Dean people are seeming somewhat un-democratic

[Bread and Circus]

The support you give Dean is a great thing.
However, you guys are getting to the point
where zealotry is getting in the way of
rationality and balance. You need to understand
that when the field is whittled down you
are going to need the support of candidates
and constituents you used to clobber.

Don't try to beat the Republicans by becoming
just like them, because that is what is currently
happening.

This is Democratic Underground, not Dean Underground.
Stick to Dean's strong points on leadership, character,
and the issues. I am sure you know what they are.

[phillybri]

1. Great statement....

I hope you have fire-retardant clothing on.

It's gotten to the point at DU that you can't say one single good thing about any candidate not named Dean without stirring a massive shitstorm.

Really sucks....

[Kahuna]

31. Something tells me that familydoctor..

can weather any attacks. I've seen familydoctor in action before. :thumbsup:

[meegbear]

2. Dean Underground ...

more like DeanRepublic.

[liberalnurse]

18. You are entitled to your opinion.

But I think many here are misunderstanding the Dean discussions. As a Dean supporter, I do not trash or call any other candidate a republican as you have. I am insulted.There just happens to be many Dean supporters here. I don't see what you are refering too but I sense your frustration in that your candidate is not always the choice of another.

We all have the same mission, to evict the resident. If Dean is not the leader then indeed you may need me and you are off to a bad start.

[Bread and Circus]

24. Liberalnurse

It appears I can gain no ground with you no
matter what. I respect you and the grass-roots
efforts of Dean supporters. If Clark chooses
not to run, I do hope Dean wins for the
very fact that he can shake up the establishment
and prove that grass-roots e-campaigning can
work. However, I recently read a piece about
Dean supporters defacing a Clark's supporter's
college-campus flyers and that is what makes me
wonder if I should ever support Dean in any event.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Ah, another newbie. Put on your asbetos suit.

As I wrote in another thread - it is SO much better around here now than it used to be.

But I totally agree - Dean himself, and some of his supporters are alienating a lot of folks. There will come a time when we'll all have to work together, and get behind someone who may not be a favorite right now. It is so destructive to sow these bitter seeds.

[mistertrickster]

4. I support Dean, but I will support ANY Democratic candidate who wins

the nomination. Beating BushCo. is more important than supporting any single candidate. The stupid bastard must go.

You're right to remind everyone of that overriding goal.

[mkregel]

47. ABB! ABB!

Yes anyone but Bush...and that goes out to Lieberman too (grumble grumble)

[RogueTrooper]

5. I beg your pardon

It is, however, acceptable for you to post Dean bashing threads?

Why don't click your back button and tell me how many candidate bashing threads you see on the front page of this forum. Now, tell me how many of them were started by Dean supporters? How many of them are started by Clark supporters?

[Bread and Circus]

7. RogueTrooper, I admit...

I posted a thread stating Dean had little
chance of winning the general election because
I believe his foreign policy/diplomacy/wartime
leadership skills are less than those of Clark's
and will be perceived as a liability by the general
public.

It was not a Dean bashing thread but rather a
political analysis stated in a very strong manner.

I was flamed incredibly on a very personal
level. and got somewhat upset
and flamed back. However, I cooled off and apologized
profusely.

However, it was my thread that people flamed me on.
It is not as if I went on to a "Dean is Great" thread
and stated that I think his health care policy is
anemic. I think that is an important distinction.

Outside of that, I have tried to stick to Clark
threads and voice my support. So, on balance, you
can rest assured the "familydoctor" has come clean
and said his apologies.

But back to my original post here, do you think I
am accurate or not?

[RogueTrooper]

11. I remeber the post

You offered no evidence as to why Dean could not win. Your post was a Clark puff-piece with an implication of electoral frailty on Dean's part. It was not political analysis. It wanted to be political analysis but it was not.

Now, the worst candidate bashers are currently Clark supporters. Would you care to address this point.

[Bread and Circus]

16. If Clark supporters are bashers, then I am sorry

I am not sure what else to say. I hope
I have tried to right any wrongs and take
a higher ground.

[thom1102]

12. You don't think that a more responsible tack

would have been to ask Dean supporters how they would overcome his weakness in Foreign Policy/ diplomacy and wartime leadership skills?

I know (while my number 2 guy would be Clark if he decided to run) that if I we going to question Clark supporters about their candidates weaknesses, I would frame it in this manner: How would Clark counter the fact that he has zero experience in elective office?

