John and Elizabeth Edwards on Charlie Rose. Issue of Respect

[imenja]

Did anyone see John and Elizabeth Edwards on Charlie Rose? It broadcast in my area today, but was originally aired last night.

I have mixed feelings on John Edwards as a candidate but he made a good point that I'd like DUers to consider. He said he believes Democrats can and must win in the South and cited key Democratic victories in Southern governor's races. He noted that the most important factors in appealing to the American people is to understand and RESPECT them and their lives, that the American people will vote for someone who truly cares about their struggles--someone who is in the race for what he/she can do for the people rather than his own political future.

Leaving aside the obvious contradiction between Edwards' comments and Southerners voting for Bush, I'd like to raise the question of RESPECT. I believe Edwards has a very important point here that is instructive to those of us on DU who care--and I know that includes everyone here--so passionately about progressive goals. I believe we need to learn respect for those we disagree with. We aren't going to be able to win in the South, the Midwest, or West if we treat people who live there with contempt. I believe that we on the left also need to develop better tolerance and understanding of people who see the world differently from ourselves, including conservative Christians and those who vote Republican. Most of them don't show that respect, but I ask more from progressives/ liberals. I'd like to make a plea for people to stop using terms like "fundies" and "repugs." I truly believe that to fill one's heart with intolerance and hatred is poisonous; it darkens the soul. It doesn't contribute toward making the world a better place. Our goal should be to better society and civic life, not to join the chorus of hatred that leads to it's degradation. And even if you disagree with the moral nature of my plea, consider the question of strategy: to convince voters that our ideas are right, we need to treat them with respect, to calmly persuade them rather than dismiss them as idiots.

[Kilkenny5]

1. kick n/t

[iwantmycountryback]

2. Respect must be mutual n/t

[cally]

3. I don't understand your point completely

I use DU to vent and to learn. In my real life, I'm completely respectful of others. I do try to calmly persuade. I'm not convinced that's the best strategy. I think to more vocal and outspoken win battles. We need both.

Both Edwards are wonderful human beings. I enjoyed John Edwards' response when King asked if he was worried about how his wife's appearance would change with the breast surgery. Edwards just laughed in a real way and said something like 'Of course not'. You could tell that it was so far beyond what he was worrying about that he thought King was an idiot for asking. :-)

[PopSixSquish]

5. Somewhat OT From Original Topic - But King Actually Asked Him That?

What an asshole. Sounds like something Larry would think of if his wife were to ever become ill.

[cally]

13. Yep, he asked

He said something like we're men, right, we all worry about this stuff. My husband thought he was insane also. Your wife might die and you're asking me if worried about how she looks if she lives. :crazy:

[ohioan]

31. And he didn't just ask it once - he asked it a couple of times

It was amazing.

[imenja]

7. I understand the venting

but I see a great deal of intolerance on these boards. DU can be a forum for us to formulate the ideas we will use offline and in letters we write to politicians and media outlets. I suggest we try to make our efforts here as productive as possible. The Democratic Party suffers from a poverty of ideas. We can enrich the political discussion.
As for the other poster, respect should be mutual, but I believe how one treats others has more to do with your own integrity than the other person in question. Members of the Right use deplorable tactics and language; let's ask more of ourselves. And let's behave in ways that promote success of a progressive agenda. None of us, obviously, are perfect. We all become impatient at times. But we can make an effort to develop more positive, productive discourse and policy. Why not give it a shot?

[saracat]

8. We have done that for eight years( actually longer) It didn't work. We

need to have the same anger they used against us. You know the old saying, "I'd rather be right than president"? I'd rather be president.

[imenja]

9. Do you think what you are doing promotes victory?

If so, keep it up. If not, I'd encourage you to help develop ideas that will. Whether you choose to be respectful and positive or negative and ruthless, make it productive.

