There are some factors with which I cannot to agree.
- By: PsyFactor on January 29, 2004

I'm with you, Editor. Firstly, Dean is a rural-state, non-anti-gun, conservative Democrat, which means he should not have nearly as much trouble in the South as Kerry or Edwards. Edwards? Yes. Edwards is the most liberal, anti-Bush voting candidate running for President, a southern Progressive, not a southern Conservative like Carter or Clinton. (by the way, Iowa Democrats are far more liberal than Democrats nationwide). Bush calls Iran evil. Bush's friends, the dictators of the Coalition of the Willing, Eritrea (this member of the Coalition of the Willing is now on the the State Dept. shit list, that didn't take long), F.Y.R.O.Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan are often equally as bad, or worse. They just play ball with the 20 thousand megaton gorilla, America. Bush's other friends, oil dictators like Bongo of Gabon, or any of the other West Africa oil despots, never even bother to hold multi-candidate elections, not to mention allow opposition candidates to take their seats. The President sends Colin Powell to kiss these men's asses, or at least play patty-cake. No matter who you vote for, don't for a fucking second think that voting for Bush gives America the right to bomb Iran until we accept their form of government.
- By: Joshua Narins on January 26, 2004

You've recently arrived in Canada and are already a paid-up member of the international Left, Democrats, and self-righteous liberal junta, who seem to take a more benign view of the Iranian regime. Very recent history has shown that it is Bush, yes that awful man Bush, with his friends Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz, who have done something, however imperfect, to protect and spread democracy, not your Democrat friends, the U.N. or the Europea Union, who want to talk and talk until our lives finished five times over. Why don't you simply pack your bags and go back to Tehran if you think things are not so bad? You suggest on your Iranian site that it would not make sense to boycott the Iranian elections as we ignore the results. The boycott has nothing to do with the results, which are all the same to Iranians there. People simply do not want feel they are represented by any of the candidates. They want democracy: is that so hard to understand, or are you so intellectual you don't live on Planet Earth anymore?
- By: A on January 25, 2004

Hoder, I am an Actual Iranian-American who can vote in the next election. Up to now I have either voted Democratic (if for no other reason than to spite my dad,) or Green. In the upcoming election however, I will do all I can to muster support for Bush. You people whether you are up ridding the hip and happening anti-American wave up in Canada, are part of the reformist mullah camp in Iran, or are left-over international-third-worldist have to eventually realize that just because Iranians who have completely rejected the mullah-regime from day one have been completely suppressed by the conservatives as well as the "reformist" elements within the regime, it does not mean that they don't exist, and unfortunately, the Democrats have never shown that they are willing to do anything but prolong this regime. If I saw a sign that they would be willing to move towards supporting Iranians who call for a referendum on the totality of this regime in anyway, I would, as a social liberal and a traditional Democrat, just love to vote for a Democratic candidate. But that is just not the case. And after you have lived in exile for a number of years, you also, will eventually would want some sort of closure on this regime that has been dangling there supported by Europe an reformists... Apart from that, I experienced 9/11 first hand in New York, where I didn't have the luxury of talking smack about American Imperialism and the stupidity of Bush all I want. You will also get there eventually sometime. All the best,
- By: Amir on January 9, 2004

If you like the way the Iranian regime is currently supported by the European governments, then by all means, support and vote for Dean.
- By: Kevin in texas on January 8, 2004

I would say most people that don't vote in the US do so either because they don't care (they've determined that either candidate will be equally good/bad) or are too lazy to bother voting. People have grown so comfortable with democracy here in the US that they generally don't give a thought to what maintenance is needed to keep it going strong. Civic participation is nothing like it was decades ago and people are loosing touch with their representatives and policies being passed, becoming even more nonchalant with the government (such as seeming to be oblivious to the implications of the Patriot Act, or how Bush "unsigned" a treaty--the Kyoto Protocal). Personally, I could never vote for Bush because of the precidents he is setting and continues to set (such as overwhelming budget deficits, almost unheard of secrecy, etc.).
- By: Shaun on January 6, 2004

Hoder, Of the 14 Iraqi bloggers, 11 support Bush. (Go to HealingIraq.blogspot.com for links to all). You seem to be saying most of the Iranian bloggers support Dean. What do you think accounts for the difference in opinion between bloggers from your two countries?
- By: Ishtar in West Virginia on December 31, 2003