This raises a legitimate concern with over a candidate, without being dismissive.

[Bread and Circus]

15. Ok, to take on the "elected office" issue

I think you folks put way too much
emphasis on the "elected office" phrase,
as if that were ultimate measure of a potential
leader.

What matters to me is leadership, courage, people
management skills, intelligence, vision, persistence,
durability, and self-sacrifice. Clark has all of
those attributes and no one can argue otherwise.
He has a long professional career to prove it, ending
in the liberation of the Kosovars from the murderous
genocide of Slobodon.

Whether or not someone is an "excellent campaigner"
has no bearing on whether they would make a good
president. Bush was an excellent campaigner and fund
raiser but is a terrible president.
He went from being a booser and somewhat of
a coke user to being a governor and then president within
a short period of time. This proves two things. One,
you can win office with very little prior political experience and two, even if you are good at getting elected (as Bush has
proven himself to be), you are not necessarily a good leader.

So, if the only argument against Clark is that he
is relatively new to politics and has never "run a
campaign" then I would ask you to remember Bush as
someone who has done both and decide whether those are the
real yardsticks of a leader.

The real point of my original "flamed" post was about
electability, which is an issue. Clark is electable in the
general election whereas I still feel Dean is not. I base
this upon the fact that this country is more conservative
than you or I would like it to be. They will not cross party
lines in appreciable numbers for Dean but they might for Clark.

Part of this is because of the very fact that he is a
non-partisan political outsider and is not a "career politician".
In case you are not aware, a great number of people don't like
politicians -- Do you remember Perot? -- the guy was a bit goofy,
his policies were not rock solid, and his running mate
appeared incompetent. But you know what, he got 19% of the vote,
nearly half of Clinton's total.
Basically, because he was a "non-politician" and ran on that
premise alone -- "let's throw the bums out and try something new".

What some of you say is Clark's weakness may actually be
what rescues you from the clutches of the Republican right.

[RogueTrooper]

21. Correcting some incorrect comparisons

George W. Bush is a very experience campaigner. He was centeral to Poppy's 88 election bid. He was the originator of "Willie Horton" campaign. In Karl Rove he has one of the most talented political consultants in the modern political arena. Now, Karl Rove is scum, but he is scum with a talent.

Clark has no campaigning experience. Fair enough, he will have to hire some. Who is he going to hire. The people behind last year's eleciton debacle? The new thinking is in the Dean campaign and he is not going to get any of them. What is he going to do when the "Might Wurlitzer" comes a calling? I think you have an overly optimistic view of how he is going to deal with them. Go over to freerepublic and see what they write about Clark. It is nasty stuff, be warned.

America is not as conservative a country as you think. If America was a conservative country why did Bush loose the 2000 election to a candidate who ran a mediocre campaign? If America is a conservative country why does Bush have to depress voter turnout to win? Howard Dean is not the wild-eyed "librul" you desperatly want him to be. He is from the political center. He never "ran left" earlier this year. His anti-war stance attracted a great deal of attention but he made clear the central tenants of his domestic politcs.

Compared to the rest of the country Vermont is in excellent financial shape. Whilst there will be attempts to deligitimize this success because of Vermont' size it will not stick. It will not stick because American's will look at Vermont and see it as something they want to be part of as well.

In the last election Howard Dean fought he faced down the Religious Right. He has the kind of positions, and a record of acheivement on these positions that will appeal to many who have not voted for us before.

[thom1102]

25. Actually,

wasn't Willie Horton was brought up by Lee Atwater, wasn't it?

[RogueTrooper]

28. Nope

George and Lee worked together on the skullduggery. Lee's old College Republican friend, Karl Rove, was also in on the game as well.

[Bread and Circus]

27. Rogue, I guess we shall see....

You may be right, the talented campaign artists
may be taken up.

But my comparisons stand.

[RogueTrooper]

29. Yet,

you are ignoring the reasons why Dean is electable in a general election.

[Bread and Circus]

33. I think I have made my statements on the issue

I am not sure what more you want.

[thom1102]

23. Let me counter...civilly, of course.

It is curious that you use Bush as a yardstick here. As you say, Bush has little experience, and as a result has been a poor leader. So I think that using as a positive example "Bush had little experience and he got elected," and then using him as a negative example "just because he was able to get elected doesn't mean he will be a good president" ignores the obvious question that such a comparison raises: is Bush a bad president because of his lack of experience, and what are the implications for Clark?

