A few words for the Candidate Groupies

[Stinky The Clown]

I know ... the title of this thread starts out with a hint of derision. Good. Maybe it will piss you all off equally.

Now put that anger to some GOOD USE.

I don't give fat rat's ass who runs in the primaries and who wins them and emerges as our 08 candidate. Whoever it is will be subject to vicious attacks from the Republic Party and these attacks will be amplified in the Compliant Three Monkey Media. Your guy could be the spawn of a marriage between Mother Theresa and The Dali Lhama, with Jesus, Budda and Mohammed as uncles and he or she will **still** be attacked and made to look like (pick one) an inexperienced fool, a warmongering former general, a shrill, angry, power mad bitch, a shirker who lied to get some medals, bland, black, female, or whatever other wrong and detestable slime shot you can imagine. It will all be false - made up from whole cloth - but will be debated endlessly as if there were a there there. And from that monumentally disingenuous 'debate' will emerge a hoped for reality by the shooters of such slime.

So you see, here's the deal.

Promote your candidate all you want. Stand up for him and defend the lies that will be spewed. Do it loud and proud. Do it long and strong.

But STOP AND THINK the moment you feel the urge to say some shit about another one of our candidates or potential candidates.

In fact, pay attention to your fellow Democrats who support someone else and get VERY familiar with the defense they can each so skillfully mount for their guy. Memorize them. Know the facts.

Come the height of the next campaign season, when our candidate is finally chosen, you'll be right there because, in the end, you'll probably take **any** Democrat over any Republic. Your stake in this does not start and end with your guy.

Even in the run up to the primaries - indeed, even now - the slime machine is locked and loaded, all dialed in to the known targets.

DEFEND DEMOCRATS needs to be a rallying cry. Not lockstep blind faith. Not lockstep allegience. But fer krissakes, stand the fuck up for OUR GUYS.

That Quinnipiac Poll that just came out showing Clinton and Guilliani and McCain better than the Second Coming of Christ - and showing Kerry at the very bottom - is exactly the kind of thing we can expect. Insidious and purposeful.

Kerry's not my guy. But that poll just smells to high heaven of PURE BULLSHIT. While not 'my guy' I find him perfectly likeable and I hold him in high esteem. Further, the whole Kerry-as-Gaff-Prone meme is also PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT. If it were true, then the current idiot in the White House would be the biggest joke of the last and current millenia. There's not one person drawing breath who is unaware of *exactly* what Kerry meant with his 'voted for before he voted against' line or his line, more recently, about the troops and college. Were it Il Dunce who said it, all would be forgiven, the media would have modified the record to reflect the 'reality' and life would have moved along oh so placidly.

These 'events' will become tempests that quickly escape their teapots and it is up to **US** to defend and deflect. No one else is going to do it for us.

You know, your mother probably said something to you years and years ago that you ought to be listening to right now - but ONLY as it applies to Democrats: If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. I'd like to think we could extend that to our brethren on the other side, but you know damn fucking well they'll accept it from us, smile, and then turn it into some kind of weapon and shoot us with it. So fuck them. But please, don't fuck our own side, too.

Yeah, we all have issues and yeah we all have points of view and we all have good reasons for supporting - or not - one candidate over another. Fine. Talk about the REALITIES. Not some made-up bulshit or some Three Monkey Media talking point. Clark didn't teach how to overthrow governments at the School of the Americas, no matter how much a few interruptors wish that were the case. Edwards is not an uncaring, rich, opportunist lawyer who is power mad; he **clearly** genuinely cares about the least of us. Kerry HAS been involved his whole career in trying to right wrongs. Hilary Clinton really IS smart and formidable and much more President-worthy than most people want to acknowledge. Even Joe Biden is not in the least without redeeming abilities and a firm grasp on foreign policy.

Its easy to knock things down. It is FAR harder to build them up and keep them up. Our seemingly massive midterm win is, really, little more than a toe hold. The Republic Party still controls EVERY meaningful mechanism in popular society - particularly our second worst enemy, the Media. So don't help them by knocking our guys down.

From now to the 08 election, we ALL need to do one thng and do it all the damned time:

DEFEND DEMOCRATS

Isn't that why you're here?

[rox63]

1. Amen!!!

K&R!

