Why do some people post stuff off of the RNC website here?

[Cuban_Liberal]

There are posters here who seek to bash certain candidates every chance they get (no, I won't mention names). When you look at the stuff they post, then compare it with the RNC opposition-research pages, it's virtually identical, including the wording. I actually just read a post from one of these alleged 'Democrats' about how they were going to spend time tomorrow compiling a dossier about why John Edwards should not be VP. :wtf:

Do you think some of the so-called Democrats who post this stuff here are actually freepers?

[Lefty48197]

1. Freepers? In DU?

Freepers are like ants, mice, and cockroaches. Guess what? You got em.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Yeah, but when they protest' Oh, but I'm a GOOD Democrat'...

It's so damned transparent that they wouldn't know what a 'good Democrat' was if one bit them in the ass. I just wanna hurl, and scream 'Freeper! Unclean!'. :puke:

[boxster]

10. Proclaiming one's goodness...

should be your first clue that they are not who they proclaim to be! :)

To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks they doth protest too much.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Some are driven by pure hatred of certain candiates, too.

They just CAN'T get past the primary loss their candidate suffered, and so they focus on a particular candidate as 'the one' to blame for that loss. They will NEVER admit that that's what their doing, often engaging in the most elaborate rationalizations for their obvious, freeper-like posting activity.

It would otherwise be funny, if it wasn't so fucking tragic... :shrug:

[boxster]

12. True.

It's been pretty obvious - more so lately - that all participants at DU do not share the same goals.

Some of us realize that the Bush presidency is one of the worst things to ever happen to our country and understand that the only way to alter what he's done is boot him out of office.

Some would rather continue the attack dog politics of the primaries, even though the primaries have been effectively over for some time. Bitterness and anger are powerful motivators and can blind people to the realities of the world.

The reality is: John Kerry is the only person who can beat George Bush. All other considerations are now irrelevant.

Me, I just want to win in November. Kerry is going to need all the help he can get to beat the Bush money machine, and I'm going to do whatever I can to help him do just that. And, if others don't share that goal, screw 'em.

It's getting harder to tell "us" and "them" apart anymore....

[Skwmom]

14. The goal is to beat Bush.

Attack dog politics? I refuse to remain silent while Bush supporters are on tv and radio cheerleading for Edwards because they know he will hurt the Democratic ticket.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Edwards will not 'hurt the ticket'

Only raging paranoids believe such a thing, and engage in cheap-shot, one-liner attacks on him.

[DAGDA56]

4. They are getting smarter, though...

...I haven't seen anybody calling themselves bushisgreat123 or hotforwgal in a while...this could almost be another whole thread...obvious freeper names.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. Good point.

Actually though, I suspect some of them are going so out of their way to appear non-Freepish in their names, that they in fact, give themselves away. The content of their posts can't be as easily concealed though, at least to the trained eye.

[freetobegay]

3. Why is it it's only RNC talking points when about Edwards

& not the other candidates for VP? People in glass houses...

[Scoopie]

5. Actually, I saw quite a few "freeps" on Clark today

And I'm not a Democrat.
I'm an Independent - and proud of it.
(I'm still allowed here, right?)

On Edit: I wanted to note that, as proof, I voted for John McCain in the 2000 primaries against Bush. I would have been happy for a McCain OR Gore presidency - just not the extremist one the Supremes selected for me.

[freetobegay]

7. Yes you are welcomed here

And so you should be.

I was making a point about Edwards.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. Since my last one was deleted, I'll repost it.

I've attacked NO candidate for VP, so your 'glass houses' comment does not apply to me.

[whistle]

8. That's a possibility....

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. More than a possibility

Either they're clueless fools about what a 'good Democrat' is, or freepers.

[Skwmom]

15. So being a "good Democrat"

requires one to remain silent while the Republicans continue to manipulate the primary process?

[sangh0]

19. Yeah, that's the ticket

I'm glad you're telepathic to realize that posters mean what they've never, ever, said.

[AP]

54. According to that Stanford/UT-Austin study, Kerry and Edwards

were informed voters two most favorite candidates, and they even thought that Edwards had a better chance of beating Bush than Kerry.