I don't want to be misunderstood here, I like Wes Clark very much. I think that he has the qualities to be an excellent president, but I think that he needs some experience before we elect him to the most powerful person in the world. I think he would make an excellent Vice Presidential candidate for ANY of the top tier candidates.

As far as Dean's electability, his record is not nearly as liberal as people think. On the issues he is very moderate, and yet he draws his strength from the liberal base of the party. This ability to appeal to liberals with a moderate message will sell him to the moderate electorate.

My intention was not to spark a debate over the electability of either candidate, but to demonstrate how the debate could be framed so that issues are addressed without bashing the candidates.

[Bread and Circus]

26. No, I didn't say that, you did

I didn't say: "As you say, Bush has little experience, and as a result has been a poor leader". You did.

I alluded to the fact that Bush went from being a substance abuser to president in a very short period of time, proving that electability
has nothing to with "prior elected office".

Please do not misquote me.

[thom1102]

32. sorry,

Let me clarify:
As you said Bush has little experience, and is an ineffective president.

Bush won the Texas Governors race twice. That showed that at least he knew how to run an effective campaign, which says a lot, since campaigning is an important part of the Presidency.

[Dear Prudence]

8. "I beg your pardon"

ooooo... that DOES sound right wing. Bashing /discent is still democracy in action. (but if you want to see REAL bashing, let me know, and I can tell you where to see it in action - it's not fun AT ALL)

[RogueTrooper]

13. That's OK

I was a moderator in GD for four months. I moderated up to and including the the Iraq War. Your post has been alerted upon because it contains a personal attack.

[liberalnurse]

19. You just hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

n/t

[BeatBush]

6. If

Dean gets nominated I will support him but I am for Senator John Kerry

[thom1102]

9. I don't know what encounters you may have had

with Dean supporters. I know that I try to keep a balance, argue issues and not slam the candidates themselves. But I find that for every rabid Dean supporter out there there are an equal number of Dean baiters out there. Every thread that I have been in where Dean supporters have gone overboard, has been because supporters for other candidates have jumped in and started bashing Dean, not on the issues, but on personal biases. Now, I have a great deal of respect for most of the candidates, and I think it is great to get behind the person you want to win, and I would get behind just about all of them if they get the nod. But there is no reason to launch into personal attacks on other candidates, it reflects badly on your own candidate as well as yourself. You are right, this is democratic Underground, not Dean Underground, neither is it Kucinich Underground, nor Clark Underground.

Can't we all just get along?

[CMT]

10. When will you people open your eyes

that it is more than Dean people who knock other candidates. Every day there are anti-Dean threads which appear which really butcher Dean. I think everyone should cool it with the slams on all sides. It is not solely Dean people who do it and the Dean supporters who may engage in it is relatively small.

Finally there are posts on Dean's strong points on "leadership, character, and the issues" posted each day but then we get posts slamming us on that!! that we monopolize the board or something--even though no one is preventing anyone else from either 1) making their own post or 2) if they don't want to see one other thing about Dean--ignoring the post.

[Bread and Circus]

14. Personally, I think it is ok to criticize candidates

I do want to state that I think it is ok
to legitimately criticize candidates if you
disagree with their policies or practices. Just
do it in a respectful and thought out manner.

If people want to start an anti-Clark thread
and state why he would make a bad president
then that I wouldn't mind if they were
making substantiated points. It is a free country, after all.
It's when a gang of rogue invaders infiltrate another
person's thread or even their yahoo group and cause
trouble just to marginalize a non-Dean supporter
does it get to me.

Once in a while is understandable, but on an
ongoing basis it is intolerable.

I surf and participate in a lot of forums, and as
great as DU's home page can be, the election
forum message board needs a little more class.

[gWbush is Mabus]

17. no offense but...

Clark is not running for Prez.

I am sure he would make a GREAT president, but he is not running, so focus your time/ energy on something more productive. It's time to support _all_ the democrats and attack Bush. If we are ever going to attack Bush, NOW is the time!

[Bread and Circus]

20. Be patient....

Clark hasn't decided yet, but he may run after all.

If he chooses not to run, then I will go back
and review the candidates and pick who I think
is best.

You have my personal permission to flame me senselessly
if Clark chooses to not run and I still put posts
on this board asking you to support him.

Right now, over 60% of democrats don't know who any of the
candidates are. It is anyone's race.