[saracat]

12. Yes. I don't generally refer to these people disrespectfully

except venting on DU. But publicaly , through whatever media discourse I have access too, I will continue to feul anger. Anger is productive when it is directed to a positive end goal. It was said, I don't remember where, that the Republicans view an election as a war with the Democrats as the enemy to be destroyed, while the Democrats viewed an election as an opportunity for political and idealogical debate. That is why we get creamed. We must now employ the rules of engagement. We must destroy them. The time for debate is over.

[imenja]

14. Difference between playing hardball with Rep pols and disrespecting voters

Thinking about your position, I understand your determination to be tough in your criticism of Republican politicians. I'm not trying to affirm the Bob Schrum political strategy. Part of the Democratic Party's problems in this last election was a reluctance to criticize Bush on some crucial issues. Why, for example, did no one but Michael Moore question Bush's performance on 9/11? I would have liked to see a campaign ad about the seven minutes with "My Pet Goat." You know that if a Dem had been president on 9/11, the Republicans would have crucified him.
Voters, however, are another story. In order to win them over, we MUST treat them with respect. If not, we can't win.
Do you see my point here?

[saracat]

20. I see your point. I don't agree. I would have four years ago.

My point is ,they are NOT winnable. I say forget about them. Create new Democrats. Don't even bother to convert these people. They are beyond hope. They are victims of brainwashing and deprogramming is not available. We need to crate our own powerful base and make it stronger and more unified than theirs. The only way we can do this is to draw a line in the sand. Remember Bush's"if your not for us, you're against us" ? That resonated. We must do the same. And we must use our anger toward that end. The Repugs developed the anger in their base against Clinton and it is still resonating. We must do the same. Only then will we win. The time for debate is over.

[imenja]

22. I don't see how the two points are mutually exclusive

I wasn't making a plea to move to the "center." To create new Democrats, we need to persuade them of our point of view. Insulting people won't achieve that. I'm not saying that you personally do so, but that was my central point.
For example, the majority of Americans attend some sort of religious services. If we decide that everyone who goes to church is a superstitious idiot, as many on DU seem to think, we won't ever convince them to vote with us. People don't listen to those who look down on them, and they certainly won't vote for them. That was the essence of Edwards' point today on Charlie Rose.

[saracat]

27. Much as I love the Edwardses , I still don't agree.

I am simply saying that we will not persuade any of the type of people who vote for Bush. I am going to make you angry in a minute ,I know. I think that there is no valid reason for any one to have voted for Bush at all. To do so one would have to be either stupid or evil. Now , before you scream, think about it. Most reasons do fall into those either or catagories. Even if a voter is uninformed , they should be . Knowledge is available. If they are too easily influenced , they are stupid. If they are voting because of their job, or their tax break, they are selfish, therfore a version of evil. Do you see my point? These people cannot be convinced and I am not sure we should even try.

[imenja]

28. I don't scream

but I also want to win. I don't see that your point of view is going to bring about victory.
I'm certainly interested in hearing any strategy or solutions you may have.

[saracat]

29. I didn't mean literally!

:) My theory is simple. Carve out a defined Party identity by moving to the left and uniting under those ideals. Ignore the RW and their people and work to develop our own from those people who haven't been co opted by the other side. We should definitely put some emphasis on first time voters and we need to shore up our minorities and our base. Forget about all these other people like the evangelicals. They are never going to vote for us. And I don't think we ought to phony respect for those things we don't have respect for. Maybe say nothing but don't try to convert those pentecostal evangelicals!

[imenja]

35. I agree with much of that

The far Christian right is not ever going to vote Democrat, but not all Christian voters are irrevocably Republican. Also, all Pentecostals aren't conservative. One of the volunteers who helped me with get out the vote efforts for Kerry on election day is Pentecostal. It's true the the majority of voters in her church favor Republicans, but she says there are a minority of Democrats.
We need candidates who understand the lives of ordinary Americans who live in non-urban areas. Many of those people go to Church and may have once voted Democrat, but now see no particular advantage in doing so. Embracing economic populism will attract many of them back to the party. New voters also have to feel there is a point in their turning out to vote Democrat. Although it is extremely difficult for me to understand why anyone would vote for Bush, I can see why many felt alienated from John Kerry. We need a candidate without his sort of patrician demeanor. I'd like to think such things don't matter, but it seems clear they do to many.
We can't persuade the hard core Christian right, but not everyone who voted for Bush thinks like Gerry Falwell. We can't turn our back on 59 million (or 55, whichever number you like) voters and expect to take back the White House.