[noamnety]

2. Some of us are here

as champions of social justice. That's your first goal too, right? Electing democrats is a means to that end, not the other way around.

If we were here to just defend democrats, we wouldn't have had a Lamont.

We prioritize our goals, and push the party to meet those goals. I'm less interested in identifying the candidates and pushing people to support those candidates as a goal in and of itself.

[blm]

6. Funny you should mention that - Qpiac is a Conn institution that loves Lieberman

and McCain. Kerry is likely also being targeted for some revenge for supporting Lamont.

[DancingBear]

52. And you know this how?

This is what many fear this place is fast becoming - random potshots with NO basis in fact.

"Qpiac is a Conn institution that loves Lieberman and McCain"

What did you do, just make that shit up?

Let me just say that I stone cold guarantee that I've forgotten more about Quinnipiac then you probably know.

Honestly, it gets harder by the day to view this place as being nothing more than an echo chamber for the Democratic Party - right or wrong.

The similarities between the "advocacy" boards for both "sides" is striking.

And that ain't good.

[DancingBear]

54. "champions of social justice. That's your first goal too, right?"

One would hope so, but I am beginning to think for many here it matters most who "wins."

As if the two are always related.

[Nimrod2005]

3. I will NEVER EVER vote for someone who has had his/her career built based on

I am just kidding.....:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Good post, thank you.

[blm]

4. Corpmedia has something else up their sleeve with this H2S - net neutrality and

the fact that Kerry will be overseeing the issue in January - they are FOCUSED on having their way and what better than to marginalize Kerry's voice the same way they did to Gore post2000? That and Kerry will also be overseeing the committee that will be seeking the overturning of the FCC ruling that gave them so much power.



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Stinky The Clown]

16. All the more reason for all of us to stand shoulder to shoulder in his defense

Thanks for the post.

[beachmom]

5. Fantastic post. And in that spirit, may I defend two other candidates

who I am not at this time supporting for president:

Edwards -- what a total BS attack on him from Walmart.

Obama -- I will defend him from the Christianist Right every day of the week. How dare they call him "evil" and "wicked"


The issues are what matters and that's what I hope we discuss the most.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Can we continue to roast Lieberman?

Since he's not a Democrat any more?

And I wonder just what kind of scenario would present itself if he decided to run for president again?

[Stinky The Clown]

17. In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert ..... He's Dead to Me ......

.... and he knows why.

[Island Blue]

8. Excellent post!

K & R! :kick:

[Schema Thing]

9. Actually the Kerry thing seems dead on, to me. btw, I like Kerry.

I decided some time back that the POTUS position was far to important to leave up to one's first impression.

Unfortunately, it would seem that I'm in a distinct minority.

Obama could eat babies and rape their mommies ritually, and his positives would be about where they are (sky high) until people became convinced beyond a doubt he was evil. It certainly isn't because Obama has proven himself a great leader, strategist, or foreign policy expert at this point, is it?

Nope, it's because Obama sounds and looks fucking awesome in an interview or a speech. Btw, I like Obama. He might make a great president, but his most vocal support right now comes from the same place GW Bush's support has <i>always/i> come from, the masses' shallow instincts.

Kerry puts people off. I don't know exactly why. I think people should just get over it, but they seem not to be able to. Kerry was never my choice for POTUS, but when people could equate him as the same, or even less, than Bush, I had to just throw up my hands and say wtf?

But yeah, the circular firing squad is no help.

[beachmom]

11. Kerry puts the MSM off is the point of the OP

The thing is I didn't go on the blogs until October '04, and I did my research reading regular publications and I really liked him. And I liked him even better after the debates! I'm a typical American. I just don't believe the "nobody likes Kerry" meme. Not at all.

[wisteria]

21. Me either, at least up until this lastest swift boating people have fallen for. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

22. If I read your post right, that was not the point of the OP

The point of the OP was much bigger than how Kerry was, and is still being, treated by the media.

It is about how we treat each other and how we treat candidates we may not support.

The media is surely part of the problem, but only tangential to the point of my OP.