[poskonig]

22. Toughen up, newb.

Every candidate takes lumps around here. There are attacks on Dean all of the time. Wesley Clark, for example, isn't going to crash and burn solely because 'poskonig' on Democratic Underground points out Clark faces a camera like a firing squad.

[Bread and Circus]

30. Excellent example

"Toughen up, newb." -- poskonig

poskonig results to name-calling quite quickly.

Shall I take the bait or the moral highground?

This goes to prove my point I was trying to make.

[polpilot]

34. Dean supporters would NEVER bash another candidate. Serene,

serious supporters. Have I missed something???

Dean '04...

[chimpymustgo]

35. What PLANET have you been on?

Numerous folks have complained to the mods about the Deanie Meanies.

[polpilot]

39. Sooooooooooo...we have a lot of complainers. Dean supporters don't

waste time on 'others'. The predominate complainers are supporters whose candidates haven't done well.

Dean '04

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Uh...I'm not sure if the record would back you up

I noticed that you rarely say more than a few sentences, dismissing another candidate more often than not.

At Smirking Chimp, you could follow someone's personal web trail. I think more than one person should be glad there is no such feature here.

[killbotfactory]

36. Jesus Christ....

How many threads have been started by Dean supporters bashing every single supporter of a different candidate?

This is ridiculous.

Dean has a lot of support on the board, hence, a lot of people will argue with you if you criticize Dean, and a lot of people will hit back when you bash Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Hit Back That Person, Or The Whole Board?

I don't see why everyone should be subjected to entire threads dedicated to getting "revenge" for someone who bashed your choice.

That is ridiculous.

[killbotfactory]

40. What are you talking about?

One the first page I don't see any thread about getting revenge for someone bashing Dean.

I see two threads started by Clark supporters smearing all of Dean's supporters, though.

[chimpymustgo]

42. killbot, it goes far beyond that.

There used to be threads insisting every candidate should drop out and support Dean - MANY of them. Any statement that is not laudatory - and I don't mean the more recents outright attacks - used to get jumped on.

I support Edwards - one poster said "I question your priorities", because of that support.

I have felt a harsh, insulting attitude - which has fortunately greatly improved here recently.

Do you notice how posters feel the need so say, "I support Dean so please don't flame me?" if they have something to say even slightly critical of Dean. And non-Dean supporters, frequently plead not to get flamed, as they say something positive about their candidate.

This very post, and another one currently running are quite telling about how other people perceive some of the rabid Dean fans.

[killbotfactory]

43. Every candidate has supporters that are jerks here...

But I don't go around bashing every single supporter of that candidate because of it.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. That Has Been My Position

As far as starting threads, I checked and there have been few recent threads at least started by Dean supporters to bash other candidates. I suppose I am still stuck on the several threads dedicated to Kerry's Skull & Crossbones cabal.

In looking, I was surprised by how many threads there are bashing Dean. There really are quite a few.

However, that doesn't mean that Dean supporters don't bash or hijack threads, which many certainly do.

But I agree with you, bashing other candidates only alienates their supporters, and there is no reason to equate all supporters with a cantankerous few.

[Duder]

41. Un-democratic?

Clark supporter using Dean for attention.

Practice what you preach.

[dsc]

45. Please point out where

I haven't stuck to Dean's positive points. I am beyond sick of Dean's supporters being smeared on this board. Time and again I seen Dean people do x or Dean people do y. Well this Dean person defended Kerry when people bitched about his missed partial birth vote, his use of Get Over It, and on other issues. This Dean supporter defended Kucinich when people bitched about his missing the NAACP forum to do his job. This Dean supporter has repeatedly defended Lieberman against falsehoods on this board (it is quite possible my very last DU1 post was in defense of him). And this Dean supporter is damn tired of people like you saying all Dean supporters trash other candidates. Because this Dean supporter doesn't. So put up here. You charged me and every other Dean supporter on this board and you need to back it up.

[CitizenDick]

46. Undemocratic is a harsh term

But it does seem Dean is the style pick. I like Kucinich's more progressive stand.

[DrGonzoLives]

48. Everyone's a fucking victim around here...

I could say the same thing about all those Anyone But Dean Club members who do nothing more than try to prove that their candidate is better than Dean. They don't criticize the other candidates; just Dean.

God forbid we should defend the candidate we like. Just tell me who you want me to vote for, I'll go do it. I don't need a mind of my own.

[VBNI]

49. Agreed

Tell us more about the Doctor's record as governor and his leadership, character, and postions on all the issues.