Carville agrees with me on the August Kerry had

[dsc]

On several occassions this morning Carville made the point that Kerry's campaign had a bad August and that several mistakes were made. The good news, and it is good news, is that Kerry knows it. Kerry is clearly starting to change his ways. Carville says more is to come. That is all I wanted. Though an apology from one of the several people who personally attacked me for saying the same thing would be nice. Since Carville didn't support Dean and does do this for a living.

[Catfight]

1. I have a feeling Kerry is ready to bring it home these next couple

of weeks. I think with the concerts coming up in support for Kerry along with the commercials, we'll all enjoy sprinting these last few months to victory!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Do not underestimate...

The power of those concerts. The demographics that those intrepid artists identify cuts a wide swath across the populace of America.

On the other hand, do not overestimate the power of those concerts either. Relying on them as a "magic bullet" is the path to failure. Only coupled with the efforts of every able-bodied person we can throw into the breach can we gain success.

It's gonna take Hard Work. It's gonna take bodies. What are the slackers amongst us waiting for?

As they say over on Atrio's Eschaton: "Mars, bitches!"

[Stew225]

2. Carville should be flamed by the DU'ers that

attacked you for expressing your opinion. Damn, I hate that! Isn't it obvious that we are all indiividuals with a different perspective on all this, but who share the same hope for an outcome. As I've said before, if it were just as easy to shake our heads up and down all the time in agreement, we would do it. The thing that precludes that behavior, however, is critical thinking skill. Further, this forum should be about the sharing of different ideas.

[ljm2002]

13. Agree completely...

...it's infuriating to have all these posts that attack the so-called "hand wringers" for stating their opinions.

If you don't think the "hand wringers" are correct, then debate the issues they bring up rather than attacking them. Instead we get a bunch of self righteous folk who resort to personal attacks and tell those they disagree with that they are not doing anything useful and exhort them to "get up" off their "fat asses" and "do something". As if they know at all what other posters are doing or not doing. Ironically they base their assumptions on the fact that the "hand wringers" are spending their time posting to DU... of course their own words are the result of... posting to DU.

And yes, I am resorting to the same tactic, attacking the attackers. I am a strong believer in "tit for tat" -- don't start crap, but never take crap either -- give it right back.

This is the most important election of my lifetime. It will be tragic, in my opinion, if Bush wins. If that happens I will have lost faith in my fellow citizens, more than ever before. If I have strong opinions about how to prevent that outcome, and if I express them on my favorite political forum, then the least I can expect is for people to agree or disagree with what I say, not tell me to shut up.

[Rabelais]

4. Carville must be a freeper

or a doom and gloomer.

}(

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

5. One Word: Debates

More Words: Kerry will mop the floor with Bush and there will scarecely be a true "Independent" in America that would vote for four more years of this dismal failure.

[NewJeffCT]

12. I disagree strongly

I think Bush will wipe the floor with Kerry in the debates... and, if he does not, the media will tell us that he did. Remember, in 2000, I think 2/3 of those who just watched or listened to the debate thought Gore won. However, for those that listened to the post debate analysis, 60% thought Bush won.

Gore came in with a reputation as a great debater, while Kerry already has a rep as being cold, aloof & aristocratic.

Bush also beat Ann Richards in their debates.

Bush is undefeated in debates.

[H2O Man]

38. You make some good points.

However, Kerry is a better one-on-one debator than either Richards or Gore. The single biggest error Gore made was his loud exhaling during debate #1. It was a poor tactical choice.

Also, in both debates you mention, Bush was the challenger. I recognize, of course, that Gore was the VP, but he was still considered the officeholder.

There are very different expectations on the incumbent. Bush has to defend his presidency, not merely make promises.

I think that you will be happily surprised come the debates. Bush will appeal to his base, but no more. Kerry will show he is presidential. Kerry takes the debates in the publics' minds, by a 60-40 margin.

[Selwynn]

21. You are dead wrong on that.

If Bush only comes out and ties his shoelaces, the public will see it as a win for Bush. Because they blitz the media with these low expectations that he is not going to do well, so that when he gets there he doesn't have to do hardly anything to beat expectations and make the other guy look like an intellectual bully.

Two things to remember.

1) in the public's mind, bush kicked gore's butt in the debates. This was mainly due to the impression that Gore was an arrogant ass and Bush did better than expectations.

2) most importantly, Bush has won every political debate he's ever been in. He does it because people keep misunderestimating him and assuming that because he is stupid, he will surely lose.