[ebayfool]

39. We need a candidate without his sort of patrician demeanor?

I think that man is THEIR candidate, his name is *ush! I fail to see that criticism as valid, nothing wrong with a class act representing the Democratic party. It really irks to see this GOP 'mantra' repeated as 'gospel'.

[imenja]

43. ignore all criticism and continue to lose

I knew someone would attack me on that. That something has been mentioned on television doesn't mean it doesn't have some truth to it. Of all of Bush's faults--and they are countless--a patrician demeanor isn't one of them. A lot of Americans don't even believe he is a millionaire. Whether we think it is valid or not (and I certainly don't) a good chunk of voters felt they could relate to him.

Obviously that isn't my basis for choosing a candidate. I look at it like I'm interviewing someone for a job and judge a candidate based on his qualifications. Many American voters, however, don't see it that way. If you refuse to consider any criticism, you condemn us to perpetual electoral failure. In order to have a hope of winning at some point in the future, we need to be able to think about how we can improve the party and our candidates. To refuse to do so only helps the Republicans.

I personally would prefer to have at least a choice of a candidate who wasn't a multi-millionaire. Democrats like Kerry conduct themselves with a sense of noblesse oblige, which is better than the rapacious greed demonstrated by many Republicans, but is not the same as having a candidate of the people, who represents the people. I see it as linked to the problems with the Democrats' economic platform. They are tied to the interests of corporate America and see themselves as bestowing benevolence on the poor. How about cultivating a party that recognizes this is our government and that it is their job to represent our interests above those of their corporate donors? It is very difficult to change this with the current state of campaign finance. Unfortunately the issue is now limited to one of perception over substance. Kerry lost that battle of perception. In the future, we need candidates who can win it.

[ebayfool]

56. I knew someone would attack me on that? No attack, just because ...

I don't agree w/your view doesn't mean it's an attack. As far as "That something has been mentioned on television doesn't mean it doesn't have some truth to it." - in today's world it just as often does mean that. My response doesn't show a refusal to consider any criticism, just your perceival of a watered down, GOP lite version of what it takes to win. I want to win w/ a candidate that represents our ideals, not a eunuched version that would be more palatable to the very people that voted for the clown in the office now! I just do not see twisting our views, candidates, or stances to appeal to those that oppose them as a viable or palatable way to "not lose". That said, all of the stuff I've been hearing here @ what we are lacking, what we need to cultivate, etc is not the problem. If this country is willing accepting *ush & GOP platform, it doesn't matter what you do. They have sold their souls, I'm not willing to try to outsell them w/mine. I don't see the problem as being our candidate, I see the problem as the voters & what they are willing to give up for bigger pieces of pie. If they are willing participants in the travesty that the GOP is making of this country, why would we want to remake ourselves or a candidate to fit a mold that they would want? This all reminds me of the battered wife that blames herself & thinks he she changes her hair, makeup, attitude, etc her batterer will stop smacking her & love (vote) her more. No matter how she changes, she still don't get those votes. How do we change a country (or at least half)? Don't know, maybe let them get the crap smacked out them good & hard - it's coming. Then maybe they'll wise up & leave the b*stard & go find a good man (party) that wants them. All I know is you can't convince or cajole any battered wife to leave till she finally gets fed up & says no more for herself. Putting a fella in front of her that looks like her hubby isn't an enticement to leave her husband. Does this make any sense? It's late, I'm tired & I'm afraid I understand where I'm going w/this - I also suspect you won't.