I have no idea in the world how any reasonable person could conclude that a ticket with either of these guys on the top (or, even better, a ticket with both of them on it) was the product of Republican machinations.

If we had ended up with Lieberman-Dean, I'd want to hear your theories.

I know the RW press has tried hard to hurt Dems, but I think that study is excellent evidence that the primary process worked to pretty much come damn near the optimum result for Dems, and which can only get better if Edwards ends up on the ticket.

[Skwmom]

61. Informed voters?

Where is the list of information that was provided? Our country is in crisis. If the best the Democrats have to offer up for VP (who is a heartbeat away from the presidency) is a lightweight personal injury attorney with Edwards baggage, God help us. If Edwards is VP, not only will it take a *amn miracle for the Democrats to win in November, it will seriously hurt the image of the Democratic party (which is one of the reasons why Bush supporters are salivating for Edwards - he gives them a lot of bang for the buck).

[AP]

62. I think you know.

Send the professor an email and ask him for a copy of the report if you're really curious, but it's pretty obvious from reading the link below what they were considering: pretty much all available information about the candidates, much of it provided from the candidates' web sites (ie, everything the candidates wanted you to know about them) and they weren't even limited to those things.

This study contradicts everything you have said about Edwards.

And how in the world are these people in the study different from the rest of America. Even if you were right about Edwards, we'd still want a candidate who convince the rest of America (which clearly doesn't live in your Bizarro World). We're not electing the president of Bizarro World or the president of Skwmom and her social group which thinks like her.

We're electing the person who can convince Americans -- and this study was of people who represented America.

Even if I liked some other candidate, I'd still take this study seriously.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[Skwmom]

65. You're right. We aren't electing the president of Bizarro World

which is why voters won't support a guy who is on record channeling an unborn child. "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl."

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The media and Rove will use this to destroy Edwards in the general election . They will argue that either:

1) Edwards is another Democratic nut (as they readily point to Howard Dean who even a fellow Democrat called a nut)

OR

2) Edwards is another Democratic fraud and liar who lied to a jury during his closing arguments (he didn’t feel her inside him, talking to you ). They will ask, "Doesn't’t this remind you of the other Democratic fraud and liar who was so lacking in integrity that he lied to a federal grand jury?" Hint: there's a reason they love to compare Edwards to Clinton.

They will go on to say whether Edwards is a nut or just another fraud and liar, someone who channels an unborn child (for whatever reasons) is not presidential and is unfit to ascend to the highest office in this land. Bob Schaeffer on Imus described the moment when he determined that Howard Dean was unfit to be president as his "Hey Mabel" moment - Hey Mabel (Schaeffer’s wife), come listen to this concession speech (scream). Can "Hey Mabel ,come listen to the pundits discuss Edward’s channeling of an unborn child" be far behind if Edwards is on the ticket?

Furthermore, they will argue that if Edwards is just a convincing fraud and liar (and not just another Democratic kook) he must be lying about more than just channeling an unborn child. They will point out that Edwards has tried to paint himself as a man dedicated to uplifting the poor and downtrodden. However, they will inform the voting public, the truth is that "Edwards is just another snake oil salesmen, another Bill Clinton" Will it be a challenge for the Republican party to define Edwards as a phony, as a smarmy personal injury attorney who only cares about lifting himself up to office of the presidency? Spend 20 minutes researching Edwards on line and you'll come up with a resounding NO.

Kerry already has his own image problems. Putting a personal injury attorney with Edwards baggage on the ticket would be political suicide and the dumbest political move of the century.

[AP]

66. That post is straight out of bizarro world.

What do you think that study got so wrong?

[sangh0]

68. I have to agree

that poster makes all sorts of supernaturalistic predictions about the future, while criticizing Edwards for claiming (in a case where he won a huge settlement) that he could metaphorically speak to the dead

[AP]

69. That was my first audible DU chuckle of the day.

(By the way, the baby was alive at the time of the trial (albeit, a minor, with some brain damage) -- he wasn't claiming he could speak to or for the dead.)