[karynnj]

19. Except - remember that Kerry put off fewer people

than the other 2004 candidates. Having spent most of al afternoon trying various googles to find something from the Iowa caucus - I can TELL you Kerry got mostly very obnoxious press in 2004 - but he was able to win people in spite of it. He also impressed many of my Republican neighbors during his convention. They really liked him - but voted for the tax cuts. (They especially loved his daughters - and were impressed at how they had absorbed his values.

We don't know yet what would happen if the media targets Obama - because it hasn't happened. He is a genuinely nice guy, but it's hard to tell how anyone would handle it.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

10. I think the world would come to an end if we could just focus on the candidates' stand on ISSUES.

I agree 100% with your post. Let's keep the slime in reserve for the Republics's candidates.

[karynnj]

12. Thank you (nt)

[1monster]

13. Bravo!!!

:applause: Well said and it bears repeating.

[nashville_brook]

14. 2008 candidate groupism puts the cart before the horse

trot on over here to see why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x460564

or here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x460667

we may never have the astronomical margins we had in 2006 -- lets make sure we don't have to acheive a SUPER-MAJORITY to win another election.

[NoodleBoy]

15. word.... some people well into the 06 cycle were still in 04 primary mode

like their support of Kucinich, Dean, or Edwards would really make a difference now, or that it needs to be defended.

[elehhhhna]

18. P.S. Get of your computers and KILL EVOTING locally before the primaries

or they'll surely shove an idiot down our throats.

[wisteria]

20. I will certainly give it a shot. if I don't have anything good to say, say nothing.

Thanks for the great post.

[whometense]

23. A thousand amens.

Thank you for a great - and passionate - post.

And for a reminder of what really matters. We have quite enough work to do undoing everything Bush "accomplished" and trying trying trying trying to keep the media honest.

[politicasista]

24. Thanks. K&R!

:kick:

[europegirl4jfk]

25. K&R - One of the best threads I've seen here

As a European I was relatively new to American politics when I came here about two years ago and I never understood these "candidate wars". While many here have their favorite candidate I think the real fight should be brought to the Republicans and not to other Democrats.

[sandnsea]

26. Excellent!!

Spot on. Thank you.

:applause:

[kevsand]

27. Works for me...

I'd much rather slap around the repub hopefuls anyway. They squeal louder...

[childslibrarian]

28. I agree

Great post!
:woohoo:

[ProSense]

29. Excellent post!

But STOP AND THINK the moment you feel the urge to say some shit about another one of our candidates or potential candidates.

Snip...

DEFEND DEMOCRATS needs to be a rallying cry. Not lockstep blind faith. Not lockstep allegience. But fer krissakes, stand the fuck up for OUR GUYS.

Obviously, if the call is to stand up for our guys and defend Democrats, it automatically means against RW smear (or echoes of such) and media distortion.

If someone disagrees with a candidate/elected Democrat's position on any issue (Lieberman was once a Democrat), they should be free to say so. Understanding the difference between RW smear (which the OP ably defined) and legitimate criticism is important to healthy debate, and we can't effect cchange without healthy debate.

This post at The Premise raises a legitimate concern:

Now that my Thanksgiving meal has finally settled I think it’s time to take stock of where we are in this country. The elections were clearly a turning point politically, but as the Republican Party ably demonstrated over the past ten years that says nothing about good governance or the health of the American commonwealth.

It’s true that the Republicans are out of power in Congress. But it’s equally true that an entire generation of political operatives has only known Republican power, and that Washington, D.C. is itself still a vessel pregnant with such people. Too, much of the governmental bureaucracy that prints, taxes and spends our money was hired by or appointed by Republicans, and that’s not going to change overnight — or even in a few years. Republicanism is itself entrenched and must be excised.

George Bush still presides over a massive and misguided Republican machine that brought America most of the ills it now faces. And that machine isn’t going to stop on its own. If Democrats in Congress don’t throw open the shutters of our democracy and shine light on every corner of our government, then the cockroaches of neoconservatism and social injustice will simply bide their time and take up where they left off again when the pendulum swings back.

That’s what Dick Cheney has done for over forty years, and he’s been pretty good at it. Democratic presidencies were simply rest breaks for him, and Democrats need to adopt that same attitude. The 2008 horse race will be interesting, and elections themselves are always exciting because of the sudden-death nature of the wins and losses. But the real work of healing out country is going to take place over the long term, and it’s going to require an ability to remain undistracted by fanfare and spectacle.

