A Challenge to GD-DUers

[salin]

Eventually, as the primaries are mostly through, we will need to unite. Understanding each other - and the multiple reasons people might support x or y candidate - and the value that the candidate brought to the race - will help us (and the campaigns) pull together with the strength needed to launch a campaign the likes that have never been seen before (both media reliance AND grassroots reliance) - this is the only chance we have to beat the HUGE dollar advantage of the boughtadministration.

So - a little exercise. I believe that each candidate currently in the race brings unique strengths, issues, or qualities to the overall democratic cause - and to the primary race in particular.

I challenge you to chose a candidate that is not your first choice - and if you have a first choice for bashing, I further challenge you to choose THAT candidate - Then describe a positive attribute of the candidate or of his/her campaign, that is an asset to the bigger cause (the bigger cause is capturing the White House AND at least one house of Congress).

Salin's effort:

I haven't selected a candidate to support.

But one that I do not believe will last long, but for whom I have the greatest respect is Senator Bob Graham. I think the policy mind he brings, which views issues both from a national legislative/oversight view, and from a administrative managerial view reflect his experiences as Governor and Senator. I think his policies are very complex, and well thought through.

Take his opposition to the war. It was not about the nature of the Iraq conflict. It was that to do so had SERIOUS unintended consequences towards what appears to be the REAL threat to national security (besides John Ashcroft) - in terms of Al Queada. HIs objections ranged from taking manpowr and resources away from the efforts in Afghanistan (and changing them into a small scale effort, instead of the rebuilding and stabilization); and in terms of destabilizing the international relationships that allowed for successful intelligene gathering and execution of legal maneuvering aimed at capturing international terrorists.

His more complex views add to the debate, making the debates less soundbitish by encouraging others to respond inkind. I wish him the best.

[gully]

1. Good idea..

I'm ABB which says it all I think.

But, I'll choose to defend Joe Lieberman because he is the least palatable as far as I'm concerned.

In Joe I see a man with passion, who's not afraid to go against the grain. He has a solid voting record supporting liberal causes. He would be less threatening to the right wing, and may have more of an ability to communicate effectively with the opposition.

*feeling a bit nauseous, but there ya go!* ;)

[madfloridian]

2. Graham is a fount of wisdom, IMHO, and I respect him greatly.

He is not flashy, but he is one of the truly good guys. I still get his mailings, and I still hope for him. He will go down in history as one of our finest, whether he be in the WH or the senate or retires.

[Fridays Child]

3. Gephardt

Very strong on affordable healthcare

edit: I've engaged in zero candidate bashing but I think this is a great idea, salin.

[HereSince1628]

4. Unity will come...right now the issue is selecting a nominee

Why would you expect unity in the party when 10 candidates have entered the game? They aren't united themselves.

For example, Clearly Clark thought he was a better candidate than the other 9. He wouldn't have entered if he thought otherwise. And Edward's certainly feels he's a better candidate than the others, etc. etc.

I am not in favor of a hate fest on DU's GD, but at the same time, I recognize that sorting out this mess is going to have some people supporting each of the 10. Can we be civil? I hope so. Do we need to be united...well, frankly, No. Let each of the campaigns roll out their best attempts and let's let the game continue.

[salin]

6. but the challenge

is that can we - amidst the fighting - see the various positive qualities in these candidates? Its like a form of empathy - can I empathetically understand why you might support candidate z? Give it a shot... It might just open our eyes up a little bit at a point in time when they appear to be closing.

[HereSince1628]

8. Actually, I am trying to be fair with all the candidates...

Beyond my personal beliefs, I have volunteered for Dean AND Kerry, and among my contacts I have been taling up the values of Kucinich.

So, don't be so GD quick to judge GD'ers!

[salin]

9. Then I would guess that you aren't doing the bashing?

There are more DUers than I can count who engage in regular bashing of x, y, or z candidate. It would probably be healthy for those folks to try this exercise. Might give them the ability to find some common ground with supporters of those candidates - because sooner or later that common ground needs to be found.

[HereSince1628]

10. If I bash an idea or challenge a personality trait

it will inevitably lead to an exchange about "bashing."

You just can't expect it all to be "happy, happy, joy, joy."

I know this is the story of the party during the general election, but here and know it is a not so pretty picture. It could have all been avoided if all but one of the candidates had decided not to run.
BUT that would have guaranteed that some egotistical *** would be the candidate while the humble ones who deserve consideration would have opted out.

I like this process better, as noisy, as unskilled, as sometimes hurtful, as it is, I LOVE having supporters of 10 candidates advocating their candidates.

[salin]

11. advocation

as compared to snide nasty vicious blindsiding - are two different things. Critiquing policy or campaign efforts - are different than near slanderous smears.

What is wrong in trying to have one single positive thread in a sea of dissension? Geez. Lighten up.

[HereSince1628]

14. No lightening up...black deserves consideration and in the mix

it gives us a helpful shade of gray (or grey).

Politics is replete with people who are less than perfect and in it for less than honorable reasons. Having a candidate's image kicked around is simply a characteristic of running for office in the digital age.

