Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[tedoll78]

1. My biggest complaint..

is that they all attack each other way too much. I'd like to see everyone aiming their barbs at the Chimp. His numbers come down when this happens.

[napi21]

4. It'll be over soon/

Don't get your shorts in a tightwad. Remember Bush/McCain?

This primary will be over in six weeks.

Yes, they are throwing darts at one another, but that's the way it has to be. It's obvious who is leading by the munber of arrows thrown at only one!

Kerry is a good guy, but just isn't coming across well.

You also have to remember that the last "elected" Presidents were Governors. Nixon, Clinton, & Bush.

I think the public is always attracted to candidates without much connection to the corruption of Washington.

[tedoll78]

5. Oh..

I'm not fretting too much about it. I just named pretty much my #1 complaint.

Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll be over on February 3rd. Wouldn't that be sweet? Then the Doc would be able to camp-out in Ohio and Pennsylvania for a month or so. We really need those states..

[Yupster]

7. Agree Napi

Four years ago, or was it in 96 that the Republicans had just as many candidates running. It works itself out pretty quickly once the primaries start.

The people who come in last or close to last leave. These are all proud egotistical people. They're not going to stay in and embarrass themselves.

[Yupster]

8. Reagan was a governor

Neither Nixon or Bush I were.

[regnaD kciN]

14. Mine isn't just the attacks per se...

...but that so many of them are not over the issues, but simply over the claim that "so-and-so can't win in November" -- especially since this assesement is unprovable, and can only be pulled out of thin air.

If you don't like a Candidate A's policies, don't support them. But don't decide to not support them only because Candidates B and C (who have the most to gain if A loses) announce that A is "unelectable," without any further "proof" than that the rival candidates are saying it over and over.

[joefree1]

2. Then read this

June, 1992
Ominous Polls:
A look at the Gallup polls over the past few moths show why Democrats are becoming increasingly nervous about putting Clinton at the head of their ticket.
In a head-to-head match up on March 20, Bush led by only 52-43 percent and Clinton was indeed within striking range. But as the weekly disclosures took their toll during the ensuing primaries, Clinton's margin fell to 54-38 percent on March 29 and then fell further to 54-34 by the beginning of April.
Edit ...
Quayle campaign committee, "We're following the Napoleonic maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves."
http://www.worldandi.com/public/1992/june/cr6.cfm

Relax, we Democrats can take it. We're tougher, more talented, more diverse, and better looking then the rethuglicans.
Joefree1 :toast:

"If you have no enemies, it is a sign fortune has forgot you."
- Thomas Fuller (1608 - 1661)

[emanymton]

3. Don't Be.

It is called democracy.

The people must be allowed to discus _all_ issues before the final decision is made. Then after all have had their chance to speak, make the decision as to whom will be the leader and then do all to make the decision work for all!!!

Regardless of the outcome of the Primaries, work together to change the regime!

[Dookus]

6. fear not...

this is how the system works. It helps ensure we get the best candidate. We are NOT a homogeneous group of automatons. The candidates MUST make their case to a variety of people and groups to get the nomination. Distinctions MUST be made between the candidates. It's the only way.

It's perfectly healthy in a democracy. Believe me, you could look at campaigns from a hundred or more years ago and you'd be shocked at the level of discourse. Things are actually better today in this regard than at most any point in the past.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

17. I disagree...

I was slammed in another forum for making the simple assertion that a Bush election in '04 will not mean the end of our constitutional government.

This country has been through much worse than this punk-ass president. We will survive him.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

57. and they had good reason to worry....

the republic was in its infancy. The institutions of democracy were just being put in place. It was an extremely precarious time for the nation.

Since that time, however, we have endured a civil war, two world wars, awful presidents, depressions, etc. etc., and I still was able to vote just two months ago.


Things will have to get a HELLUVA lot worse before I lose faith in our ability to endure one dumbass in the White House.

[no name no slogan]

42. Thank you for saying this

Our country can withstand another four years of ShrubCo. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to read their history.

For fucks sake, this country endured a FOUR-YEAR civil war in the 1860s-- and the government did not collapse!

Our president lied to us about a "terrorist" attack in Havana Harbor in the late 1800s. We attacked and occupied Cuba, questioned dissidents, and became scarily jingoistic, too. HOWEVER, the constitution stood strong, and our government did not collapse.