Speaking of political operatives:

Some Reasons to Be Thankful, D.C. Style

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

By Susan Estrich

Snip...

Then there’s the war.

In a perverse way, it’s almost lucky George Bush is president and the Democrats control Congress. If John Kerry had won the election two years ago, things would still have gone downhill in Iraq, but there’d be no one very convenient to blame for it.

Kerry would say it wasn’t his fault, Bush would be long gone, and who would hold hearings attacking whom? Democrats would be, already, on their way out, instead of in; Republicans would be going nowhere, and the war would almost certainly not be going any better.

This way, think of all those hearings we have to look forward to.

And this person is supposed to be a Democrat!

[IndianaGreen]

30. Lieberman did not play the game by those rules you spoke of

and yet, he was welcomed back into the fold by his Senate cronies.

The rule book has gone out of the window.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Let's talk about that .......

..... as I said further up in this very post, Lieberman is dead to me and he knows why ......

But, yes, as you say, he was welcomed back to the caucus. I view that as a sign of pragmatic strategy more than an endorsement of the man. With our razor thin majority, I would rather have him in our house than theirs.

And keep in mind. Life isn't a snapshot. Those Kodak Moments are exactly that - moments. Life moves along and thngs change and evolve. Holy may stand there and appear to be gloating, but I'm glad I wasn't tasked with getting the stripes out of his shorts. Make no mistake, even in defeat, Ned Lamont was a win. A small one and one that didn't last, but they know we're here.

[IndianaGreen]

33. What we got here is the double standard

Progressives are demanded to support a right of center candidate, but if a progressive wins, the middle won't support the progressive.

Then we have the likes of Al From who takes pleasure in attacking progressives and throwing his support to the opposition, but if one of his DLC clones wins, Al From demands 100-percent loyalty.

Loyalty is a two-way street. If someone does not support LGBT and reproductive rights, and supports Bush's war and usurpation of powers, there is no way in hell I would support such a person no matter what letter follows their name.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Nobody's asking you to support someone like Joe

And why are we discussing him? He's not a Democrat.

As for the DLC/progressive stuff .......

[Cocoa]

41. you must be upset Sherrod Brown won

I remember how much you were counting on him to lose.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Your memory is faulty

Either you are getting too old, or the 1980s disco/drug scene was really good to you.

[Cocoa]

50. my memory is poor

but my searching ability is fair:

You posted:

I hope you are happy when Brown goes down to defeat in November, and that wicked witch gets reelected to the House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2107019&mesg_id=2107331

[IndianaGreen]

58. Let's put some context there, Mister O'Reilly!

This was in aftermath of the Paul Hackett flap when many DUers were upset with Chuck Schumer deciding who the nominee should be rather than the Democratic primary voters. Here is the entire post:

And the shitty way Hackett was treated will not win you any votes
and it has tainted Sherrod Brown on top of that.

I hope you are happy when Brown goes down to defeat in November, and that wicked witch gets reelected to the House.

After passions subsided, I was a supporter of Brown's campaign against DeWine, and you can check the later posts rather than engage in the selective quoting that Faux News is so famous for.

As to the "wicket witch" aka Mean Jean, I would like to see the DNC spend $300,000 for a recount in a district that is notorious for stolen elections.

[Cocoa]

65. my own joy that Sherrod Brown won is unqualified

he's exactly my kind of dem, and his being in the primary, and the dem party supporting him, was exciting to me.

:bounce:

I simply can't relate to wishing that a good dem like him lose to a republican, regardless of any "passion."

[IndianaGreen]

68. Except that I didn't wish Sherrod Brown to lose

and you are misconstruing my post, and series of post on the topic of Chuck Schumer's role in Ohio primary, for reasons known only to you.

Is there a reading comprehension problem here?

[OzarkDem]

32. All good points, thanks!

At this phase of the 2008 race I prefer to talk issues and policy, then review each candidates' positions. I don't know about anyone else, but I still feel I have a lot of homework to do before I decide on a candidate and it has more to do with policy than anything.

[NMDemDist2]

35. ahh geez Stinky-- do I hafta??

:digs_toe_in_the_dirt:


since I don't even have a "guy/gal" yet, I will be interested in reasoned arguments from my fellow DUers

and you can be sure I'll stick up for our folks anytime

but nothing like a good old fashioned flame war to get your heart going eh??

