies in most parts of Australia (though not at the federal level) and in many parts of Europe, for example. While it can be overridden in extreme situations, as a general rule an election is held at a fixed identifiable time.

I'm well aware that the reason you have 14 months or more of campaigning is because of the early start to the primaries. My point is more fundamental, though. WHY do you have such early primaries?

There is no obvious reason why the two party primaries could not take place in, say, August or September after a short campaign of a few weeks. That would give ample time to conduct the actual national election in early November as usual. To put this another way, there is no obvious reason why the USA has to be subjected to nearly a year and a half of presidential campaigning. Is it any wonder that people get thoroughly pissed off with elections after that amount of endless repetition of the same tired political catchphrases?

A shorter election campaign isn't perfect, of course - but in my opinion it's much better.

>>Oh really? Did you notice that Italy has a prime minister

>who

>>also happens to own the most influential media organizations

>>in his country? What would you say if Bush owned a major

>>television network and one or more major newspapers here?

>Well, Woodie, for all intents and purposes, Bush does "own"

>various portions of the television media here....Faux Channel

>for one.....and a host of others who are just drooling for

>Michael Powell's FCC action to stand so they can have it all.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make of Bush without posting such nonsense as the above. If Bush somehow became the controlling shareholder in one of the major media conglomerates in this country you would be the first to scream about the danger of having a politician controlling the same media organization that covers him.

>And William Safire's column in the New York Times on September

>22 pretty well illustrates the Republican strategy against

>Wesley Clark......paint him as Clintonesque.

So what?

>Actually, no, a large number of parliamentary democracies

>have fixed terms for their parliament.

I believe I mentioned Britain and Australia. In Britain the government can call an election at its discretion so long as there is at least one every five years, isn't that correct? If I am not mistaken there are similar rules in other countries with parliamentary systems such as Australia and Israel. That certainly allows the government to pick the time of an election so as to give itself the best chance of victory. In America that is not permitted.

>I'm well aware that the reason you have 14 months or more of

>campaigning is because of the early start to the primaries.

>My point is more fundamental, though. WHY do you have such

>early primaries?

>There is no obvious reason why the two party primaries could

>not take place in, say, August or September after a short

>campaign of a few weeks.

The obvious reason is that America has a federal system of government rather than a unitary system like France or Britain. Our states are sovereign governments having certain areas of responsibility in which the federal government may not intrude. Congress does not have the power to require any state to schedule a primary election at any particular time. The states make their own decisions in accordance with party interests and their own interests. For example, New Hampshire is so desirous of retaining its place as the location of the first primary that its legislature has warned that if any other state tries to schedule a primary before New Hampshire's, they will simply change their date to become first again, even if that means holding their primary in the year before the election year. To adopt the system you want would mean persuading all 50 state legislatures to go along with it, which is probably impossible.

>To put this another way, there is no obvious reason

>why the USA has to be subjected to nearly a year and a half

>of presidential campaigning. Is it any wonder that people get

>thoroughly pissed off with elections after that amount of

>endless repetition of the same tired political catchphrases?

I don't think you are in a position to tell us what the American people want. The fact is that if there really were a national consensus among voters that the primary system should be changed, the legislatures would change it. There is no such consensus.

>There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make of Bush

>without posting such nonsense as the above. If Bush somehow

>became the controlling shareholder in one of the major media

>conglomerates in this country you would be the first to scream

>about the danger of having a politician controlling the same

>media organization that covers him.

>

>

>>And William Safire's column in the New York Times on

>September

>>22 pretty well illustrates the Republican strategy against

>>Wesley Clark......paint him as Clintonesque.

>

>So what?

>

>

It's hardly nonsense.....but don't take my word for it. Do something constructive with your time and read Joe Conason's book "Big Lies". Or, if you want a a more humorous take on a bad situation, read Al Franken's latest.

>It's hardly nonsense.....but don't take my word for it. Do

>something constructive with your time and read Joe Conason's

>book "Big Lies". Or, if you want a a more humorous take on a

>bad situation, read Al Franken's latest.

I've already read both books. But how is reading a polemic against Bush and the Right "constructive"? Both books say exactly the same thing -- Bush and his right-wing cheerleaders tell lies. Fine. Now what?

>

>>It's hardly nonsense.....but don't take my word for it. Do

>>something constructive with your time and read Joe Conason's

>>book "Big Lies". Or, if you want a a more humorous take on

>a

>>bad situation, read Al Franken's latest.

Let me add that both books would probably be emotionally satisfying reads for someone who has had to put up with a lot of bloviating from right-wing pundits on Fox and elsewhere and who longs for someone to respond. But so far as I recall neither one has anything practical to say. So Bill O'Reilly lied when he claimed that his program "Inside Edition" won a Peabody. And Ann Coulter lied when she wrote that Newsweek editor Evan Thomas's father was the socialist politician Norman Thomas. Of what use is that information to me, except in the unlikely event that I am asked to debate O'Reilly or Coulter?