We faced a much greater challenge in wwII, when our nation was directly attacked by another-- and we continued to have free, fair elections!

Our government DID NOT fall apart when Nixon was to be impeached by the Senate-- three months later, we STILL had congressional and senate mid-term elections!

People who are honestly afraid of ShrubCo suspending the constitution are deluding themselves and are buying into the same fear propogated by Rove and his mediawhore allies.

Yeah, things look bleak, but they looked this way in December of 1968, too, after Nixon won. And we survived that.

[CWebster]

9. John Kerry is the worst violater, Pete

You seem like a decent guy, but I like less and less what your candidate is made of.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

21. Kerry is no violater

Kerry is the one candidate that can prove he is against special interest. He is no violater.

You care about this planet you live on? Go read Kerry's record on the environment.

Pete is right. It is very sad that intelligent people have bought into Dean's propaganda. Yes, PROPAGANDA!

[CWebster]

24. Kerrygoddess?

...

[kerrygoddess]

28. Yes!

You have a problem with that?

[mouse7]

39. No, but Teresa might. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

53. Not

Actually Teresa knows that the kerrygoddess is in John Kerry's corner!

[JNelson6563]

34. heh heh

CWebster...;-)

Julie

[CWebster]

29. Sorry Pete

Kerry seems to be getting worse. I am sorry - and I am sorry that he has been such a big disappointment. Personally, Kerry is the one candidate who I have the least sympathy for and the greatest discomfort level with. I don't like him--the way he looks, the way he acts and interacts, the way he pontificates, his egoism, his inappropriateness, his poor timing, his pettiness, his lack of political talent. It is painful to witness.

Sorry, Pete.

[kerrygoddess]

31. Wow nice description of DEAN!

Let me repeat that in case you don't get it -

Wow nice description of DEAN!

Totally!

[CWebster]

38. totally?

Well, in Dean's case it seems to be a winning formula...

[w13rd0]

32. Um, it's not just those on the left....

...it's also a fair number of those on the right, some in the center, some who call themselves moderates. Kerry isn't running a good campaign.

[blm]

43. Dean has been pond scum from the beginning. Frank Luntz helped propel him

as soon as Dean started gaining traction by ATTACKING the other Dem candidates.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

49. "Pond scum," eh?

Yay, hyperbole!

There are plenty of candidates I don't like, but I wouldn't use a term better suited to pedophiles to describe them, as it would make me sound like a hysterical nut case in dire need of a rubber room.

[Scott Lee]

50. viciousness = desparation

Easy equation.

[Leilani]

10. The Primary process

makes the nominee stronger.

If there was no opposition & debate, the candidate will not be as effective in the GE.

Bush was a clown when he ran against McCain; by end of primaries he had improved quite a bit.

Of course he was still the same idiot, he just seemed better.

[patricia92243]

11. Perk up- you've just fallen for Republican hype - things are no worse than

the last primaries when there were a bunch of Republican hopefuls.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

20. Wrong

Pete has not fallen for any Republican hype, nor is he fallling for Dean's hype it appears!

[BeyondGeography]

13. How can you work for Dean?

If you respect John Kerry's lifelong commitment to progressive values, you'll be working for a guy who used his IWR vote to position Kerry as Bush Lite. This from a guy who was fighting for bike paths in Vermont when John Kerry was exposing the Iran Contra lies of the Reagan Administration. And Kerry is regularly mocked and openly despised by many Dean supporters. I respect your loyalty to the party, but can you put your feelings for Kerry aside for a guy who has basically trashed him?

The fact that such questions can even be asked is a problem for the party. I'm ABB as much as the next guy, but Dean supporters are either indifferent to or ignorant of the amount of intra-party damage their beloved is causing. Dean is a lifetime moderate who has moved left and played up his outsider status to pump up his candidacy. And it has worked for him, brilliantly.

But, here's the problem: Dean has walked himself so far out on a rhetorical limb, he's going to have to spend half his time trying to unite the party if he wins. He was asked today if he thinks Ted Kennedy is a sellout because he sponsored No Child Left Behind. Didn't answer; that's how bad it's getting.

