<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com
href="mailto:andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com">andie nachgeborenen</A> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Dean is working on collecting antiwar votes but I'm curious if
antiwar<BR>>activists will put real energy into his campaign. It doesn't
involve all<BR>>the fun and funky rallies but boring door knocking and
such</DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>
<DIV><BR>-Getting snide, aren't we. I thought you were the guy who thought the
real actrion was </DIV>
<DIV>-not in 3d parties but in mass movements. </DIV>
<DIV>-Anyway, you know Dean's not gonna win the nomination, and if he does,
</DIV>
<DIV>-he'll get creamed in the general election -- he'd be another McGovern.
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've had the criticism of too much focus on rallies
for a long time outside the electoral context as well. And you're right
that I think grassroots mass movements and building general organizing strengthn
is more important than direct electoral politics, since electoral strength
builds on solid organization at the base that can be turned out for elections as
needed. But I think those spending their time on third party organizing
are not only wasting time but doing active harm the way they've approached the
issue (running against folks like Wellstone for example), my attitude is that
they should redirect the time if they are infatuated with electoral political
work.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As for Dean, if the war goes really badly, I think
he has a fair chance of getting the nomination-- the buzz he's getting and the
national organization he's building is on a scale no "fringe" candidate has had
since Jackson in 1988 and the wide open field in 1976. And his pro-gun
stance could get him some odd cultural conservative support that will broaden
his base in some midwest and southern states. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And I still have a hard cold prediction that Bush
will lose next year, almost regardless of who the Democrats nominate (okay, I
think he might be able to beat Sharpton, but that's about it).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My bet is that John Kerry will get the nomination
in the end, since his strategic waffle on Iraq and war hero and anti-war hero
history means he is in the best position to pull together folks from both the
hawk and dove wings of the party. At this point, Lieberman and Edwards are
dead because of their strident pro-war positions, so in my mind that leaves only
Dean and Kerry as likely nominees, with Gephardt a possibility if he can pull
the AFL-CIO endorsement out of the hat. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'd actually take an even money bet that the
nomination goes to a Kerry-Graham ticket, which would romp to victory in the
electoral college.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>