:popcorn:

[ElizabethDC]

36. Thank you!

My thoughts exactly - I think our beating up on the other Democratic candidates hurts us and helps the Republicans. We should spend more time talking about what's wrong with the Republicans and what's right with us. All of our candidates have their own strenghts and weaknesses, but we should focus on their strengths and try to offer constructive criticism when it comes to their weaknesses.

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Happily K&R'd

A voice of reason on these boards as always, H2S. I wish everyone on DU were as sane as you.

[mentalsolstice]

38. It really comes down to the character of the voter, not the candidate

As a psych major and a political junkie, I'm always interested in how a candidate plays to the public psyche. The current crop of '08 wannabes are all very credible, intelligent, articulate and capable. However, I'm interested in their perceived strengths and weaknesses with the public. I pledge to not go on a character assassination of any Dem. candidate, I'll save that for the other side. However, I hope we can talk about any candidate's weaknesses in a civil manner, and come up with ways to overcome such weaknesses and play up strengths...of all of them. Eventually, it's going to come down to one, and we'll all need to rally behind her or him. If we're too bloodied after the primary season, it'll be hard to do.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. I can't find fault in anything you posted! Thanks for adding it!

You're so very correct. Trouble is, around here, if anything negative gets said, no matter where it comes from, it starts a flame war. That's the fault of those who have as their only purpose to exault their guy and tear down all the others. Having said that, let me clarify ..... I throw that charge not at the average candidate partisan. I throw that accusation, and point my finger, too, at the one's who have as their only goal the tearing down of specific candidates. No need to name names. Hang here long enough and you'll recognize them.

In my book, they have no place here.

[mentalsolstice]

72. If we want to talk about weaknesses...

...let's talk about them constructively. There will NEVER be a "perfect" candidate. Hell, my perfect candidate would be just to the right of Karl Marx, but I know that's not happening. It's obvious who I support right now, but I can't say I agree with everything he has ever done or said. I just want to be practical (as in get someone in the WH with sense enough to come in out of the rain, or in this case to ask why the rain is not drinkable).

And I don't want our comments to come back to haunt us during the general election.

[nam78_two]

40. K&R/nt

[Clarkie1]

42. Why all the hostility against a legitimate poll? Just because you don't like the resuts?

You had me until you started this BS:

"That Quinnipiac Poll that just came out showing Clinton and Guilliani and McCain better than the Second Coming of Christ - and showing Kerry at the very bottom - is exactly the kind of thing we can expect. Insidious and purposeful."

Yeah, right.....

I agree with you 100% that Democrats need to stop attacking other Democrats and defend other Democrats from smear attacks, but why bring this legitimage poll into it? It shows your own bias.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. And what would 'my own bias' be, exactly?

The polling organization has been suspect for a while, much like some other polls we all know and love.

Further, what I said was, exactly, is 'the poll smells to high heaven' ... as some polls are wont to do. Have you seen the internals? The raw data? I haven't, but my logic (not my bias) tells me that any poll that shows Bill The Undertaker Frist scoring ahead of Kerry has some bias built in.

Please don't accuse me of bias unless you bring more than your opinion.

[Clarkie1]

45. I don't smell anything, and my nose is in quite good condition.

Frist and Kerry are neck and neck in the poll (within margin of error), and that seems reasonable to me at this time. Neither elicit "warm feelings" from most voters...they both come across as rather distant and airy, and have made some blunders. It also makes sense that Guiliani, Obama, and McCain are at the top. That fits my perception of pubic feeling overall towards these individuals.

Note they all have a "outside Wahington" or "Maverick" or "newcomer" bent to them. Guiliani and McCain benefit from the perception of being moderate and strong on national security...and non-partisan. Obama is Obama...his oratorial skills, good looks, intelligence, youth, have caught the imagination of the American people. They see him still as an non-career politician as well.

Results of the poll are not surprising, imo.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Okay, I'll say it more clearly then ........

From some specific points of view, this poll could be good news because it takes one of the candidates down. And that, maybe .... just sayin', not accusin' ..... could be good news to you.