The worst thing about all of this discussion is that it's not about ideas! That's because there's so little to separate Howard ideologically from his opponents. If anything, he's often to the right of most of the supposed Bush Lite sellouts. The main policy differences are about a war vote which is not terribly relevant anymore, because all the candidates now basically all agree we can't cut and run from Iraq. So we're talking about Dean and the un-Dean, and the whole thing runs the risk of going brain-dead, and, yes, it appears we will be a divided party no matter what the result.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[BeyondGeography]

30. Fine, but who's to blame for your present disappointment?

I'd be interested to know. Is Kerry losing because he's run an ineffective campaign? Is he losing the battle of ideas? Is he a victim of the year of the outsider?

I'm interested to hear your analysis.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

18. I believe Kerry can pull the party back together

Pete,

I believe Kerry can pull the party back together! I know that you do too!

It's the process Pete, as much as we all dislike it, it's the process. It happens in every Primary and yes, in many ways this one is more significant.

Dean will not refrain from attacks and he uses his sly attack methods, the media and his gaffes as foder for the masses who support him. These people are not following a leader they are following someone hell bent on his own agenda.

John Kerry and the other candidates are not attacking Dean other than to show the differences in their stance on the issues and his. This has to be done or else we might just as well hand the electionover to Dean and there are a lot of Democrats who don't want that to happen. More Democrats don't want Dean than do. What needs to be done is to rally around the one candidate strong enough on all the issues to take down Dean and then take down Bush.

You & I both know who that candidate is Pete, it's John Kerry!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

27. I hear you Pete

Living here in CA, it troubles me too!

As for knowing how to fight the Repub machine, it sure isn't with Dean at the helm. Bush will chew him up and spit him out so fast on all the issues the Dem's are bringing up. If the Dem's other than Dean are feeding the Repub's with fuel against Dean it's only because Dean is weak enough to have put himself in the line of fire.

[adadem]

45. Agree

Kerry can unify.
However I'm frustrated that the DNC wasn't "cleaned up" after the 2002 losses. We should have demanded new/fresh leadership then. It's too late now.

[Adjoran]

23. The primaries haven't even started yet

so they aren't "going" well or badly. The campaign is getting tougher as the primaries approach; that is normal, and a good thing. Any prospective nominee must be able to withstand withering criticism, and defend their views succinctly and convincingly. The debates and primary campaign ads are just scrimmaging, getting ready for the real thing.

Every election is not the Apocalypse. We need to win the White House to balance the power of the repub Congress, but if we don't this time, it isn't the end of the world. Remember we controlled the White House and House and Senate only ten years ago. The situation can change dramatically in a very few years. It is important, though, to have a ticket that will help our other candidates down the ticket at the state and local level. That is where the building of future victories is taking place.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Skwmom]

33. I'm extremely discouraged with the primary

because this is like watching a replay of the 2000 election (however, the Democrats are now playing the role of the Republican party).

[CMT]

36. well we may be all those things you write about on DU

but out in the real world I haven't noticed all the bitterness among democrats--most of us just want to beat Bush and many Dean fans have nice things to say about several of the other candidates. DU gets some strongly partisan people and also a few disruptors--put this combination together and you have what we see on this board almost every day.

[SheilaT]

37. What distresses me

is the constant attacking of the candidates here and elsewhere. "Electibility" won't exist for any of them if all they do is smear each other, often with innuendo and lies. We all ought to be hoping the nominee emerges as quickly as possible in the distant hope that we will all unite behind him and put this dreadful mudslinging behind us.

And even more incomprehensibly there are those who think going into the nominating convention without a clear front-runner. If it takes until July to know who's going to be the standard bearer, we may as well ask the Republicans to cancel the election and save us all a lot of grief, because the will GUARANTEE we lose.

[WiseMen]

41. Party Primary Now indirectly run by Corporate Media. Dems in Trouble

Basically the Democratic party has become an empty shell, pretty bankrupt as an ideological force at the grass roots. Primaries were supposed to be the new Party nominee selection process, but, unlike the selection process in most other countries, there is almost no management of the process so as to allow an thorough examination of fundamental issues and a coalessing of public support behind well understood elements of a Party platform/adgenda.

Note the failure of the Party to put before its members:

1. a small number of nominee options to choose from -- 9 is beyond any reasonable limit of optins for thoughtful Leadership selection.