Hoder, Of the 14 Iraqi bloggers, 11 support Bush. (Go to HealingIraq.blogspot.com for links to all). You seem to be saying most of the Iranian bloggers support Dean. What do you think accounts for the difference in opinion between bloggers from your two countries?
- By: Ishtar in West Virginia on December 31, 2003

Hoder, Of the 14 Iraqi bloggers, 11 support Bush. (Go to HealingIraq.blogspot.com for links to all). You seem to be saying most of the Iranian bloggers support Dean. What do you think accounts for the difference in opinion between bloggers from your two countries?
- By: Ishtar in West Virginia on December 31, 2003

What has the U.N., or the old Europe done for Iran.They have sold you out to the highest bidder. Howard Dean would stand side by side with these cronys of appeasement and apathy. On more than one occasion George Bush has spoken out in very strong terms against the facist Mullahs that suppress the Iranian people. you would do well to rethink your position on this matter. Your leaders are spending your childrens future away on WMDs and other self-serving agendas. If they continue down this road of personal ambition and Islamic Radicalism that supports terrorism, I am afraid it will have the most devistating consequences. The great Persian people deserve to join the ranks of other free and prosperous people. Now is not the time to think that the Doc Deans of the world have a clue as to what ails the world. He is a snake-oil salesman, buyer beware!
- By: VLeta on December 30, 2003

Even without considering Dean's unique weaknesses (his extreme lack of appeal in the South, for instance), Bush is heading into '04 with the incumbent advantage, the united party advantage, the recovering economy advantage, the in-party during wartime advantage, and the traditional Republican financial advantage. In short, Dean is an extreme longshot. His getting elected would require a number of very unlikely things all to occur one after another. Indeed, there's a much better chance that he would be creamed than that he would win - and that's already assuming he's nominated. There's a much better chance that some other Democrat will end up with the nomination than that Dean, if nominated, would beat Bush. And, finally, even if Dean somehow - through some heavenly or hellish act or acts - did end up as president, there are very low odds that his policies would benefit the people of Iran. It's my personal opinion that you could find more interesting ways to waste your time than by rallying Iranians to support Dean.
- By: Colin MacLeod on December 30, 2003

Gotta ggree with what appears to be the majority here: Dean is not the choice to better the situation in the Middle East/Central Asia. If only Lieberman were more dynamic and charismatic. He is a SOLID person with unwavering centrist positions and the only Democrat to openly support the thrashing of the Iraqi dictator. He'd get my vote, were I to actually have a choice.
- By: Scott Partee (halfass.com) on December 30, 2003

Remarkable. Howard Dean, the lineal descendant (politically) of the guy who gave you the Mad Mullahs in the first place. Howard Dean, the guy who insists that we should join the Europeans in endorsing Islamofascist dictators -- no, that's not what he says, but it's what will result from the policies he's promoting this week (of course, next week may be different). Howard Dean, the man whose proposed policies amount to "let the wogs kill one another, so long as they make obeisance to the UNSC from time to time." If Howard Dean were president today, you, personally, would be in as much danger as Rushdie is. More, because the Canadian authorities wouldn't have any motive whatever for keeping out the guys who took over from SAVAK and recast it as Defenders of Morals, where the Brits still do. And you're promoting the guy?
- By: Ric Locke on December 29, 2003

I agree with Patrick: Howard Dean doesn't care about Iran. He would do Iranians no favours. Luckily, he won't get near the White House.
- By: Jackie D on December 29, 2003