But please ..... answer my original question .... what bias do *I* have?

on edit ...... It isn't about 'liking' the poll's results. Its about not *trusting* the results.

[Clarkie1]

47. You exhibited bias by dismissing the results of the poll.

I edited my comments above, by the way. I'm offline now, off to dinner and grading papers.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Okay, but when you get back .....

again I ask .... what bias?

And on second edit .... you know, your even having brought this issue up the way you did, in a thread where that little spiel about the poll was little more than tangential, and simply used as an example, kinda shows me some real bias.

Oh well.

[LittleClarkie]

56. Could you discuss a bit more how it's been suspect for a while?

What kind of results have they been coming out with that are suspect? I'm not that familiar with this polling organization, and I'm wondering about their track record.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. For the third (fourth?) time ........

What speific bias are you saying I'm carrying?

[LittleClarkie]

62. Compare usernames dear. That didn't come from me. I'm asking an honest question.

I don't think you have a bias. But I'm interested in what you know about this poll's history.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa!

You're right.

I really AM sorry!

[LittleClarkie]

70. No probs. Similar screen names. But I'd still like an answer to my original question

You said this poll was suspect. What are your reasons for calling it that?

[tavalon]

49. The voice of reason

Could you post this weekly in the primary war time?

[MH1]

51. Weekly? How bout daily!

[bonzotex]

53. Well said...k/r n/t

[LittleClarkie]

55. I tried to get folks to take a pledge not to bash each other

I kicked it about three times before I finally let it sink off the board. Good luck to you. If you can get some unity happening, more power to ya.

[venable]

67. I'd take that pledge

[LWolf]

57. I am not here to defend democrats.

I'm "here," whether at DU or any other political venue, for one purpose only. Issues. It's about issues. It's not about the Democratic Party for me. It never was, it never will be. I support the positive things the Democratic Party has accomplished. I don't support the things they do, or the reps, that are not helping, in my opinion, the issues I engage in politics to affect.

I'm here for social and economic justice. I'm here for a clean, healthy planet, and a clean, healthy food, water, and air supply. I'm here for biodiversity. I'm here for peace. I'm here for the underclasses, the independent minority, those that live and breathe outside political and social boxes.

[jgraz]

76. hear hear! That 'D' next to your name don't mean shit

...if you voted for the torture bill
...if you still support the PATRIOT ACT
...if you voted for the bankruptcy bill
...if you broke the Alito filibuster
...if you aren't out in front, trying to stop this Iraq insanity

Blind support of the 'D's makes us as bad as the Robopublicans. Our country needs Dems to deliver. We need to strongly support progressive candidates, and put strong leftward pressure on the non-progressives.

[LWolf]

79. Exactly. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

59. Hear, hear! AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!! K&R!!!

We should keep this kicked till the nominee is chosen...and the VEEP (Gawd - the VEEP wars were worse than the primary in 04!)

[MasonJar]

61. I totally agree with you. Everytime someone posts a poll on 2 or

3 of our great choices, I try to choose one, but firmly with the proviso that we have an incredible group of potential candidates and that I will be 100% behind the choice of the majority of democrats...I will work untiringly and unceasingly for our Democratic candidates. The alternative has been so earth-shattering on a global scale. Please listen to the above advice. If anyone, Dem or Pug, criticizes Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or any of the candidates on OUR side, defend them with your whole being, because that is what is at stake. These are incredible men and women who risk all in the Republican world and media to serve all of us. Please help the chosen win.

[GenDem]

63. Totally, absolutely, positively, whole heartedly agree!

[venable]

66. Beautifully said

and very important to remember.

I, for one, promise to heed this going forward, if I've not succeeded so in the past.

bravo.

[sendero]

69. Actually..

... I'm here to dissuade Democrats from nominating another loser. You pick your battles, and you decide what is important to you, and I'll do the same.

Just because someone is a "good Dem" doesn't mean they can run a successful campaign for president or even be a good president if elected. The fuck-Republicans part of my job is easy, the hard part is trying to figure out which direction our party should take.

When I see 15 rah-rah puff threads for candidate X, I get sick of it. And I'll bash as I see fit. There has to be some counter to the scads of deludinoids around here.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Well Lawwwwdy .... you're certainly free to do whatever ya want ....

.... but words and actions sometimes have consquences - intended and unforseen.