[sangh0]

63. I hope you realize

that making predictions about future elections while denying any possibility that you might be wrong is not going to improve your credibility.

[HFishbine]

21. If

If you'll post your rules for being a good democrat, we'll try to comply...









not.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. One Rule, the 11th Commandment:

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Democrat."

Simple, easy to remember, and to the point.

[HFishbine]

30. Seriously?

Seems like we'll stagnate if we follow that one.

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. 'Stagnate'?

Legitimate criticism, as opposed to posting totally debunked bullshit, would not violate the rule. "Speak ill" generally means 'lie', in my neck of the woods...

:shrug:

[Skwmom]

13. So you're a freeper if you think Edwards would sink

the Democratic ticket? Based on some of the logic displayed in this post I guess all of those Bush supporters on tv and radio pushing for Edwards are actually closet "good Democrats?"
Thanks for the chuckle.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. I think anyone who attacks a solid, viable VP candidate...

... certainly opens themself and their motivation up to close scrutiny, especially when that person was known to support a different candidate in the primaries, in particular a candidate who has MANY supporters who somehow blame Edwards for that candidates astonishgly poor showing at the polls.

If the shoe fits... :shrug:

[sangh0]

20. I like the way skwmom

figures out what you really meant, even though you never said

1) "you're a freeper if you think Edwards would sink the Dem candidate" or

2) "everyone should keep quiet about how the Republicans are manipulating the Democratic primaries"

[sadiesworld]

24. Actually skwmom's interpretation seems pretty much on the $:

Cuban Liberal: "I think anyone who attacks a solid, viable candidate certainly opens themself and their motivation up to close scrutiny..."

skwmom: "You're a freeper if you think Edwards would sink the Dem candidate"

Seems to me that C.L. is saying your motives are suspect if you "attack" Edwards.

[sangh0]

28. wow, big surprise

but "close scrutiny" does not mean "Freeper!"

Seems to me that C.L. is saying your motives are suspect if you "attack" Edwards

I love the "Seems to me" ploy. It "seems to me" that someone can to use "seems to me" to make up an excuse to say anything.

It "seems to me" that someone here is a Freeper.

It "seems to me" that you just said you love Bush*

[sadiesworld]

35. Gee, I simply thought "seems to me" was a way of saying:

It appears to me
In my opinion
I think
From here it looks like

Using your logic, I'm not sure what the purpose of this forum is.

[sangh0]

42. Them you thought wrong

An opinion is not "what seems to me". What "seems to me" is NOT what "I think"

Anything can "seem to be" whatever you want it to seem like, which probably explains why you never explain WHY it "seems to you"

[sadiesworld]

47. "Seems to me" contains an inherent element of subjectivity.

It is akin to saying "it appears to me" or "my impression is". No, C.L. did not specifically state "those who attack Edwards are freepers", but that was the impression I was left with. If it had been stated verbatim, there would have been no need for the SEEMS TO ME.

How was I left with the impression (why did it seem to me) that C.L. was implying that those who attack Edwards are freepers? He discusses "certain" candidates being attacked yet only refers to one by name...Edwards. He specifically questions whether a DUer's compilation of a dossier (on why Edwards shouldn't be VP) gives rise to the question of whether DUers who do these things are dems or freepers. There is also a broader context, i.e., C.L.'s support for Edwards in previous posts.

[sangh0]

48. Yes, it does

Which is why it such an incredibly weak way to support an argument. Even explaining the reasons *WHY* it "seems to you" is better than merely saying "it seems to me", but you haven't even done that.

IOW, instead of justifying your opinion, your whole argument "seems to be" that you have a right to state what things "seem to you", but you won't argue that you are actually right about that. You only insist that those things really do "seem to you" to mean that.

It is akin to saying "it appears to me" or "my impression is". No, C.L. did not specifically state "those who attack Edwards are freepers", but that was the impression I was left with. If it had been stated verbatim, there would have been no need for the SEEMS TO ME.

And again, you fail to explain how CL's words "seem to you" to mean something completely different than what he actually said. All we get is "that was the impression I was left with"

ANd exactly what did you expect CL to state "verbatim"? Do you really expect that CL should deny anything and everything his words might "seem to" mean to anyone, no matter how wacked out it may be?