IMHO

[imenja]

57. You've misunderstood my comments

I no way have suggested advancing anything close to "republican" light policies. Quite the opposite. I'd encourage you to read my other posts on this thread, because they make clear some of the suggestions I have for improving the party. They are not remotely close to what you suggest in your post. As I pointed out elsewhere, strongly articulated progressive principles (and all of us need to work on how to best define those) are essential to future direction in the party. Far from advancing "republican light"--a terms clearly intended as an obscenity--I have advocated a party that represents the economic and cultural interests of American workers, urban and rural over the interests of corporate donors. It would be ideal if that candidate himself were free of the corporate ties that contaminate American politics, but that may be a Utopian goal in a political system where campaign contributions buy influence and legislation. American voters from both parties are well aware of this. What we need to do is to convince them that Democrats will, for a change, serve as their representatives, that the politicians will work for them rather than their corporate donors. To communicate that message, we need to speak to voters. To send hundreds of rude Northeastern as campaign staff to the South and the Midwest of the country generates culture shock. We need to talk to rural and suburban votes so that they can become aware of our goals to reform government, but for campaign staffers to have any impact, they first need to learn the kind of basic civility that is practiced in the rest of the country. Their poor management skills made all the more evident by the cultural insensitivity with which they conduct themselves, undermines the recruitment and continued service of local volunteers who are crucial to getting out the votes that allow Democratic candidates to win.
None of this is about becoming like the Republicans. It requires cultural sensitivity, and just plain manners, so that people want to work with the campaign. It's not good for a campaign to lose volunteers because they get tired of being treated rudely by a 25 year old kid sent down by the national campaign. Obviously such issues are all the more important in reaching out to voters who aren't already motivated to volunteer with the party. Personal interactions influence, more than any other factor, choices that voters make.

[saracat]

40. I respect your viewpoint, but there are many more people than the 59

million who voted for Bush that didn't vote at all. I am suggesting that we concentrate on those people rather than the few evangelicals and such that did vote for Bush. Or even , as in the case of your friend, those that didn't. I also resent the description of "patrician demeanor' .There is an implication that we should "dumb down"' inherent in your wish to have a more "common ' candidate. I will dump this country before I will dumb down. I can't make myself be part of a country that celebrates the uncouth and ignorant as in Bush. We must aim to better ourselves and not lower our expectations. I want a President who is superior to the average man , not one who is either equal or beneath him.

[imenja]

45. there is no such implication

of dumbing anything down. I am suggesting we change the party so that it is more representative of the interests and concerns of the American people. Dumb that isn't.

[AP]

47. The Stanford Deliberative Poll suggests you're wrong.

Lots of Republicans were willing to vote for Edwards (more than were willing to vote for Kerry). There are many Bush voters who were willing to vote Democratic, if the candidate had been Edwards -- and that's because of what Edwards was saying on Rose's show last night.

[saracat]

4. With all due respect, we have tried that. And lost the congress

Their abuse of us, on the other hand seemed to work. Tom Daschle was a gentleman. Very bipartisan . always polite. He lost. We have been above the fray too long. I will NOT respect those who don't respect me. And don't kid yourself. They DON"T respect us. So to that . And to the RW's who dismiss us as "nuts' and "traitors", repu repug repug repug and fundie , fundie, fundie, koolaid drinkers!

[noamnety]

6. I'm with saracat

I don't bash indiscriminantly, I don't suggest a boycott of "the red states" for instance. But I will not be respectful of talibangelists, and I make no apologies for using the term. Christians are fine, I spend 2 hours a week in church, but when you start trying to use my tax dollars to force your religious laws on me, forget it. Nor will I be respectful of people that place their right to pollute above my right to clean water.

Can't remember who posted this here first, but the time for politeness is over.