But I'm sure you know that.

[Eurobabe]

78. Hallelujah and pass the Manage hidden thread button

[ruggerson]

73. I'm as guilty as anyone of taking sides early on

and I do agree with much of what you write, but there is one thing you are missing.

The reason that gaffes and meaningless bullshit don't stick to Republic candidates as easily as they do with us, is that we often do not have a swift, agile, coordinated, beautifully, harmoniously orchestrated attack machine on our side. The Republicans have had it for a number of cycles now, first crafted by Lee Atwater and in the present day by Herr Rove.

When Kerry makes a gaffe, or botches a joke, the talking heads, the news organizations, the print and broadcast media are buried under a virtual BLIZZARD of faxes and memos from every Republican from the White House down to local dogcatcher, spinning the story in the way they wish it to be framed. The media are not conspiratorial mouthpieces (with the notable exception of Fox news) but much of the media is lazy and tabloid driven. If the Republicans spoon feed them a take, a frame, on a story, like they did masterfully with Kerry/Bush/Iraq/joke gone bad, the media will parrot the Republic line, because it is easy for them, it creates controversy (which the media adores) and it gives them a story of the day which swells ratings.

All this is a long way of saying we need someone in '08 who UNDERSTANDS how the media works and is able to punch back at the Republicans in a smart, effective, orchestrated, breathtakingly organized and relentless fashion. Kerry, God bless him, did not do this and still does not understand how to do this.

So, I disagree that we are the victims of the media in this - we are only the victims in the sense that we haven't played the rough and tumble game as well as the Republics have. Jim Webb and his masterful campaign manager showed us this cycle how Democrats should play on a national level. Whomoever runs in '08 needs to oversee a masterful war strategy and command the organizational power to make Democrats, all of us, overwhelm the lazy, corporate media with the message that we wish to see on television, framed in a fashion that forces our candidate to be the one that comes out smelling like a rose.

[RestoreGore]

74. I don't defend anyone who votes for war and torture

And I don't care what Party they represent. Period.

[RestoreGore]

75. I don't defend anyone who votes for war and torture

And I don't care what Party they represent. Period.

[intheflow]

77. Right on!

I don't even have time to enjoy the Repukes all turning to eat each other after this past election cycles before Dems on DU start turning on and eating each other. Thanks for a common sense post, Sparky.
:kick:

[cassiepriam]

80. Yes, everyone cool their jets. A lot can happen in the next 2 years.

Too early to predict anything.

[izzybeans]

81. Too true. The same should be said to the "Candidate anti-groupies" who seem

to post almost exclusively about how much they hate candidate (insert name). It's understandable to agree. But some well meaning DUers are getting drawn into pissing matches in threads whose purpose seem nothing more than amusement for well known toxic dumps.

A few of them are here for only that purpose it seems.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Very well said ..... that's the flip side and it might even be worse.

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. How many times does Clark have to change his position to such polar extremes on topics

as serious as Iraq for you to consider him absolutely beyond the pale, Husb2sparkly?

Bearing in mind that that almost all of the politicians went along with that war in Iraq to begin with, Clark's own "pronunciamentos" on the subject have been outrageously comical in their extreme nature and their diametric reversal. I mean they made Bush's paean on the aircraft carrier, seem distinctly lacking in poetic fancy.

Also, I wonder if your assertion that a disrupter here on DU claimed that Clark taught how to overthrow governments in the School of the Americas isn't a tad disingenuous. I have never seen that. It's common knowledge that it played a key role in those dirty wars, but I have only seen references to his supporting the continuing existence of that school for torture.

Otherwise, I'm with you 100%. Exposing the mendacity of the Republicans' noise machine is what many of us have never ceased tackling.

[AtomicKitten]

84. I agree with everything except

your analysis of the poll you referenced in the OP. It was a poll in which all kinds of people participated: Dems, Republics, indies, Episcopalians, ninjas, etc. The only bullshit element of it was the fact that it is not scientific and is a representation of those that chose to vote. Oh, and the hysterical response to it here at DU was also bullshit.

[ClassWarrior]

85. I call it DU's Eleventh Commandment...

To paraphrase the wrinkled, senile old actor who portrayed the American President in the 1980s:

Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Democrats.

NGU.