2. forums for thorough debate. At this point there should have been several indepth debates rather than endless "beauty contest" TV shows. I, and most folks I know, have found past 9 or 10 "debates" entirely useless beyound their entertainment value.

Conclusions:

1. campaigns and partisans are really driven to act outside of a normal primary contest as a way of affecting the results of caucuses and primary elections. The Dean campaign has been very creative to its benefit.

2. the primary dynamics are increasingly controlled by Mass Media forces independent of the political party. These media are significantly "cued" by their Global Corporate ownership and a big challenge of each campaign is how to either co-opt or con these agences into boosting you candidate. Unfortunately, these forces which largely determing outcomes have little to do with the interest of the political Party or party members.

At some point the Democratic Primary process has to be reformed or the Democrats for sure are going to continue to be at a disadvantage as compared with the Corporate-aligned Republicans.

My Opinion. Of course I could be wrong.

[adadem]

44. Agree with you

Very disgusted with the debate format. Yesterday's debate showed that a smaller group provides more substantive answers. They should have broken up the earlier debates in groups of 3 - 3 debates with 3 candidates each - drawn by number...who went up against whom totally by chance.

[SheilaT]

58. The debate format has always been stupid.

Ever since the first ones, in 1960 between JFK and Nixon. The standard format is beyond contempt with so many participants. I know that I don't learn anything useful in these "debates" and so I ignore them. The reality is, that at this point in the process, so do most voters.

[kerrygoddess]

54. You got that right!

[silver]

46. We'll come together by the summer

Pete -

I know how you feel - this has been a tough, generally negative campaign. In the end, I think we'll all come together and with the help of organizations such as MoveOn, we'll continue to energize all those against dubya. We'll win in 2004 if the apathetic and disenfranchised vote.

Even if it ends up being Dean or Lieberman, I will support.

Peace.

[mydawgmax]

47. We'll Unify

I'm also a Kerry supporter, mainly becuase I want a progressive who can beat Bush. For a long time I thought Howard Dean failed on both of those criteria, but I'm beginning to think that maybe he can beat Bush. (I do have to say, that the almost gleeful dancing on Kerry's political grave from the Dean supporters really makes the idea of backing him after the primaries distasteful - I remain ABB but some Dean supporters need to learn that you win more through addition than through subtraction).

That being said, I am pretty impressed with how effective Dean has been in this campaign and am hoping that, if he gets the nomination, that he'll continue to be as effective. Kerry's failure so far has a lot of factors, some of them Deans fault, some of them the Medias fault, and some of them Kerry's fault. I still think he would be the best president of our candidates and will vote for him in the Washington Caucus. Regardless of who gets the nomination, I think the party will unify in the General Eleciton.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

48. Yup. Join the club.

I feel exactly the same way. I won't name names, but there are a few candidates for whom I think it's obvious that they won't get the nomination, but I get the feeling that they're going to stay in it anyway, despite the fact that they are now taking away from the process.

This whole primary season would have been enriched by certain candidates just dropping out.

[spooky3]

51. Would you have felt and said the same things in your post if

the only thing that were different were that Kerry led the polls now?

[adadem]

56. I would feel the same

I was disgusted after 2002...that's when the shake up should have happened. Haven't given to DNC since before the 2002 elections and won't till we get new leadership. For me this has nothing to do with who I support now..it's a completely separate issue.

[Nederland]

52. Personal Attacks?

I am unaware of any personal attacks by anyone. Attacks on people's positions and media statements, yes, but no personal attacks. Can you give me an example of a personal attack?

[edzontar]

55. I've certainly been disappointed by KERRY's campaign...

He should by all accounts be doing very well, but isn't.

And I think he is going down for the count very soon.

The IWR vote is one reason--but I think the real problem has been his own terrible performance in the debates....he is a lousy attack-dog, and his attacks on Dean havce made him seem humorless, desperate, and most of all, boring and predictable.

I am very disappointed in him--and wish, for his own sake and for the good name of my home state--that he would rally somehow and give the thing a rally before it is too late.

Instead he seems to have become joined at the hip with Joe Lieberman (of all people!!).

In the last debate, they were like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

I feel for all of you who have put so much trust and hope in Kerry's campaign.

I used to be with you--but he has blown it, I fear--and it is a tragedy, in my opinion.