Democratic Unity. Anyone?

[chowder66]

We want Obama to fix everything (that he can) and I want us to fix one thing. Please help fix the divide among all types of democrats or at least try.

The Bush admin was so corrupt and so inept that it has and continues to pull this country down. Many on the left including myself were communicating this. They (we) were dismissed by the MSM for most of his years in office. Much more has been revealed on just how bad the Bush admin brought us down and the amount of unethical and probably criminal activity going on has caused a certain amount of valid alarm. Not to mention some of the Bush policies are still in place. They (we) are not seeing those responsible being held accountable or any wide change to correct this. Some IS being done about this in small doses but considering what is going on right now it most definitely is not enough.

This does not reflect the change many were hoping for.
I think most of these people who are angry from the left knew that it would take some time to investigate and while they were frustrated they were still hopeful that action would be taken. When that didn’t occur they felt as they did back in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. 2005, 2006, 2007, etc. They feel they are not being heard and I think others are now feeling the same way and it feels dangerous to them that a Democratic president isn’t seemingly changing the basic structure and going after those who are manipulating, cheating and destroying our political system and social fabric. While I do not care for some of the levels of intense anger and name calling… I do try to understand where it stems from where I can.

Some have gone far and wide in their criticisms but I don’t think they can stop themselves now.
The Reason?……

It feels all too familiar to them.

It would probably feel irresponsible for them to stop. Unpatriotic even.
Many feel that this administration is on the wrong track - just as when Bush was in office - and so much of what was complained about came to light and they (the “angered” left) were right. Even a few or more republican and independent voters started catching on by then.

They (we) Were Right about a lot of things.

I don’t know who is right… right now… but I can see why the alarm is going off. So I think if the many factions of the democratic party can start working off of this underlying history we might be able to come back together. Maybe we can work toward a common goal that helps to address this better.
Many of us were once experiencing this anger at that level but I think, for myself, I let go of a lot of cynicism and it has calmed me down but it has not stopped me from being concerned or even upset at times with both the current Administration and those who are deep in cynicism. The media doesn’t help either.

If those who support Obama are right about the President being very good or even great - that means those that are angry and frustrated are wrong. And think about the Vice-Versa for a minute. Those that are frustrated/angry could be right and the rest could be wrong! Now that is enough to cause fear and anger among all of us. However, I think both may be right AND wrong in some instances and I don’t want any part of the Democratic Party to be wrong as a whole and that’s why we must start talking to each other again.

How can any of us honestly complain about the leaders on the hill not communicating when we can’t do it ourselves? Our elected officials should be reflecting us… not the other way around.

We must keep in mind that when angry and frustrated - we all are more vulnerable and there "may" be paid or unpaid disrupters taking advantage by pumping up the anger and disappointment. Kind of a shock doctrine of sorts. They see an opportunity to get in there and push us away from one another. We need better ways to figure out who is who and who is working toward a greater good to protect ourselves and our unity. I honestly cannot tell who someone is by what they write or the tone of their writing. I can only guess.

P.S. It must be stated; I am not thrilled with the name calling at either end of the spectrum. I too have had to edit myself and try to correct it and I don’t expect perfection at all just a little more discipline and understanding at best.

[monmouth]

1. I love and agree with your OP. When "visitors" read some of this

stuff it just adds fuel to the fire they would love us to break out in..Well said..

[chowder66]

6. Thanks Monmouth! Cheers! nt

[dtexdem]

2. Only if it's unity around Democratic principles.

The Party needs to serve the needs of the people -- not the people serving the needs of the party.

[William769]

4. +1.

:thumbsup:

[chowder66]

7. I like it. Serve the needs of the people over the needs of the party.

I agree but I also think in order to promote the needs of the people we must talk to each other. Some will think that others will have a more center or even right leaning view and I don't think that should be excluded. It should be worked through. Yeah? No?

[Fearless]

10. +2

[patrice]

16. What if the people you disagree with see serving the needs of the people in a way that is the opposi

te of how you define it? Whose definition is authentic?

[patrice]

19. i.e. you're just assuming those you disagree with put party ahead of people & the people you disagre

e with think you are putting what you THINK, perhaps mistakenly perhaps not, is the people ahead of the ACTUAL people. At least the possibility that I may or may not be right about that word actual is implicit within the paradigm of rationalism. Absolutists, those who OWN the truth to the exclusion of any others, which is not a rational position btw, do not allow for any probability of any error in what they claim to "know" and ARE therefore capable of great harm, with all "good intentions" of course.

[LooseWilly]

41. Actually you're just assuming that he is assuming that those that you assume he assumes disagree...

with him assume that they are not in fact putting people ahead of party.

