Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

1. Er...yes

winning is ALL it's about.

What did you think it was about?

[chimpymustgo]

2. I HOPE that's what it's all about. But I'm not sure it is for everyone.

nt

[maddezmom]

4. agree

with a quality candidate...and at this point I'd take them all over the twig.

[E_Zapata]

3. I'm not........

I am going for the candidate that I think will do the very best job as president. I believe that person can beat bush. No matter who it is.

I wouldn't subvert my principles based on fear of an abject moran!

If I can't vote my principles (with *some* election/political strategy, of course) then what's the point? In that event, we may as well turn the country over to Satan for good.....and be at peace with it.

[Maple]

5. In ordinary times

you can debate and be picky to your heart's content.

In THIS time...the name of the game is defeating Bush.

[BevHarris]

6. yes.

.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. I liken it to this...As a mother I want to run after whatever bully it

is that has made my daughter cry. A lot of people have a lot of zeal for their candidate of choice, like that mother, they will come out swinging against those who would portray that candidate in a bad light. It's all going to even out when there is just one man/woman up there. Just cruise through the threads that bring out the mother in you. ;)

[billbuckhead]

12. That's not exactly true. There are lot of of other agendas

Corporations, Kulturwar, regional struggles, how to control the military industrial complex, the real fight against terrorism vs phony war on terrorism, ecology-global warming-fair distribution of resources as world runs out of oil, religion's place in our government and now thanx to Howard Dean, the ConFlag.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. I still stand by my original post. One can paint it however they

wish, but the anger on this board IMO comes strictly from others not liking one's candidate. :)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

19. I don't really see where people actually "dislike" another candidate

too often. I differentiate between "personal" attacks which is usually done by people who dislike a candidate - and different sorts of criticisms. I only see a few "Clark is a War Monger" or "I can't stand Calrk because he's military" or "Dean is a racist" or "Dean is stupid" "Kerry is a Skull and Bones" member - those are the ones where people are saying more "personal" things or things that are not necessarily true.

The comments about both of them being short can't be looked upon as bashing because it has been proven that this is a vulnerability in a candidate. It's something we do need to be aware of. Someone's looks are also a factor.

There's a difference between "personal attacks" and things such as "This candidate can better beat Bush" or pointing out that someone "flip-flopped" (usually said about either Dean or Clark). Much as I don't like it when someone says it about either guy (they're my #1 and #2) they happen to be true at times. I don't think of it as "bashing."

Also, if someone points out that someone did or said a particular thing AND it's true - how can you say it's disliking a candidate? The Clark flag burning issue - he deserves to be criticized for it and same with Dean's Confederate flag thing. Both stupid moves - IMO. I can't call someone a "basher" for pointing it out. Yes - it's aggravating and yes I "wince" when I see it - but it's "fair game."

I do notice that at times people will be overly sensitive and accuse others of bashing their candidate when others are stating facts or pointing something out that the candidate said or did in the past - it gets a little silly. People here - in most cases do NOT know these people - so why would they dislike them?

[Kanary]

8. Issues are my priority

~~

[aldian159]

9. That's a big reason why I chose Kerry

But the issues matter also.

[Maple]

10. There is only one

issue.

[aldian159]

21. As bad as the IWR was

I will not overlook the nigh-20 years of good, liberal work Kerry has done in the senate because he voted yea on the war.

[JohnKleeb]

23. Ya see thats why I defend Kerry and made him my 2nd choice

Simple as that.

[Skip Intro]

11. I keep coming back to who would best show up the moron in the debates

Which narrows my list considerably, and tho I remain undecided.

(I think Dean, Clark, Kucinich, CMB, and Sharpton define that field - I can just see bush saying to one of the others "well why did you vote for the war, then?" And I do think the "war" (aka - murderous armed robbery, imho) will be, and should be, one of the central focuses of the campaign - a lot of people are unnecessarily dead because of bush's lies. An earlier Dean v. Kerry thread helped solidfy my views on this.)

The debates will, I think, be one of, if not the, determining factor in who wins. Can you imagine the arrogant imposter debating Clark or Dean? I can. :-)


And in the end, it is about winning.

[BevHarris]

16. Now this would be a prizefight:

I would LOVE to see Al Sharpton debate Bush. You could charge for tickets to that mismatch.

[Dr Satan]

14. uhh NO

The overwhelming majority of people are not snivelling cowards who are desperate for a hollow victory.
Most people are very concerned about the issues.

[maddezmom]

15. I'm very concerned about the issues

and don't think I'm a sniveling coward, but I still think anyone running in the primary will represent me better than Bush. :)

[sandnsea]

17. No, what happens after matters

If everybody works for 50 weeks, we will send a Democratic President to the White House. He or she is going to set this country on a new course for the next century. All of these candidates would do very different things and it's important to get the guy who is going to put the kinds of programs in place that are really going to make a clear impact and difference for families across America.

