Comments on: Howard Dean: Fool or genius?

By: Julie A

Julie A — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:20:56 +0000

Carville needs to shut the f*ck up AND get his head checked. Perhaps divorce his soon-to-be RNC Chair wife? Dean did what he promised to do - he gave up the inside-the-beltway big donors for the small donations from the PEOPLE. Dean RULES.

By: Alan Stewart Carl

Alan Stewart Carl — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:54:56 +0000

I’m no fan of Dean’s but I don’t see how you get rid of a chairman who delivered such a large victory. You don’t bench the QB after he throws for 350 and 4 TDs. I’m sure they can find something else for Harold Ford, Jr. to do.

By: bilchuk

bilchuk — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:48:26 +0000

My letter to Carville:
Dear Mr. Carville,
As an aggressive Democratic contributor and volunteer, I disagree with your appraisal of Howard Dean’s effect on the recent mid-term election. I support his effort to take the long view and re-establish the vitality of Dem organizations in the various states. I think this election was further evidence of the validity of that strategy, even if we may have lost a few close seats because slightly less money was available to throw at them in the closing days. I think Dr. Dean’s leadership will continue to strengthen the Party at the grass-roots level, which will have a bottom-up effect of re-invigorating the state parties (as I have already seen some evidence of here in Indiana) down the line. I appreciate your passionate effort for the party over these past years and continue to support your political brainstorming, but on this one I respectfully think you are wrong.
Best regards,
Bill Westerman
Brookville, Indiana

By: ceci

ceci — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:15:25 +0000

That this question is even asked makes me want to scream. Howard Dean is the undisputed architect of the Democratic victory in the mid-term elections with his 50 state grass roots strategy. He is brilliant and as usual under appreciated here. How ironic, the British Labour Party has enlisted his services as a consultant - and so have the Canadians…
And yes, he did raise more cash than his predecessor…so that is all a heap of b.s. served by his detractors of which there are many, both among his so called colleagues and the media.

By: Deborah Dell'Amico

Deborah Dell'Amico — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:33:48 +0000

Genius! Finally the Dems have somebody SMART at the helm.

By: Maximus

Maximus — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:55:34 +0000

The lackadaisical fundraising is a legitimate gripe.

No it’s not. This is a complete and total fabrication, and the people who originated this myth KNOW it’s a lie.

Dean raised more money for this election than his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, raised for the previous midterm election.

Critics never mention that fact. Instead they note that the RNC raised a lot more than the DNC during Dean’s tenure.

Guess what? The Repubs ALWAYS outraise the Dems. But when you looks at the DNC/RNC fundraising ratios, Dean AGAIN outperformed McAuliffe.

In short, Dean raised more cash, AND did proportionally better against the Republicans, than his predecessor. His supposed inability to raise money is a malicious fraud, propagated by people who have been trying to undermine him and ultimately kick him out of their cozy D.C. insiders’ club since the moment he arrived in town.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:16:50 +0000

The lackadaisical fundraising is a legitimate gripe.

No it’s not, carvill’s stats are sus. Dean raised/spent much more than average for a midterm election (three times 2002 or something?). Carville tends to compare dean’s fundraising to periods which include a presidential election.