3) Bush is the folksy, charismatic every-man that joe six pack loves, Kerry is the stuffy, muffly voice, narrow faced, French looking, ivy league aristocrat that makes the average American embarrassed about himself or herself - people don't like that.

[drscm]

25. Bush is "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations" Incarnate. He will win

the debates if he manages to show up. It's amazing that he has co-opted this phrase and uses it as a rallying cry considering he embodies it.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. You never know, he may show up to the debates stoned

The media is right to have low expectations about him.

[JI7]

6. most people knew August would not be a good month for Kerry

it was the month republicans were free to raise and spend as much as they wanted to attack kerry . it was also the month of their convention so most attention would be on that and most knew bush would gain in polls after the convention also.

[rfranklin]

8. Considering the attacks on Kerry and Nazicon New York....

He's doing fine. And he will take advantage of the short attention span of most of America starting now.

[TexasSissy]

7. Carville was awesome on Meet the Press. Wish he were on the Kerry team.

He has the gift of persuasion and of articulate speech.

[merh]

11. I know it has been posted time and time again, but how the F can

Carville remain married to that hateful, lying sack of repuke sh** that he is married to?

She was disgusting and had no real responses. She even claimed that the speeches on Wed night (Miller's and cheneys*) were issue oriented and not hate filled.

Then she suggests that it is Kerry that has gone negative and will not address the issues!

I hate these :puke:

[ljm2002]

15. Did we watch the same show?

I like Carville too. But to be honest, I think she out debated him. Yes, she lies. But she stays calm and cites (apparent) facts and figures. She FRAMES THE DEBATE. Probably because she has the talking points faxed to her every morning just like every other good Republican spokesperson.

Don't underestimate the power of the focused message. They *claim* the Democratic convention was hate filled -- they say it loud and say it often, and voila! the public gets the idea that it was the Democratic convention, not the Republican convention that was hate filled. She stated all the names that "some people" had called George Bush, and voila! it becomes received opinion that the Democrats indulge in name calling while the Republicans don't.

I detest her. But I'll give her her due. Our debaters do not cite facts and figures as readily -- they appeal more to emotions. That's fine for the base like those of us here at DU, but it is unpersuasive for changing someone's mind. Their side twists the facts and figures and what they mean, but they still use them and so have the appearance of being more objective. We should take a page out of their book in debating techniques, bone up on the facts and figures, and destroy them with the truth about what all those facts and figures really add up to.

[merh]

16. How effective was she when she buried her face in her hands

when Carville was talking about cheney saying that the Iraqi people would give us roses?

Or when she lied about the Wednesday night speeches were issue oriented and it was Kerry that was going negative and not focusing on the issues?

They (Matlin and her evil friends in the admin) are terrified that Kerry will go negative. They are trying to curtail that now, but the press has given Kerry the opening to do just that, as has their campaign.

I also like how she buried her face in her hands when Carville was discussing the medicaid lie from Thursday.

She didn't out debate him - she lied an awful lot, but she did not win the debate. She just fu**ed their position even more and showed their concerns!

[ljm2002]

17. How effective was she?

Yes, I noticed her body language when he was speaking. But he had some very noticeable body language when she was speaking too. Now you and I know that she's lying through her teeth, and that she gave herself away while he was talking... but we already know we disagree with her and we already know she's lying. In my opinion most people will listen when each person is talking. And during that part of the debate, she did better. I don't like it, but it's still what I think happened.

[merh]

19. Any one listening to her that caught any of Wednesday night's RNC

or the news about it the next day recognized that she was lying.

Wednesday night's speakers were about the issues and were not hate filled. Miller is just passionate! She lied about that very important and obvious point, thus she was easily recognized as a liar!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[newyawker99]

33. Hi RememberTheFuture!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TheDonkey]

9. It's one thing to say Kerry had a bad month and lay out a positive

agenda on what Kerry did right, and how he can turn it around. Carville also detailed talking points against bush, not Kerry.

Other than just bashing Kerry to get attention which many DUers seem to enoy.

[JI7]

10. yup, those who take issue with some of the posts are not saying

everything is fine and kerry will win for sure. but the repetitive posts on the same thing which mostly rant and demand to know why this or that isn' being done and that kerry is going to lose doesn't do anything. especially when kerry has said or done some of the things they accuse him of not doing.

[dsc]

28. Yes or no

did you read my threads?