[Skwmom]

18. For me it is much more than electability.

We are facing a crisis domestically and internationally. We need to elect the man who has the best chance of getting us out of this mess. It just so happens that I believe my candidate is both the most electable and the right man for the job.

[Kathleen04]

20. The basic issues are similar..

Every Democratic candidate wants to fix the economy, have a better plan in Iraq, get us health-care, provide better opportunities for education, etc. The dynamics of their plans are different, but they all have the same goals. I will be voting electability, but I'm not compromising anything in order to do that.

[sandnsea]

22. Ability to execute the plans

That's as important as the plans themselves. The experience and knowledge to just know who to call around the world to get things done, what the long term strategic and economic interests of various countries are, what pet plans different Congressmen have and can be appealed to on, lots and lots of things. We need someone who can get in there and get things done in a hurry. There's really only 4 candidates who can do that. Gephardt, Kerry, Clark and Lieberman.

And their plans really are quite different. I wish people were more interested, but policy threads drop like a rock or dissolve into war vote and patriot act arguments.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Kathleen04!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kathleen04]

31. Thanks

Thanks for the welcome :)

[FDRrocks]

24. Not I...

I registered Dem simply to vote for Kucinich in the primaries. I may or may not vote for whatever Centrist the 'opposition party' throws up... time will tell.

Issues matter above all to me. Vietnam was not started by a Republican... if you recall.

[NicRic]

26. Basically ,Yes , anybody but bush !

I would be very happy after election day to see any of the Dems beat bush .Making him a one termer like his father is job #1 ! Sure I would perfer that the one I like best be picked and win ,however I would take any one of them over bush in a N.Y. minute ,even Liberman !

[mindfulNJ]

27. I'm not supporting any particular candidate

at this point. I've watched every debate, and I've come to the conclusion that ANY one of them is infinatly better qualified than the souless, warmongering , murderous demagogue occupying the WhiteHouse right now. I will be proud and enthusiastic to work hard for their election, whoever ends up getting the nomination.

[CWebster]

28. That depends

The Republicans are unified, but at this time the Democrats are divided more that ever and there is a fundamental struggle over what and who defines the party's future. The DLC dominated agenda has weakened the Democratic identity and ability with an ongoing policy of appeasement to the opposition and alienation of the base. The base is angry and wants a representitive voice against the most dangerous radical idealogues who ever seized power.

The Republicans and their handmaiden DLC candidates condemn the anger - as if it was occuring in a void.

[LWolf]

29. I don't think so.

With a record like GWB's, we should be able to take him with any of our 9; it's our responsibility to do so. I can't think of another president who offers so many opportunities to take him down. If we can't beat this lying, sniveling, arrogant, destructive, self-centered wimp, who will we ever beat?

I don't want to beat him just to say I did. I want to replace him with a candidate who will help bring about the fundamental changes we need to topple the power structures that put him in office to begin with. I want a candidate who will take the country the direction I think we should be going. It's the issues. And the primaries are my only real chance to speak with my vote. In the general election, I will vote for the candidate we send against *. I'll vote for any dem. If I have to vote for a conservative dem, so be it. I won't like it, but I'll do it. Then, my vote says "No More Bush." Now, my vote says, "No More Business As Usual." It's a vote for change, and a vote for hope. And not every dem candidate fills me with hope.

[HFishbine]

30. It's Both

Yes, Pete, beating Bush is of extreme impotance. But, for this voter at least, there is an equal consideration.

Bush has created a paridigm of fear. He has made a mockery of the notion of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave. Give me a candidate who largely accepts Bush's view and merely presents himslef as better able to fight the boogey man and I'll be less enthusiastic than I would be for a candidate who wants to repudiate the manufactured fear and who will bring this country back to a path of optimism, equality, and freedom.

[Orangepeel]

32. Yes and no

I support Dean and I do happen to believe that he has the best chance to beat bush because he can run an innovative, grassroots, people oriented campaign that will GOTV. I don't think that a traditional media oriented campaign will be effective and, although Dean will be best able to run that as well because he can raise the most money, that's all the other candidates will be able to do.

However, it is also non-negotiable that I think the person would be a decent president. We'd have a great chance at beating bush if we nominated John McCain, for example, but I'm not willing to do that.

[democratreformed]

33. Sorry, but at this point,

I have to say that I am most interested in positions and leadership. Ater the nomination, then I will worry about ABB.

[Ficus]

34. I know my person

has an uphill battle against Bush. But I still support him, so I would say we all agree with you. I'll vote for the nominee unless it's someone like Lieberman, or maybe if Clark shows some different colors (I'm still kinda skeptical of this guy). But that can wait until after the primaries. Until then I'll worry about issues.