Since you didn't "state verbatim" that you don't like Bush*, it "seems to me" that you must love Bush*. (See the fallacy in that logic, now?)

Even curiouser, is that you continue to hang on to your distorted interpretation even though CL has explicitely denied that he did not mean what you think his words meant.

There is also a broader context, i.e., C.L.'s support for Edwards in previous posts.

Why do you think that every Edwards supporter is a Freeper? Ar least, it "seems to me" that that is what your words meant, and you haven't "stated verbatim" otherwise.

[sadiesworld]

55. An analogy.

Bush gave the impression that Saddam was behind 9/11. He never explicitly stated that Saddam was involved, yet "it seemed" to many (still does, unfortunately) that there was a connection. By your logic, since Bush never "stated verbatim" that Saddam was behind the attacks, it is foolhardy to suggest that he ever intended to convey that impression.

Moreover, once Bush has stated that he had no such intention, we should all move along because only HE knew what he meant.

That is the fallacy of your logic.

(Not to compare anyone to *, just a ready example)

[sangha]

56. Bad analogy

When it comes to Bush*'s remarks, there are dozens of them where he calls Saddam a terrorist, and dozens more where he speaks of Saddam's potential links to terrorists.

When it comes CL's remarks, there's one or two, plus your perceptions. In addition, you have yet to offer any reasonable explanation (or any explanation at all) for why CL's remarks "seem to" mean what you think they mean.

You "seem to" think that there's no difference between an opinion that's backed by dozens of examples, and one that has absolutely no evidence to support it other than your own (possibly mistaken) perceptions

[sadiesworld]

58. Ah...a new player.

Sorry Sangha, but the analogy was meant as a rebuttal to Sangh0's Principles Of Logic which include "Since you didn't 'state verbatim' that you don't like Bush...". Please reread the post in that context.
We have lost a bit of the relevance of the original discussion.

Back to the beginning : My original statement was that it seemed to me that C.L,'s implication was that bashing Edwards raises suspicions (red flags, even) about whether you are a freeper.

I break it down into three categories: Edwards/Attack/Freeper.

Edwards. Although C.L. (jeez, I hate to continue to refer to him/her when s/he isn't here) does refer to "certain candidates" s/he only mentions Edwards specifically, the only example of possible bashing refers to Edwards, and C.L. is a "known" Edwards supporter. (But I will be on the lookout for those POSITIVE Clark posts).

Attack. Inarguably my weakest link here. C.L. does refer to the RNC talking points in his original thread, but you may notice that s/he later acknowledges that that the use of RNC talking points is not critical to the freeper determination.

Freeper. Sangh0, at post 28, argues that "close scrutiny" does not mean freeper, while C.L. argues at post 29 (oops, no conference time there) states that if "it walks like a duck..."

BTW, I think the thread not only implies that Edwards-bashers are freepers but intentionally "chills" any discussion along these lines.

Tis late...tomorrow.

[sangha]

59. Sorry for the confusion

We're the same person.

Basically, CL mentioned that there are several factors in identifying the ducks. Since there are several factors, I don't understand how it could possibly "seem to" mean that all it took was one factor - criticizing Edwards.

In fact, the criticizing Edwards didn't seem to be a requirement. Instead, it was mentioned as being a pattern for just one particular poster. Again, I don't see how that "seems to" mean that it's a requirement.

And I also don't see how the saying "If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it's a duck" would "seem to" mean that there it only takes one factor, when one of the morals of the story is that you shouldn't make judgements based on one factor. And though it's not explicit, "close scrutiny" also suggests that one avoid a hasty judgement, such as one made based on one factor.

So both in tone and in arguments, CL's posts have suggested that Freepers are identified by using a profile that is not as simple as the one you assert. And even if what someone has said really does "seems to" mean something, the fact that CL has explicitely stated that that is not what was meant should have tipped you off that maybe CL did not mean what you think it "seems to" mean.