[dsc]

26. Yes or no

Did you read my threads? Remember, you are able to search by name of poster so there is no excuse for a no here. I would like a direct answer.

[TheDonkey]

40. Goodness

I've seen several of your posts (and I'm positive not all of them).
What I gather from them is the same baseless attacks you hear from right wing pundits. No critiques of Bush (or limited) and inappropriate bashing of Kerry which gives us at DU no outlet for progress.

You can complain untill your blue in the face that the swiftliars are hurting Kerry. But saying his supporters tricked you into thinking his war record was untouchable or how Rassman did nothing (um' he made a commercial and went to Crawford TX) is out of touch.

The negativity is over-the-top and Carville made a point to be critical with also providing usefull info against Bush and not attacking Kerry or his supporters.

[mzmolly]

14. Many people said it, I don't think apologies will happen though.

eom

[John_H]

18. He also said the times they are a changin' so can we

put the debate behind us?

Those of us who were concerned were right and the judo chess masters were wrong. Big deal. personally, the only satisfaction I get from "being right" is that the campaign is now embracing a winning strategy.

[wurzel]

20. Kerry had a bad month because he could not spend money.

He can only help himself with his own ads. Certainly this media is not going to help him. He had to save his funds till after the RNC convention. Now he has an even playing field.

[bambo53]

22. Excuses are lame

It doesn't cost anything to have a press conference. It doesn't cost anything to have your best people represent you on news shows.
It does cost you dearly though to show up to a gun fight with a knife.

[JI7]

23. it matters when the media ignores you, there WAS a press conference

held and many other things but the media did not show him. at least not the big media.

[bambo53]

24. The media ignores you when,

you are not clear, concise, and FIRM.

Micheal Moore has no problem being heard.
Jon Steward has no problem being heard.
Charles Rangle has no problem being heard.
John McCain has no problem being heard.

Dick Gephardt has a problem being heard.
Tom Dashile has a problem being heard.
Donna Brazile has a problem being heard.
Etc. etc. etc.

[wurzel]

27. I don't trust the press unless they agreed to show the whole conference.

I have noticed a tendency in this media to paraphrase Kerry's words rather than show him actually speaking. So I don't know what he said.

[bambo53]

29. You are right about that.

They paraphrase him because he's too long winded and way too deep for most people to absorb. He reminds me of Al Gore, going on & on in a monotone, and afterwords I have no idea what he just said.

I think they must be using the same focus groups to vet these boring speeches.

[Democat]

39. Why didn't he go on Howard Stern's show as a DUer suggested?

There were opportunities for Kerry to get free press and he missed them. That is not the media's fault, it's Kerry's fault.

We all know the media is biased, but that is no longer a valid excuse. We knew the media was biased when we picked Kerry - if he can't fight with the media as it is then he shouldn't have run.

Check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x748780

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

31. Wouldn't that be up to Kerry?

I have no doubt that Carville would work for any Democrat running for President in a general election if asked.

[Julien Sorel]

34. Here's your apology.

is the thread I remember you starting attacking the Kerry campaign. You make some rather interesting claims in it, that I doubt Carville would agree with. For example, you complain that Rassman isn't out countering the lies of the Bush campaign, when he actually has been doing nothing else for months. You complain because William Rood (you didn't even know his name) isn't out debunking the lies, when he stated he would not do anything beyond writing his account. You state that "several candidates" would do a better job than Kerry of "fighting back." Everyone knew which candidate you meant. Of course, that one was quickly debunked, but not before you invented speeches and commercials the mighty Howard Dean never gave. You attack the Kerry campaign because Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson?????????? are poorly prepared to debunk the lies. the Kerry campaign is responsible because talking heads refuse to read the information every campaign sends them as a matter of course? Did Carville agree with you there, too?

Considering your record of veracity, I'm going to withhold judgment on just what Carville did and didn't say until I can see the transcripts of his show. But somehow I doubt very much Carville agrees with you. Carville actually pays attention to events and has some integrity, even if politics used to be his business.

Apology. How fucking pathetic.

[dsc]

36. It was Margaret Carlson

you fucking liar. Try getting your fucking facts straight you fucking liar.

[Julien Sorel]

37. You said "Carlson."

In a post and thread where you got everything else wrong, how am I supposed to know which Carlson you meant? And I think one of us has clearly marked himself as a "fucking liar," but you got the wrong one.

Did you want another apology?