[Quakerfriend]

11. Def have to agree with you in principle

But, I think what is posted on these boards tends to be more in the vein of exasperation with some on the right, and on the other hand, with a funny kind of humor. Sure, some curse and snort a bit too much. But, I'm willing to bet that there are very few here who would do anything mean or rude or obnoxious in a face-to-face situation. It's just not in the spirit of a true Dem!

I look at it more as a form of venting.

I know that you have all had me in stitches many, many times! And, when it comes to politics we all need a little of that right now.

[MuseRider]

10. From one little Democrat in a very red state...

the bashing gets old, it sometimes makes me angry BUT it is understandable. What really gets me is when those of us who have worked so hard to make any headway get taken down with the entire state. Other than that I guess I should say that bashing is better than what we usually get from the Democratic party and that is nothing. There is something very important there. First people have to actually know there is an opposition party that can define itself. I have watched as AAR has grown and spread and yes I do believe it must be nice for the blue states to be able to listen to them but if they really want to make a difference they need to be trying to get into states that have absolutely nothing else but RW bullcrap and I mean nothing else. Just a few ideas from Kansas.

[billbuckhead]

15. Yeah, the Republicans beat us because they're so respectful

No the Republicans rule the South and West because of racism, sexism, Christian chauvinism, homophobia and not because they're the respectful ones.

[robbedvoter]

16. And also, didn't beat us. But, yeah, they do pretty much rule the south

because those poor southerners have no other place to go frankly. The "middle class" party is waaay over their means, so if they get engaged, they do it against their interest.

[MuseRider]

17. Were you replying to me?

I never said they were respectful nor did I imply I expect anything respectful from anyone. I am not sure what you are trying to say to me.

[robbedvoter]

18. Sorry, mistake. I was actually replying to the original post

[MuseRider]

19. ROFL!

And I was replying to the post above you! I need to stop drinking this beer. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

21. you can listen to AAR online

there is a link at Liberal Oasis (doubtless among others). Also, Kansas newspapers are not totally conservative. Gene Lyons is printed once a week in the Leavenworth Times and Edwards did come back to Lawrence, although as far as I know, Kerry did nothing to help Boyda. She needed another 20,000 voters (7.5%) to switch. In some ways the trend is good in Kansas (doubtless because I moved here). Bush went from 622,322 to 717,507 and Gore-Kerry went from 399,276 to 420,846. On the other hand Ryun went from 164,951 to 162,134 and Moore went from 154,505 to 177,525 and his opponent went from 144,672 to 141,302. On the negative side, Tiahrt went from 131,871 to 167,231 and we still can't find anyone to run against Moran.
Anyway, all is not lost. We have the internet for media, and it is not cool to write off the 420,846 Kerry voters as "red-staters". Never mind the million Wisconsinites or Illini who voted for Bush. The question is not whether we bash states, but whether we bash Bush voters. Is that the best way to get them to switch?

[MuseRider]

34. Well I do know these things but I am

talking about the people in the more remote areas of our state and other states like ours. It is difficult to listen on the internet from your tractor although sattelite radio may be helpful. I am speaking about these people.

Where are you? I am in Topeka and yes Kansas looks a little better but not nearly as much as I thought it would be.

[hfojvt]

42. the remote areas are not the problem

they are too sparsely populated to matter in an election. I am guessing that 80% of Kansas lives to the east of Hutchinson, and a good proportion of the rest is in the cities of Great Bend, Dodge City, Garden City, and Hays, and those towns probably all have broad-band.
Democrats are losing in Wichita and Topeka as well, but that has been true for decades, except for the Glickman era. Was there an anti-war rally in either of those towns like there was in Lawrence? I am living where Randi Rhodes wants to see Bush - in Leavenworth, but so far I have not been incarcerated.

[DjTj]

23. Great Post.

...but I guess you already see the response here...

DU has never been very receptive to his kind of idea, and it's part of why Edwards supporters were far outnumbered during the primaries.

I think people come on DU to vent about the Freepers, just like the Freepers come online to vent about DU. For the most part the left and right wing are simply trying to keep our government from tilting dangerously too far in one direction or the other.