[sadiesworld]

60. Please reread post 18.

[sangh0]

64. What about it?

I read and I don't see how it helps your case. CL merely argues that a certain pattern of behavior justifies "close scrutiny". CL does not say that that pattern of behavior means the poster is a Freeper.

Once again you cling to one statement while ignoring all the others, and misinterpret the one statement to boot. As I said earlier, "close scrutiny" implies consideration of many factors, not just one.

[sadiesworld]

74. Do you remember the statement that started this?

"Seems to me that C.L. is saying your MOTIVES ARE SUSPECT if you attack John Edwards." (post #24). Close scrutiny=Suspect motives?

As to the "pattern of behavior" argument:
In both posts #18 and #29 other factors are discussed, however, the use of "especially when..." indicates that those other factors are not necessary to raise suspicions, i.e., they are not preconditions. The only consistently required factor is the bashing of Edwards.

Additionally, you have not only argued that my interpretation was/is incorrect but that it is "wacked (sic) out". In fact, so whacked out that you feel free to imply that I am a Republican and I have a pathological hatred of babies. Thanks and have a nice day! :)

[sangh0]

79. Do you remember how to read?

"Seems to me that C.L. is saying your MOTIVES ARE SUSPECT if you attack John Edwards." (post #24). Close scrutiny=Suspect motives?

Clue phone sez - "Suspect does not mean proven"

In both posts #18 and #29 other factors are discussed, however, the use of "especially when..." indicates that those other factors are not necessary to raise suspicions, i.e., they are not preconditions

I think you meant "the use of 'especially when' SEEMS TO indicate..." because the words "especially when" does NOT mean "other factors are not necesarry", just as "suspect motives" does NOT mean "the poster is a Freeper"

Additionally, you have not only argued that my interpretation was/is incorrect but that it is "wacked (sic) out". In fact, so whacked out that you feel free to imply that I am a Republican and I have a pathological hatred of babies. Thanks and have a nice day! :)


And again you show you incomprehension of written language. I didn't say you have a pathilogical hatres of babies. I said your words SEEMS TO indicate that you have a pathological hatred of babies.

[sadiesworld]

83. So you are now agreeing that my interpretation is/

was not "wacked (sic) out", at least insofar as the "suspect motives" part is concerned?

As for my analysis of the "especially when..." phrases, I am simply pointing out that they are independent clauses. The sentence(s) operate perfectly well w/o them. These are rules of construction used in order to determine intent.

And thank-you for pointing out that the "republican" and "babies" comments were not meant to be insults. I would hate to think that we would end this exchange (and end it will) on such an uncivilized note.
It would be such a departure from the rest of your posts. LOL

[sangh0]

84. No

I am saying your interpretation "seems to" indicate that you are very good at understanding written English.

And "especially when" is NOT how an independent clause starts.

[sadiesworld]

85. It "seems to me" that you are arguing that

"especially when" means "only when"

And this time I mean it...gotta run.

[sangh0]

87. Especially

from dictionary.com

"adv 1: to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common; "he was particularly fussy about spelling"; "a particularly gruesome attack"; "under peculiarly tragic circumstances"; "an especially (or specially) cautious approach to the danger" 2: in a special manner; "a specially arranged dinner" "

I see nothing about it meaning "only when"

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. I'm amused at how you all spin what you THINK I meant, rather than...

taking what I said in plain English at face value. Speaking ill of any solid, viable candidate for VP (and that includes Clark, Gephardt, et al), especially when one regurgitates debunked RNC fax-blast talking points to do so, should makes the poster's motivation in posting the garbage for the umpteenth time a reasonable area of inquiry.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then the 'betting odds' are that it's a duck.

:shrug:

[sadiesworld]

32. So is it the "duck" a freeper?

Thanks for making my point.

[sangh0]

33. It "seems to me"

that you just admitted to being wrong.

SO where's the apology?

[sadiesworld]

36. Not in the least.

[sangh0]

43. It "seems to me"

that you are avoiding personal responsibility, which "seems to me" to be a trait of republicans

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. I didn't make your point.

I made MY point.

[sadiesworld]

37. Which is?

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. Read it again.