For an analysis of the practical effects of Bush's policies on us and our future I suggest you read "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman. Or if you are really interested in the issue of whether the media has shown favoritism to Bush, read "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Those books actually discuss issues of more importance than the true identity of Evan Thomas's father.

>>

>>>It's hardly nonsense.....but don't take my word for it. Do

>>>something constructive with your time and read Joe

>Conason's

>>>book "Big Lies". Or, if you want a a more humorous take on

>>a

>>>bad situation, read Al Franken's latest.

>

>

>Let me add that both books would probably be emotionally

>satisfying reads for someone who has had to put up with a lot

>of bloviating from right-wing pundits on Fox and elsewhere and

>who longs for someone to respond. But so far as I recall

>neither one has anything practical to say. So Bill O'Reilly

>lied when he claimed that his program "Inside Edition" won a

>Peabody. And Ann Coulter lied when she wrote that Newsweek

>editor Evan Thomas's father was the socialist politician

>Norman Thomas. Of what use is that information to me, except

>in the unlikely event that I am asked to debate O'Reilly or

>Coulter?

>

>For an analysis of the practical effects of Bush's policies on

>us and our future I suggest you read "The Great Unraveling" by

>Paul Krugman. Or if you are really interested in the issue of

>whether the media has shown favoritism to Bush, read "What

>Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Those books actually

>discuss issues of more importance than the true identity of

>Evan Thomas's father.

>

>For an analysis of the practical effects of Bush's policies on

>us and our future I suggest you read "The Great Unraveling" by

>Paul Krugman. Or if you are really interested in the issue of

>whether the media has shown favoritism to Bush, read "What

>Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Those books actually

>discuss issues of more importance than the true identity of

>Evan Thomas's father.

>

Woodie: I've read both Krugman and Alterman's books and heartily agree that they're right on target. I think you're much too tough on Conason, though.

>Woodie: I've read both Krugman and Alterman's books and

>heartily agree that they're right on target. I think you're

>much too tough on Conason, though.

Well, what does Conason have to say that is of any practical value? He says that Ann Coulter is a hypocrite because she sings the praises of the "red state" culture but prefers to live in the big, bad city that is dominated by liberals. That Limbaugh portrays himself as an American Everyman but likes fine French wines and Havana cigars. So fucking what? Do you think you can tell that to the right wing and as soon as they hear it they'll become registered Democrats?

Those on the Right don't care about the private lives of Limbaugh and Coulter so long as they keep saying what their audience wants to hear. The problem liberals have is not to show how two-faced Limbaugh and Coulter are but to come up with candidates and pundits who say what the liberals want to hear and who energize them to oppose Bush. Liberals have been talking about creating their own radio talk shows for a year now. So where are they? Among all the Democratic candidates where is one who can articulate the same kind of simple, popular message as Bush?

Conason and Franken fall into the same trap as many liberal guests on the cable news network talk shows. They spend all their time defending themselves from the Right's accusations or debunking the Right's message and no time articulating a message of their own. What is the liberal alternative to Bush's Iraq policy? "Internationalize" the conflict? Obviously there are no nations who want to send tens of thousands of troops. So where does that leave this idea? Do you really think the Dems can win another election by saying we have to protect Social Security? Is that all they have?

Wesley who?

Woodie:

What the democrats need to do is use the same mantra that Bill Clinton used against Bush Senior........It's the economy, stupid. And they need to flesh out just how bad things have become under Dubya......that perhaps the biggest lie of all is that the Democrats are big spenders and the Republicans bastions of fiscal restraint. Wesley Clark, with his military credentials kicks the stool out from under Bush and his questionable military service, not to mention his incredible incompetence with respect to the whole Iraq war and aftermath.

On one point, I would think we might agree......that the Democrats have not been terribly competent in formulating a vision that captures the imagination of the voting public and takes them beyond the fear mongering and voodoo economics of Dubya and Co. It is my opinion that Wesley Clark might be able to change that. Time will tell.

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

It looks like Clark is the last hope indeed. Watch how the zionist lobby's tribal attack on Howard Dean gathers steam, and how sadly he has sucumbed! Also read about the Jewish campaign "financing" angle for those who like to deny or scream anti-semitim when it is raised.