...the business of actually winning votes is a different story . I really feel like the incredible nastiness of the Republican Party opens up a vast opportunity for us to campaign with respect and earn the votes of people that are tired of the same-old politics - people who might not even vote in most elections because they don't feel like they can trust anything that politicians say.

John Edwards, a one-term Senator with very little foreign policy experience, came in second in the Iowa Caucuses with precisely that strategy. He was the straight-talking down-home nice Southern boy in a sea of backstabbing politicians. Good Democrats from across the South have won governor's offices and Senate seats with the same kind of campaigns.

The truth is we did play dirty in this election, but we're just not as good at it as the Republicans are, and we'll never be as good as they are because there's a little voice in our head that tells us that we must treat people with respect. That's what makes us better than them, and I believe that can win us elections. We can't try to be something we're not, and we don't need to when what we are is something far better.

[Clarkie1]

25. I think this explains a lot of Clark's popularity as well

Clark on liberalism

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

Wes Clark - September 5, 2003

[imenja]

26. Unfortunately the animosity is aimed toward Democrats too

I didn't mention that in the original post, but there is a tremendous amount of hostility directed against the Democratic Party, especially the DLC, and even against posters who disagree slightly with people. None of that helps promote progressive causes. I'm all for a passionate discussion of issues and the direction people want the party to take, but many people seem to prefer to cultivate hatred of individuals and than to promote solutions or even discuss key issues that they see as crucial to Democratic values. I suppose there isn't much that can be done to change things, other than to raise concerns.

[ohioan]

32. True dat

And one of the things that makes us different from the other side is that we're not willing to do WHATEVER it takes to win - we remain true to our principles, even if it means we don't always come out on top.

It seems to me that if we start to behave like them, we turn into them and, then what's the point of anyone supporting us? Like the pigs in Animal Farm, we will turn ourselves into exactly what we're supposed to be fighting against. And, then, what have we gained, but power for power's sake?

[Clarkie1]

24. Absolutely - A key characteristic of liberalism is respect for others

Clark on liberalism

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

Wes Clark - September 5, 2003

[ohioan]

30. Beautiful! Thank you for saying this

You might get some grief from some folks, but there are likely a lot of people who will be heartened and influenced by your words.

[imenja]

36. Thanks very much!

:loveya:

[Zen Democrat]

33. RW Radio and FoxNews has the South in a griplock.

Air America Radio in the South may help some. But I think it's actually going to come down to the people finally realizing the lies and deceptions. That may take a new generation of people to be born and raised.

I, for one, say forget the South. As long as they think Rush Limbaugh is as brilliant as he claims to be, we can't touch those poor people. They've bought into the whole "libruls is traitors" thing. Most of these people have grandparents living off Social Security, but they think that's, OHMYGOD, SOCIALISM!!! There were unemployed people voting for Bush in the South because "he's a Criss-chun".

I think we need to move West and strengthen the Midwest and Northeast. We need to take Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana next election. AND ... we need to count all the votes in OHIO!!

[imenja]

37. Forgetting the South was Kerry's strategy

and it didn't work. Hanging our hopes on only two states (Fla and Ohio) is a recipe for disaster.

[saracat]

41. Well, we don't KNOW that , do we? If the election was stolen, and I think

I think it was, Kerry may have been right!

[imenja]

44. we are doomed . . .

if that is the extent that you are willing to consider strategy. Why should the election have even been close? Kerry was running against the worst president in American history, who lied to bring us into war and ran the economy into the ground. Strategy was clearly part of the problem.

[saracat]

46. Except Kerry blurred the issue by trying to be all things to all people.

He should have gone left and said screw the south. He tried to pander to the right instead of his base. We are doomed if we try to pander to the right!