I said it plainly.

[sadiesworld]

40. Are DUers who attack Edwards freepers?

That seems to be the gist of your thread, IMO.
:shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. In your opinion.

That's NOT what I said, however.

[sangh0]

45. Why do you think anyone who attacks Edwards is a Freeper?

It "seems to me" you think anyone who criticizes Edwards is a Freeper. Why are you being so close-minded?

[sadiesworld]

49. I guess the only thing I can take away from this little exchange...

is that I can discuss Edwards' faults to my heart's content, and my motives won't be questioned.

Thanks.

BTW, I think he is a baby-faced, lightweight and the RW media will rip him to shreds. :7

[Padraig18]

50. They'll have a field day with anyone we nominate, or try to.

Even Clark, who certain people mistakenly believe is invulnerable to kryptonite, can leap tall builidings at a single bound, catch bullets in his teeth, etc. ... :eyes:

[Skwmom]

67. It's much easier to attack a personal

injury attorney with Edwards baggage.

Attacking someone like Clark who has dedicated his life to serving his country is not so easy. You have to worry about voter backlash for attacking such a stellar American.

[AP]

70. They'll attack Clark by driving a wedge into the left.

They'll say that he wasn't even a Dem until recently, and they'll remind people that he has made a lot of money from trying to sell things to the defense department. They'll also point out that he and Kerry didn't agree on Iraq, and then they'll trot out all the people who will recharacterize is intelligence as aloofness and question his leadership skills.

They'll also use the fact that the ticket is all about military service to make Americans forget that there are class and economic issues at stake and they'll hope that if the only things people think about are terror, they'll still vote for Republicans because it's the Republican world view that terror is the only issue.

I'm not saying it'll work. I'm just saying it is ABSURD to think that they don't have an attack prepared for every candidate.

[Skwmom]

72. Driving a wedge into the left?

You mean like Edwards rah rah support of the war will do?

[AP]

73. Since he wasn't much different than Kerry on that issue,

I don't see how much more of a wedge Edwards would create.

[Cuban_Liberal]

75. No it isn't.

They'll trash Clark over his supportive statements about Bush, et al, about his speaking at a fundraiser for Repubs, etc. . Trust me, WC will be smeared just as easily as anyone else, and it's naive to think otherwise.

[AP]

77. In fact, he already got trashed pretty badly

and it sort of worked, whereas Republicans tried to trash Edwards on all skwmom's issues back in '98, and when he annoucned they issued the longest list of hits against him than for any other candidate running, and Edwards kept going up.

They've smeared everyone, and the best candidates are the ones whose trajectories have only gone up -- that would be Edwards and Kerry.

[sangh0]

51. Why do you hate babies?

It "seems to me" that your comments reveal a pathological hatred of infants.

[AP]

23. If the freepers on TV really wanted to sink the Democratic ticket with...

...Edwards, he'd be the nominee today.

They wouldn't have wasted their time propping up Dean all summer and giving him twice the coverage they gave all non-Dean candidates combined, they wouldn't have showed up in Edwards's drive way when his announcement was leaked (thus making moot an expensive and planned announcement in Robbins), they woudn't have given Clark so much coverage the week and day he announced (the day Edwards had his official announcemtn), they would have talked about Edwards's surpise second place in Iowa for the week between IA and NH, rather than about Dean's scream, they wouldn't have given him the second least coverage in the month of December, they would have talked about Edwards's policies (rather than only about his personality when they did talk about him), etc. etc.

If the right wing REALLy wanted to spoil the ticket with Edwards, Edwards would be the nominee today.

Remember this study: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

Why is an academic study better able to win Edwards support than the vast right wing media conspiracy? Clearly, if they wanted Edwards on the ticket, they would have been able to do a better job, given the fact they woud have been trying to convert peopel to the easiest candidate to convert people to.

[sadiesworld]

25. You might want to point out that the study results (for what they

are worth) only apply to Kerry and Edwards.

[AP]

52. I'd only do that if I wanted to be a liar.

The study ran from Jan 19th to Super Tuesday.