Roughly 12 months from now the survivor will emerge, nominated, and I suspect will have the support of the party.

[salin]

15. okay

thanks for demonstrating the problem. The total inability to attempt to hear what someone else is saying, and for even one half of a second trying to be respectful of that perspective.

Had I been advocating : NEVER BASH. I would get your obnoxious attempt to correct my sentiment. But I am asking folks for one moment to try to be able to see one good quality in a candidate they do not support. So sue me.

Go hijack someone else's thread.

[salin]

16. Not that you need to

seems that a profound lack of interest will force a quick death of the attempted experiment anyhow.

[HereSince1628]

17. Attempts to direct behavior of posters on GD will not meet with much

success. Freedom to publically say things, even not so well though through things is the nature of the forum.

Hurrah for FREE SPEECH! Even the freedom to embarrass yourself!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. as you did!

let's give you a medal :eyes:

[salin]

20. and down with attempts

to express civil thoughts! That shouldn't be free speech :eyes:

[dsc]

5. I am unsure of who to choose here

Frankly I think all of our candidates are good. I guess, I will choose Sharpton. He has been a pleasent surprise so far. He honestly seems to have put time and effort into figuring out his positions on national issues. I hadn't expected him to do that given that his canidacy was such a long shot. He seems to have made a great effort to think outside his usual set of issues and I have been impressed by that.

[wryter2000]

7. Okay

There's only one candidate I have severe reservations about -- Lieberman. But I understand he has a very good record on civil rights issues -- including for gays and lesbians. That's an extremely important stance and one that doesn't win a lot of points with the general public.

Somewhere else today, I mentioned that Dean and Kucinich were the first to make noises about the depth of fundamental change that needed to be made within OUR campaign. I forgot Al Sharpton's clever assessment that the donkey needed to be slapped.

[Catch22Dem]

12. Ok, I'll try

Kucinich is not my first choice, but he has many great ideas and I'm glad he's on the campaign trail getting these ideas out.

[salin]

13. cool how he took on the energy industry

and fought the tide of privatization. The california energy debacle shows the man has some good instincts in terms of picking his battles (as in selecting the possible career threatening battle - as one that has great importance).

[Cheswick2.0]

18. I appreciate Clarks sense of duty to country

I may not know enough about him now to support him yet, however his sense of duty is one of the things I love about Al Gore, so how can I ignore it in Clark?

[LWolf]

21. I'll try.

I'm also tired of the flaming and bashing. Not the disagreement or debate; the flaming and bashing of candidates and of people who support a candidate the flamer doesn't like. At this point, when I see someone engaged in pointless flaming instead of respectfully addressing the issue/s at hand, I'm "ignoring." It makes the threads look interesting, any way.

I don't have a first choice for bashing, I don't want or need to bash any of them. But, I do have 2 that I don't care for much; last on my list of choices. So I'll pick them.

Lieberman: He and Al won last time around, and were cheated out of their victory. Backlash from disgruntled dems could help his cause. He is so moderate that he shouldn't have any trouble picking up swing votes.

Clark: It seems a large number of Americans trust military experience. Apparently, it makes them feel safer in the wake of 9/11. That and the obvious * incompetence in Iraq make Clark a strong candidate for the hawks.

[Padraig18]

22. Sen. Graham

The depths of his legislative and executive expertise, combined with his well-reasoned policy positions on issues foreign and domestic, make him my alternate choice. I will never forget his far-seeing opposition to the war, and his vote against the Congressional resolution.

This nation would be in capable, competent hands with Bob Graham in the White House. :)

[Terwilliger]

23. a kick...

with no strings attached :grr:

[Booberdawg]

24. kick

:kick:

[gottaB]

25. I'm skeptical of Howard Dean

But one thing that I like about him is his commitment to bike paths. Which in itself is a good thing. But when I heard Dean say on This Week (last week) that he left his church because of its opposition to some proposed bike paths, that really impressed me. Because anybody can say, "Oh yeah, I support bike paths blah blah blah." Here was a guy who actually had made some personal sacrifice to back up his policy agenda.

Actually I could come up with a few more items but the bike paths story is exemplary.

[salin]

26. Lieberman - took the Whitehouse on

by serving subpeona's to get documents relating to WH contacts with ENRON. The story was flagging, the media had started looking away, and Lieberman revived efforts to get information.

He has often been a vocal critic of Bushco policies, but those criticisms get drowned out on the left due to his percieved acquiesence on other issues. But his criticisms are important - and they are heard by business moderates who have NOT been reading these criticisms in their newsources (NYT and WSJ); when Sen. Lieberman does go on the attack - it forces news coverage that reaches readers who NEED to hear the criticisms. In short, he has helped bare some of the cracks and fissures in the support for bush among mainstream business folks. These folks help shape elections on local/state levels through endorsements, and money. And their lack of enthusiasm for Bush (were that to happen) would set a tone that is more receptive to any democratic candidate.

(Okay its hard to do this - but it does force one to try to see the candidate with a little more objectivity).

[dmr]

27. Kick

:kick:

[gottaB]

28. kick

:kick: