God, I can't wait until the Presidential primaries in DU!

[wyldwolf]

The spin, the dumpster diving, the threats of leaving the party and withholding of votes. The accusations of who did what dirty trick and torpedoed what candidate, the arguments over who is more progressive or more conservative. People stomping away and starting their own message forums. Fun.

[bluestateguy]

1. I wish people here would spend a little more time celebrating the victory in this year's election

Instead, people move right on to making demands and accusations. It would have been nice if people here could enjoy the holidays for a few weeks before going back to the snipping and sniping again.

[Kelly Rupert]

2. If you do not support the candidate I do,

You are a pie-in-the-sky partisan blinded by idealism, because your candidate is so far left nobody will ever vote for him.
Or you are a DLC sellout, and no better than the neocon pigs, because your candidate is indistinguishable from a Republican.

I'm just going to copy-paste this five times a day when that time starts.

[stellanoir]

3. Okay I'll indulge you with a little foreshadowing. . .

"My candidate is better than your candidate because your candidate changed their opinion on something once, ran a red light in 1982, was late paying their electric bill one month in 1978, forgot to tip a waitress in 1985, didn't say "bless you" when someone sneezed in 1988, missed a PTA meeting in 1993, posted on move on. org in 1999, rented a Michael Moore DVD in 2002, contributed to PETA in 1998, shopped at WalMart in 2004, so she/he is clearly a left leaning irresponsible lunatic and total hypocrite.

Whereas my candidate is god or goddess like and completely infallible.

So there.

[ClintonTyree]

4. It was nuts in 2004.......

we witnessed each and every event you listed and more. It WILL get nuts again, guaranteed. But in the end when all the dust has settled, everyone will once again pull together, no matter how grudgingly, and elect the next Democratic President of the United States of America.

OR ELSE! ;)

[ulysses]

5. ah yes...

The condescending dismissal of anything remotely resembling a progressive policy goal...the inability/unwillingness to figure out how to work together...and now we can look forward to the insistance that we throw "single-issue advocates" under the bus in order to preserve our "resurgent center". Hell, I'm already breaking out the bubbly.

[wyldwolf]

7. or...

the condescending dismissal of anything remotely resembling a compromise with people who simpy don't agree with you... the constant labeling of some as "sell outs," "Republicans," and "DINOS."

[ulysses]

13. so propose an area of compromise.

I've tried already to no avail, but I'm more than willing to listen to other genuine efforts.

[wyldwolf]

15. genuine efforts are made all the time

for many on DU, compromise is weakness. Too many "my way or the highway" types.

[ulysses]

16. I haven't seen them, then. try me.

[ulysses]

20. aw, c'mon.

Let's do this. Iraq? Health care? Free trade? Let's compromise.

[ulysses]

23. the pity is

that one could get the idea that you don't actually want to compromise, but rather just want to look as if you do.

Here. Five years ago, several of us had a series of threads on how to work together, left and center. I compiled a bunch of the ideas that got put forward, but it petered out. Maybe you can glean something from this.

The People's Platform

[tnlefty]

27. I bookmarked your link for later when I have a little more time to go

through it. Thanks. :hi:

[ulysses]

28. some pretty good ideas got put forward.

Maybe I'll start a different version of the thread. Maybe.

[elocs]

25. I think that already happens around here regularly, election or not. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

34. there has been no such thing as compromise these past 6 years

name me one concession in anything given by Bush to the Democrats as a result of "compromise."

Compromise only works when people are willing to compromise with you. What we've had is capitulation. I give you the IWR: basically a blank check given to Bush with no limits on his power, and approved by a Dem controlled senate.

[welshTerrier2]

6. therein lies the rub ...

DU could be so much more but we have never figured out a process to at least try to work toward some degree of common ground ...

when it's all about the "pragmatics" of winning and losing, everyone wants to ride their own horse to victory ...

it seems to me taking the flash and personality out of the equation as a starting point would eventually lead to something better than that which will be served up by DU during the primary "days of antagonism" ...

i am truly saddened by a process that focusses so heavily on picking horses rather than on starting with telling the horses where and how we want them to run ... instead of many DU'ers being activist citizens debating and negotiating objectives, many are relegated to being "cheerleader followers" ...

and this is not about absolutest, cast in stone arguments ... we should define our values and beliefs and then balance them with the pragmatics of the political arena ... to see the supporters of various likely candidates accept the positions of their candidates on Iraq, for example, seemingly without question in my view, is not what political activism should be about ... that's just cheerleading ... "my guy is so good that i'll just follow him" ... why not try to lead him??

i have no idea how to make DU a more productive force during the coming days of antagonism ... but perhaps if we focussed on building ourselves into a political "voice" as leaders rather than followers, we might then find a little bit more harmony supporting those candidates willing to discuss and negotiate and perhaps even compromise a little with the prevalent DU positions on the issues ...

[wyldwolf]

8. well said.

[welshTerrier2]

22. thank you, mr. wolf ...

i do appreciate your acceptance of my message ...

[Pithy Cherub]

18. A platform of commonality

based on ideas and ideals is the underlying tenet of The Constitution. Upholding it seems to be vapid at best these days as its inconvenient and not politically smart to protect and defend it during a time of war. That's where the true breakdown is on whether upholding the Founding Facts is paramount or choosing a politician that speaks to those issues. To have politicians, DEMOCRATS, negate international treaties, vote for immoral wars, give personhood to corporations then hold a corporate entity in Higher Esteem, engage in Imperialism and the Quest for Empire, renounce the Least amongst us, erode the Bill of Rights by allowing wiretaps, junk habeus corpus, and forego accountability in the face of High Crimes and Misdemeanors it is a tad difficult, nay impossible, to discuss ideas and ideals when the evisceration of The Constitution has commenced in earnest and in the public square. The quest is for a bridge to Higher Reasoning via an imperfect person to uphold The Constitution in its full authenticity in todays turbulent world. That is the perspective by which to initiate the discussion of candidates as to whether they uphold the minimal requirements of protecting and defending American Democracy. Anything beyond that is leftover gravy.

[welshTerrier2]

21. leftover gravy indeed ...

we have brought ourselves to a point where we have disconnected the skills needed to obtain power from the values and vision necessary to wield it in the people's best interest ... what sells in the arena of multi-million dollar advertising budgets and political hacks has too much to do with marketing and too little to do with quality and wisdom and compassion and vision ... put more succinctly, our political institutions are unable to meet our needs ...

and yet, who will dare call for meaningful change? can we truly hope those most effective at the game in its current form will put aside their skill and track record and invite a new process that might or might not serve their selfish interests? millionaires funded by billionaires who have learned to play hardball may lack the idealism needed to advocate the democratic reforms we so desperately need ...

truly, in my naivete, this amazes me ... i'd like to believe that those, or at least a few of those, who work so hard to procure power and position would be committed to furthering the ideals on which the country was founded ... but there is too much money, too much politics and too much ego ... or at least so it seems to me ...

we should make it our mission to speak both to the left and the right about the need to restore the American people to their rightful position of power ... in making the case for electoral reform and campaign finance reform and lobbying reform, we are ill-served when we paint ourselves as "progressives" or Democrats or "the left"; to achieve the reforms we so desperately need, the right image is one of being pro-democracy and allowing the interests of the American people to be served instead of the not-so-special interests ...

[Pithy Cherub]

24. The branding of the labels

has become the prize rather than an action on behalf on Democracy. The branding is how the strategic vision is put into practice and who shall be the Gatekeeper. It is less about left or right rather than being placed on a spectrum between Elite Authoritarianism versus Liberal Individualism thus constantly replaying the Founding of the Nation in a modern era. As Nietzsche notes demonizing by calling a name is part of the process. It has become a useful Tool rather than doing the most important work of taking the most valuable resource, Time, to understand. Because the American culture is set up for speed, it accelerates the descent into marketing shorthand that becomes the bane of the American existence.

On another day this week, my response to a post of yours was about the lack of Courage in politicians. As Maya fervently says no other Virtue may be practiced without it. Corporations, everyday Americans and politicians keep trying to skip it because the risk is high and the price is too painful for failure to be borne. Because Rewards for other Virtues are more instantaneous, the risk produces cognitive dissonance in a candidates' supporters it is easier to eschew the Common Good values of Democracy and speak to the immediacy trifle of the Day. We have flawed public servants trying to find the lowest common denominator amongst low information voters attempting to collect as many votes as possible. An absence of Hope in the American consciousness makes it easier to accept the stated conditions which lead to an erosion of the Common Good.

The need is to find the Will of Purpose to DEMAND that political candidates adhere to the basic tenets of Freedom codified in the Constitution. That causes a craptastic problem as cleaning one's own end of the political spectrum, not for purity, but for a platform that represents the scalable spectrum that represent an ideological viewpoint is sausage messy. Because that moves so often, those who had the public applause are in their humanness loathe to vacate the stage when called upon to do so.

[Adelante]

30. Hear! Hear!

Oh, yes, yes.

[JNelson6563]

26. Good post.

Hear! Hear! :toast:

[spooky3]

9. My mind is made up--ABRC

Anyone but the Republican Candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

14. ABRC can also mean Anyone But Rodham-Clinton

The following are fine choices:

Wes Clark, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. It's funny to me.

I end up in flamewars on everyday topics but I have zero emotion when it comes to candidates. I just hope the one we settle on wins.

[skipos]

11. There are candidates I don't care for, but I try not to be condescending or belittling

to the people who really like them. It really isn't that hard to do. And regardless, my least favorite Dem is still going to be eons better than any Republican.

[nickshepDEM]

12. imo, it wont play out like that in 2008. If Obama runs, he wins.

All eyes are on the junior Senator from Illinois.

I have a longer theory behind my prediction, but its messy and long, so I'll spare you guys (and gals).

[Mz Pip]

17. Only time I ever used the 'Ignore'

function. Normally, I don't care what anyone says but the 2004 primaries made me glad I could avoid the rabid hyperbole that was flying about.

People who come to DU and complain because there are no divergent opinions should check back during the primaries.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Mojambo]

19. It's going to be glorious

I can almost taste the blood already.

[Adelante]

31. Sharpening my teeth

:D

[snowbear]

29. LOL Wyldwolf !!!

Hell.. Why wait?

Let's start the bellyaching right now!

....LOL!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Quoth John Cleese: "It's people like you what cause unrest."

Yes, for those of us who've been around awhile, the cycles are fairly predictable.

Take note that we've entered a brave new world (that hath such creatures in it...) where we actually WON one. The history of this board has been one of the dispossessed keening and carping from the shadows; finally there's been a clear and undeniable victory, and we shall see how people adjust to this peculiar lack of misfortune.

There are peaks and valleys here, and the primary season is one of extreme emotion. Because of the idiotic proclivity of the Democrats to top-load the primaries so they can coronate their front-runner, it drives the real campaigning earlier and earlier. (To me, the longer the primary season the better: one can see who can take it and dish it out, one can see which messages resonate and it keeps the Republicans from being able to focus on any particular candidate until deep into the season. Early coronation gave us Kerry in '04 and much worse, gave us Mondale in '84 when we could have had a real winner like Hart.)

Yes, it's gonna get crazy, and yes, it's gonna stress the consensus spirit of the community, but what the hell: that's what pluralism's all about.

Snotty, opinionated and combative though I am, I can't think of another time in my life where I was as uncertain about what the hell was coming down the pike. The world is in a big honkin' mess, and we've injected ourselves as the big daddy, so we need to make a lot of it right. Sadly, we're the prime culprits for making so much of it wrong.

It's a time of great change, and I hope to see some serious maneuvering. There are many good candidates among the Dems and even a couple of not-so-horrible ones among the Republicans. The senate seats open are mostly Republican-held and many in jeopardy. The disgust many feel about the economy should be a major issue. Our thuggish international policy is a huge issue for an increasing number of moral people, and it will be in play.

More than anything, those jockeying for position to be president are mostly supporting players in the theatre of life, and this is good: we shall see who's got the right traits to make it right, and it'll be an ever-changing tussle.

Those who proclaim that they know who the ultimate contenders are are deluded, and for me, this is good: I want to see who can deftly position him/herself; it's not for shrinking violets, it's for those with the character and skills to right the many wrongs and move ahead with a sense of decency and diplomacy.

Of course, the infighting in the primary season isn't going to be so measured and fair, it's going to be between factions raging against other factions. Still, it's grand blood-sport, eh?

[Jennicut]

33. To disagree is a right under the constitution

But people abuse it. I think some of the discussion on this board is a little harsh. I am very liberal but because I have conservative parents I have had to learn the art of at least listening to the other side of an issue when I didn't want to. People who lead different lives and have different backgrounds CAN come together but you have to try first. There are some things about Democrats I dislike (hillary's pandering) and some things about Republicans that have impresssed me (Lincoln Chafee's not voting for the Iraq war). People have to be allowed to have their opinions without being overly attacked. I totally disagree with Wyldwolf on almost every issue as I am left of the DLC on most everything but I understand that one person has their views and I have mine. What we all agree on is that we must never go back to the constitution unraveling, greedy, corporate loving, evil leadership of George W. Bush. I watched the History Channel countdown of the presidents over the last few days and they were ALL better that Bush. I also watched the Mayflower-Desperate Crossing. The people who came to Massachusetts from England somehow became friends and allies of a Native American Tribe when other people from Europe were kidnapping the tribespeople for slaves and other bad things. Somehow, they relied on each other for protection and survival because they HAD to. I was impressed with the Native Americans for being trusting of the strange people who came uopn theirr shore and I was impressed with the Puritans for all they went through to have religious freedom. America has always been a fragmented society. North vs. South, immigrant vs. native, religous vs. atheist. But at least we have the freedom to disagree and we must fight to keep that freedom and other freedoms from being taken away. We will never agree on everything but one thing we can agree on is that we must get rid of the people who want to defy the constitution and take our freedoms away. We made a good step forward with the 2006 election and we must continue to fight against the main cause of America's problems, the neoconservatives. They will cling to power and are still in control of the Whitehouse for 2 more years.

[frankenforpres]

35. i like the debate if there are ground rules

i think the problems happen when people take it as a personal attack if you dont prefer the same candidate, or bring up strategy


some of the idealism is admirable, but when people are speaking about strategy and get attacked about ideology, it isnt fair