[imenja]

50. I agree on Kerry's problems about being all things to all peple

but saying "screw the South" wouldn't have given him any greater sense of conviction. He basically said that through his actions anyway. His problems were on issues. Voters in the South, like elsewhere, care about jobs and whether a candidate is going to represent them in Washington. To insult one section of the country is pointless. Besides, look at the map. Kerry lost far more than the South. He won urban areas throughout the country and lost rural and exurban areas. Northeastern states tend to be more urban than Southern states. That's why he prevailed most handily there. I have to say I don't see much in your argument other than prejudice. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Edwards, Byrd, Bob Graham, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Martin Luther King are all Southerners.

[saracat]

51. What I meant was, don't concentrate on the South.

I refer you to www.fuckthesouth.com. It is humour, but every statement other than the profanities, has been researched. We don't "need" the South and I am sure the educated persons from the South whom you mention would agree. Most of them aren't respected in their home states except for Graham and Byrd. They are anomalies.

[imenja]

55. What we really need to concentrate on is our key principles

I agree that we shouldn't curb our message to fit the South or any geographic area in particular. I believe what the Democrats really need to do is to figure out what the core of our party is--what are our most important principles, how do they best represent the people of the country, and how can we articulate that message in a fearless manner.
If we do that, geography will fall into place. As you say, Kerry tried to be all things to all people. We as a party need to figure out what our core convictions are and then chose candidates that represent those positions. With an authentic message and candidate, we will be able to win voters throughout the country. (Sorry to all the die-hard Kerry loyalists. My loyalty is to the country and progressive goals, not Kerry in particular).

[imenja]

48. the stolen election theory becomes a cop out

That is precisely part of my problem with the chorus concerning the stolen election. It may very well have been stolen. I don't know if the many problems around the country are enough to have changed the outcome. Regardless, when people fall back into the argument that the election was stolen, it provides an excuse for not to bother thinking about how to do better in the future. It holds us back from improving the party.
We need to work diligently on election reform so such problems can never happen again, but that doesn't mean we haven't got to think about our party platform and long-term strategy as well. The forget the South strategy has proved itself to be an unmitigated failure.

[saracat]

49. The problem becomes if we don't overturn this election, there

will be no election reform because there is no one in whose interest there is to do it! We do not control either the Senate or the House. Everyone likes everything the way it is. And the average person both doesn't know and doesn't care! why would there be reform? There wasn't in 2000. The repugs voted dowm paper trails and HAVA only made it more difficult for the poor and minorities. Exactly who will bring about this election reform? And no one working with either party can claim they care or take election reform seriously. Conyers can't even conduct a real hearing. They can't even justify a real investigation.

[imenja]

52. Is it really possible to overturn it?

The electoral college has voted. I know it's still technically possible until January, but I have to say I don't see it happening. I would be wonderful if it would happen. It does look like the Democrats, with a few exceptions like Conyers, are complicit in the helping to prohibit a real investigation of election problems. It is a tragedy. Where is Dean on this issue? I haven't heard him speak about it at all.

[saracat]

53. Dean is actually too DLC. I don't know what his real stance is but it isn'

promising. We could overturn this election. Kerry and the Glibs have just expanded the lawsuit to include vote tampering. But there is no MSM regarding the same , yet...

[zann725]

54. Might be easier to overturn if Edwards would quit appearing on talk shows

talking as if NO 'contesting' the Results was going on, as if Bush REALLY won?! I saw him on Larry King last week (with Elizabeth), and they focused on her illness...which makes the possibility of his being VP a distant reality...since clearly his focus is on other things now.

In fact, I really find most of his recent comments about what could've or could be done different in Dem candidates... rather 'disloyal' to Kerry and the current events in Ohio.

[sonicx]

38. Democratic Leaders ARE respectful...

The only places you could say are disrespectful to the South are here on the Internet. I've never heard anything from Kerry or other elected Dems.

The REAL problem is failing to actually run in the South. One could argue that Democrats can't run everywhere cuz of the money disadvantage. Somewhat true, except for the fact that Kerry had some cash left over after the campaign...