Howard Dean's Israel problem

When he said the U.S. must be "evenhanded" in the Middle East, rivals and critics accused him of selling out the Jewish state -- even though his position is similar to Bush's and his campaign co-chair used to run AIPAC.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Michelle Goldberg, salon.com

Sept. 23, 2003 | Last Saturday, John Kerry gleefully predicted that Democratic rival Howard Dean was "imploding" over Israel. A meme was spreading in the Democratic Party that the former Vermont governor is insufficiently Zionist, that his views represent the antiwar fringe that's said to constitute his base. An Israeli newspaper had predicted that Jewish donors would shun him. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote him an admonitory letter. Political strategists waxed catastrophic.

What made the uproar so odd is that Dean's Israel policy hardly differs from that of Bush and his main Democratic challengers. His campaign is being co-chaired by Steven Grossman, who from 1992 to 1996 was president of AIPAC, America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby. While Dean vehemently criticizes Bush on a range of issues, when it comes to Israel, he told an audience at Iowa's Drake University in February, "The administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel."

"His position on the Middle East is a right-of-center position," says Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan. Yet Dean has been cast as the left-of-center candidate, and the self-propelling narrative of the current campaign ensures that nearly everything he says will be interpreted according to that conventional wisdom. And few issues in American politics are as sensitive as Israel, making a mere hint of dissent from the AIPAC line politically hazardous, even for a candidate whose campaign is being run by an AIPAC vet.

Actually, it's unclear how much Dean has strayed from AIPAC orthodoxy. Some of his recent comments about Israel seem aimed at the liberal Democrats fueling his insurgency -- many of whom disagree with his original position. His campaign managers, though, insist the current fracas is simply a result of Dean's extemporaneous remarks being misunderstood and blown out of proportion. Either way, Dean is seen as having deviated from the narrow parameters in which Israel can be discussed in American politics. That threatens to slow his momentum, dampen his fundraising and tarnish his political reputation.

Dean's Israel troubles began at a Sept. 3 campaign event in Santa Fe, N.M. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that day, "It's not our place to take sides." Then, on Sept. 9, he told the Washington Post that America should be "evenhanded" in its approach to the region.

The media and the Democratic establishment reacted as if Dean had called Yasser Arafat a man of peace. On Sept. 10, 34 Democratic members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, wrote Dean an open letter. "American foreign policy has been -- and must continue to be -- based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror ..." they wrote. "It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be 'evenhanded' on these fundamental issues ... This is not a time to be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Dean had badly damaged his own campaign. "Sources in the Jewish community say that Dean has wrecked his chances of getting significant contributions from Jews ..." the paper wrote. "Many believe Dean's statement will drive more Jews toward Lieberman and Kerry, enabling Kerry to take the lead again."

According to the Dean campaign, the uproar involved semantics, not substance. "Here's what I think happened," says Grossman, Dean's campaign co-chair. "Howard made some comments in someone's backyard in New Mexico that were shorthand, if you will, for some of his Middle East views. In the course of those remarks and some others in the subsequent days, he used some language that gave people consternation, and it was immediately jumped on by Joe Lieberman and John Kerry that somehow Howard Dean was breaking faith with this 55-year tradition of the United States' special relationship with Israel, which is patently absurd."

Cole, though, sees more than simple misstatement in Dean's comments; he interprets Dean's rhetoric as signaling a subtle ideological shift. Last November, Dean told the Jewish newspaper the Forward that his views on Israel mirrored AIPAC's, not the more liberal group Americans for Peace Now, which favors a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians and the dismantling of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Now, says Cole, "I think that he may have been signaling that he's moving closer to the Americans for Peace Now position, and that is a genuine shift." It's a shift that aligns Dean with the mainstream of American Jewry. As Cole notes, recent polls show that more than 50 percent of American Jews share Americans for Peace Now's views, compared with around a third who share AIPAC's unequivocal support for the Israeli government.

Yet if Dean was moving even slightly to the left on Israel, he quickly backtracked, distancing himself from any damaging suggestion of evenhandedness. The same day the Democrats reprimanded him, Dean appeared on CNN and defended Israel's extrajudicial assassinations of Palestinian militants. "There is a war going on in the Middle East," he said, "and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."

To a casual listener, this might have sounded like an affirmation of support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's security policies. After all, Israel's targeted killings are widely denounced as violations of the 1949 Geneva conventions, and even the Bush administration has occasionally criticized them.

Yet Dean's opponents quickly seized on his comments as further evidence that he is somehow anti-Israel, professing shock and outrage that Dean had dignified members of Hamas with the word "soldier," instead of calling them terrorists.

On Sept. 12, Kerry issued an indignant press release: "In the wake of Howard Dean's statements last week on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many Democrats wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and dismissed his comments as the flippant remarks of an inexperienced politician. But in going out of his way to term members of Hamas as 'soldiers,' Governor Dean insults the memory of every innocent man, woman, and child killed by these suicidal murderers."