Hopefully, this year will be better after November's elections and the people of the Middle East who are suffering so much will be able to breath in peace. I agree with Patrick in Texas and Shahriar, and I totally disagree with Sean. It is not the right of anyone to murder people, if you think that there is enough reason to sacrifice others' lives over a(some) criminal(s) to make you feel holly/heroe, then become a martyr yourself and by yourself. The US did not comply to the rules of international law, the UN did not complete their job accordingly due to the Congress' permit to war and because of it, thousands died and are still dyeing. That the people of Iraq is doing better? It's always the same ones that get better, I don't see the media run over by people telling their disagreements, they'd get killed! Is this freedom of what? and of course! the US has to pay for it, we destroyed the country! but the oil was there, so there was an incentive and backup and lots of American business corporations will be there soon to get their pockets better, if not yet; meanwhile, there are no jobs in America! The Bush administration is so rightist in their policies that any conservative a bit further from them looks like a liberal, that is the case of candidate Howard Dean, who now has the support of big corporations and professionals in America, including the mainstream media and the Clinton administration. The media in America does not acknowledge that there are nine democratic candidates, they want Dean for President, and he does not do anything to encourage the inclusion of all the candidates in all media, and since these candidates do not posses the monetary means to let the American public know of their plaforms, the expectations of both, the media, the democratic caucus, and the current administration, is that these candidates will disappear without anyone knowing they were there. Most of these candidates are moderate democrats, some voted for the war in Congress, except Congressman Dennis Kucinich who is definitely not moderate. Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio is gaining grassroots' attention without the support of the big shots but anti-war activists who desire peace and social justice in the world, he wants less money in militarism and more in peace and social programs, including free health care and free education from pre-kindergarden to college. http://www.kucinich.us . The other two candidates whom the media and the party do not promote are Rev. Sharpton and Ambassador Mosley-Braun.
- By: Lydia on December 26, 2003

I don't want to argue about this really. I don't think thats the purpose of the comment section. I don't buy any of the arguments for the war. Obviously Hussein was a terrible man, but I think you're missing the mark if you think Bush went into this war with altruistic intentions.
- By: Phil on December 26, 2003

And, Phil, over 100,000 people, perhaps as high as a million people, died under Saddam Hussein regime. I'd call that a lot more scary. There are some gruesome pictures at http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/. Plus, go over to http://hammorabi.blogspot.com and read the lists of the torture methods employed, and there's another link to documentation of yet more gruesome pictures of these torture, so gruesome you may not want to view these after having lunch.
- By: Lola on December 26, 2003

Don't bet on Dean. The more I read and hear about him, the more it makes me think that he is not going to make a good president. I mean, what can you say about someone who changed his religion because of a bike path?
- By: Lola on December 26, 2003

I agree with you Hoder, it is very encouraging to see Dean gaining steam. However, it is also extremely difficult to predict an election this far out. Many things can change, hopefully to the benefit of Dean or whoever opposes Bush. It will be nice to see Bush have to answer some real questions about his policy decisions, both domestic and abroad. It seems there is far too much insulation from criticism in this administration with reporteres and questions being preselected, Bush has presided over one of the most closed administrations in history. Also, it disturbs me to think of how four more years of Bush will impact the world. If his policy of pre-emptive war is to be carried out fully, it is frightening to think of the death toll. As American citizens we are very sheltered from the reality of the military actions in Iraq, and this done intentionally. How many civilians have died in Iraq? I've seen estimates between 8,000-10,000...however this is never reported in the US media. I think if people looked past Bush's promises of a middle class tax cut (which was a total sham) and looked at the real issues and policies which he is attempting to shove off on America they'd realize how dangerous he is.
- By: Phil on December 25, 2003

Sorry but George Bush is looking stonger. The economy is getting better and people like someone with moral clarity. I realize people around the world hate the guy but 50 million people in Iraq and Afganistan can now speak freely without having their tounges ripped out. I always thought it is morally unconcievable not to support the war against a tyrant like Saddam Hussian. It is really a shame that the rest of world did nothing. Go read the web bloggers from Iraq. The Middle East is a mess. Autocratic governments, exploding population, low economic growth, islamic fundamentalist, access to money through oil. Can you imagine this region if the status quo is allowed to continue for the next twenty year. Bush has created a fundmental shift in foreign policy. He is attempting to merge American power with American ideals which is very hard in this cynical world. Some one with strong convictions who has faith in people to choose a path toward political moderation and democracy is good for America and good for the world. Bush is a very descent man who history will judge very favorably. I hope he is re-elected
- By: Sean on December 24, 2003

Howard Dean will do nothing to end the tyranny in Iran or anywhere else. In fact, the policies he supports are quite encouraging to the murderous dictators of the world--they certainly join you in your support of Dean. If you love freedom, you'll reconsider your choice.
- By: Patrick in Texas on December 23, 2003

i'm curious. the reason most dont want to vote in the next iranian election, is to protest and show our disenchantment and lack of faith in the candidates and the system. Now is the situation not the same with the american candidates? why would you condone voting for any of the american candidates? just curious
- By: shahriar on December 22, 2003