If I  were a democrat (lol) I would not be so concerned about the past i.e. how we got to where we are today, I would be more concerned about where we're heading. BTW, Aren't the dem's supposed to be known for their "progressive" thinking?

Well...if I were a Democrat, I'd be at least aware enough of the past to realize when a so-called leading light is trying to drag the party back down a path that has already proven disastrous. And what's so "progressive" about aping the boys on the other side of the aisle?

Being a rabid contrarian does not a platform make. Dean has too many "lines" in the sand and they're constantly changing to suit his contrarianism. (Is that a word?)

IF Dean gets the democratic nod, he stands no chance against Bush. Mark.....my.....words.

Come on, Dale. Most of these "changes" boil down to semantics, and you know it. Even the folks at http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com can't make it seem any less so. On top of that, I defy you to find me a politician who isn't guilty of changing his mind to suit the times, the polls, the pundits, whatever. Trying to boil Dean's platform down to simple contrarianism makes you look foolish.

Any Democrat who runs against Bush stands little chance of winning, so your prediction rings hollow. He has surrounded himself with some brilliant tacticians, and that--coupled with a seeming general inability to see beyond sound bites by the American public--means more than anything an opposing candidate will be able to do or say.

Besides, God told Pat Robertson it'll be Bush in a landslide. Now that he's got that electoral vote, why even bother holding the election? Let's just phone up the Supreme Court...