There is no indication the study didn't cover all the candidates, it it makes no sense that, on Jan 19th, they would have limited it to Kerry and Edwards.

The materials provided at the PBS site (which gives examples of the questions the participants asked the experts -- one of the three parts of the study) indicate that they were thinking about Clark, and their questions were answered about him.

There is absolutiely no logical reason to infer Clark wasn't part of the study and I'd never lie to DU'ers by pretending he wasn't.

[Padraig18]

53. But, but, but....

... don't you know the only reason Clark didn't win the nomination was because of the RW media conspiracy? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that more primary voters preferred another candidate--- none.:tinfoilhat:

[sadiesworld]

71. I said the study RESULTS only applied to Kerry and Edwards.

Perhaps people should click onto the study and decide for themselves.

[AP]

78. The study results were that Edwards had the greatest rate of

improvement, and that Kerry won (and the implication was that, with more time, Edwards probably would have overtaken Edwards).

The results didn't "apply" to Clark because his results weren't that good.

Your logic is circular. Don't trust this study as a fair judge of Clark becuase Clark wasn't covered in the results. Huh?

Seriously, your argment was that Clark wasn't included in the study, which you now know is not true, apparently, becuase you've come up with this bizarro world alternative explanation.

[sadiesworld]

81. Projecting a bit, are we?

My original response at #25 clearly refers to RESULTS. You are the one who jumped ship and decided that I was arguing that Clark wasn't included in the study. I said from the beginning that he WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE RESULTS.

Moreover, people might want to look at the actual study to determine what it means. Why do you have a problem with that?

[AP]

82. Circular logic, much?

I don't want people to read the study, yet I've referred to it dozens of times and provided a link to it almost every time?

Yeah, I'm trying to hide the study.

I presume it's those same logic skills that you're applying in order to come to your conclusions about the candidates, no?

By the way, for you, what's the significance of saying that Clark wasn't included in the resutls?

Does that discredit the conclusion? Does it mean this study ISN'T an excellent rebuttal of the wildest of acusations about Edward not be appealing to moderates and to all voters? Is the study not an excellent rebuttal to Skwmom's claim that the more people learn about Edwards, the less they'll like him? It's clear that the story from this study concluded that Edwards campaigned really well and was building great support and might have gotten the nomination if he had more time and more people came to know more about all the candidates. That Clark isn't mentioned suggest that there wasn't much to say about him, don't you think?

I'll agree with you insofar as I'll say that we don't know how Clark did precisely without seeing the entire report. However, for the purpose of making a pretty good argument about Edwards to rebut some of the stuff said here, I don't think we need much more. He obviously did bettter than Clark among informed voters, and that's what we're arguing -- if you have all the information you need, who are voters going to like.

[Mountainman]

26. They think they are doing something to help Bush get elected

It's what they do to feel good about themselves.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 3:46:11PM EDT, Wednesday, May 12, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
4 days,
8 hours,
13 minutes, and
49 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Padraig18]

44. I wonder, quite honestly.

When posters continue to attack fellow Democrats by posting previously debunked 'news' stories, etc., including repeated attacks against the handful who are being vetted for VP, you just have to wonder whether these folks are Democrats/progressives at all, or just freepers in disguise...

:shrug:

[bushwakker]

46. Freepers or Greens...what's the difference.

they both vote for Bush.

[bitchkitty]

57. I know just how you feel.

When Dean was the front runner, sometimes I couldn't believe I was reading DemocraticUnderground. Even now, there are some "Democrats" who can't stop criticizing him. I feel kind of sorry for them, actually. It must be HELL not being able to move on.

[Cuban_Liberal]

76. Ain't it the truth?

Some people just have to wallow in the bitterness they feel because their guy didn't make it, and purge themselves of that bitterness by attacking others who stayed in longer and did better.

:shrug:

[bitchkitty]

86. Luckily, most Dean supporters

have moved on - to supporting other grassroots efforts as well. The Dream didn't die with Dean's candidacy. I only hope that Kerry will inspire such loyalty to the Democratic process. How nice that would be!

[sangh0]

80. That just proves one thing

Some people CAN argue with success.