Grossman dismisses Kerry's comments as political opportunism. "Howard basically said these are combatants, they are fighting a war of terrorism, and they should be hunted down and given no quarter," he said. Hardly the position of a stooge for the PLO.

Whatever Dean meant, though, some observers say he hurt himself. Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic political consultant who worked on the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, says Kerry's attack was justified and that Dean's comments created an "an extraordinary imbroglio."

Last November, Sheinkopf was quoted in an article in the Forward applauding Dean for naming Grossman to run his campaign. In that article, Dean disavowed Americans for Peace Now, saying, "At one time the Peace Now view was important but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations."

According to Sheinkopf, Dean's recent comments represent an abandonment of that line. "He keeps changing his position," Sheinkopf says. "Now he's calling Hamas soldiers. Either they're terrorists or soldiers. The nomenclature is clear. His language legitimizes terrorists and puts him far out on the left."

If Dean's Israel position really puts him far out on the left, it proves that not showing unequivocal support for the Jewish state remains a political poison pill -- for members of either political party.

Last year, former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., learned that supporting the Palestinians can be a career-killer when pro-Israel donors poured more than $1 million into the coffers of Denise Majette, who successfully challenged the five-term incumbent in the Democratic primary.

Dean, though, is no McKinney. After all, according to Grossman, the candidate remains in sync with the goals of Bush's Israel policy. Dean's only real criticism of the president is that he hasn't given the region enough sustained attention. "Bush made a huge mistake early on by absenting himself from [the region] for 18 months," Grossman says. "He walked away from the Middle East and acted like the Middle East didn't exist, while the Middle East was exploding in a cauldron of violence. Why? Because Bill Clinton had spent so much time there, and Bush was going to avoid doing anything Bill Clinton had done. Frankly, it was an immature decision. Howard, in contrast, has said, 'I will be involved in this issue from day one because it is critical to the American national interest.'"

In fact, Dean is selling his Israel policy as a continuation of Clinton's, and has called on Bush to send Clinton as an envoy to Israel. In a Sept. 12 letter to the Anti-Defamation League's Foxman, he wrote: "I will follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton from day one of a Dean Administration and make every effort to bring peace to this troubled region."

That letter, written in response to Foxman's earlier message of concern about Dean's Zionist bona fides, said that, while the United States should play the "honest broker" in Israel's dispute with the Palestinians, it wouldn't try to extract concessions from Israel.

"There is no difference between our positions when it comes to my unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror," he assured Foxman. "As I have said before, the United States must remain committed to the special, long-standing relationship we have with Israel, including providing the resources necessary to guarantee Israel's long-term defense and security ... I believe, however, that the United States has another important role to play in the region -- that of an honest broker at the negotiating table -- with the trust of both sides and able to facilitate direct talks between the parties ... We are also in agreement that only the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves can make and keep the peace and work out the specifics of a lasting agreement. Peace cannot be imposed by outside parties. On the issue of settlements, both parties have acknowledged that Israel will have to remove a number of settlements. How many and which those are will have to be determined as part of a final agreement negotiated by the parties."

One of Dean's only statements in favor of putting pressure on Israel was issued in support of a Bush administration policy. Last week, the White House announced it was deducting money that Israel spends building West Bank settlements from American loan guarantees -- essentially saying that America won't fund illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Lieberman and Rep. Dick Gephardt opposed the move, placing themselves to Bush's right, while Kerry and Dean supported it. "Without having read the specific language of the Bush administration's decision, it seems in keeping with my view on conditioning the amount of our loan guarantees," Dean e-mailed the Forward.

No serious candidate took a position to the left of Bush. Indeed, it's precisely because there's no real leftist alternative that Dean's been cast in that role. After all, it's unlikely that Dean's critics ever really thought that he meant to honor members of Hamas when he called them "soldiers," or that, if elected, he'd jettison America's alliance with Israel. But a campaign is always more about images and impressions than carefully formulated positions, and that's where Dean has blundered.

As Sheinkopf says, most voters don't know or care who former AIPAC president Grossman is, or, for that matter, that Dean's wife, Dr. Judy Steinberg Dean, and children are Jewish. "They do know that there are troops in Iraq," he says. "They know Americans have been attacked by terrorists on their own soil and they know that Howard Dean calls terrorists 'soldiers.' It's arrogant to believe people are following every word. What they're following is the nightly news cycle saying Howard Dean is soft on terror."

Yet that nightly news cycle, and the way real issues evanesce in it, might also work in Dean's favor, making potential backers forget all about this interlude. Sheinkopf, for all his criticism of Dean, doesn't think his comments on Israel will affect his fundraising among Jews. "If he appears to be ahead, the money's going to keep coming in from Jews and others. Funders tend to fund winners, not losers." No matter how many gaffes he makes, then, no one can say Dean's imploding till the money dries up.