There is every possible probability that the converse could likewise be assumed, or even presumed, i.e. that those that you assume that he assumes are in presumed disagreement with him are in fact putting party ahead of people.

When I deigned to read your presuppositions I must confess that I assumed that you would progress to a point where you would presume to present some sort of substantiation for your suppositions and possibility extrapolations. Silly me.

If you mention "paradigms of rationalism", it is assumed that you will engage in the standard practice of substantiating assertions you choose to make rather than merely presuming that abstract possibilities are worthy of spurious explication. The "truth" is not "owned", but made evident through evidentiary substantiation.

I assume that you will be substantiating, in lieu of rationalizing, ere this thread become stale. ;)

[patrice]

45. Hey, I have been saying for a long time, "I'M WILLING TO ADMIT ALL OF THAT SHIT" others aren't. nt

[patrice]

48. Well, one of the things we could talk about is the kinds of research that show these PEOPLE we're

all so busy fighting/working/striving for (ha!) are NOT monolithic at all. It's pretty common research so posters here may be familiar with how full of contradictions people are: "Conservatives" have "Liberal" attitudes and vice versa; they don't want to pay taxes except for their own services; give anyone a survey and then interview them and they'll reverse themselves completely from whatever they answered on your survey.

I really MUST go work on something else now; perhaps I'll return later with some of that information, but it IS a common place that all of these statements about people are relative to the contexts that produce the statements and yet all of us talk as though all of it is absolutely absolute. Not admitting that relativity is either a lie or an error and I just want us to admit that up front.

[LooseWilly]

63. Who do you mean by "THESE people"?

Who are we "fighting/working/striving for"?

Hell, who are "we"? Are "we" part of "these people"? Or are "these people" the "others"?

When you say "they don't want to pay taxes except for their own services"— who are "they"? Are "they" "we"?, or "these people"? ... and if "they" is "these people", are they the "others"? (I'll assume that, if "they" are "we" then "they" aren't the "other"...)

"Not admitting that relativity is either a lie or an error and I just want us to admit that up front." ? Who suggested that relativity was either a lie or an error? I've not seen it as it is ignored, but I've never seen any indication of its being indicative of either lie or error...

[MissDeeds]

55. Spot on

:patriot:

[patrice]

3. I think it would be useful to talk about process. I'll start it off: Absolutism is THE hallmark of

the Oppressor, because it EXCLUDES others.

This problem isn't about what people think, but about HOW they characterize themselves and others. Exclusion is about Fascism. It's about achieving the dominant position BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, even to the suffering and deaths of others, and when it comes from the so-called Left it's the same thing in essence as that which we see from TeaThugs, just with different labels on it. Being like the very thing you say you hate totally undercuts whatever your case is against them.

[chowder66]

5. Hi Patrice...

Thanks. I like how you phrased this "This problem isn't about what people think but how they characterize themselves and others." I do think that if you are busy characterizing those that disagree with you then you run the risk of not being heard or understood better. I am trying to find better ways to communicate but I think the template to communicate online is sort of stuck at the moment.

[patrice]

12. The ethersphere has an essential problem in anonymity, but one way to ID posters is by

how they say what they say. In that regard, there's a LOT of very poor logic around. Some of us want to value whatever truth is available, but if people are violating the basic forms of rational thought, it's not possible to credit their information AND it raises suspicions about why they would do that: Are the unaware of what is rational and what is not? Well then, they are a threat to their own issues. Are they aware of what is rational and what is not, but ignoring it for some reason? Well then, WHAT is that reason?

e.g. How things are said about one's self and/or others > Two logical errors I encounter frequently: 1. The difference between general > specific does not seem to be well understood. General statements are taken as characterizations of widely different things that may (or may not) share a limited number of more or less similar traits, i.e. varying degrees of the trait(s) under consideration. It's as though people have no understanding of the verb "to analyze" in any logical manner.

2. It appears that people think just saying something makes it so. There seems to be no appreciation for the discipline defined by the nature of what we call "proof", but which is really simply empirical support for knowledge. Vast statements about complex things, lacking huge amounts of information, and arriving at absolute predictions of future events are frequently made and partisans from a certain quarter have absolutely no problem with any of it. Even persons who DO respect the nature of "proof" and discipline themselves by acquiring more and more empirical information and testing themselves and their data don't deliver anything like the absolute partisan proclamations we are seeing around here and yet that discipline is regarded as a FLAW by those engaging in wholesale partisan predictions, even though that rational discipline REQUIRES the probabilities of opposed truths such as those coming from those same partisans, and even though those partisans absolutely DENY any probability of reciprocal truths.

Absolutism IS the hallmark of the Oppressor, no matter what label it wears.

[chowder66]

18. Absolutely!

Couldn't help myself.

There is much that can be interpreted or implied but what may be needed are questions. I have noticed that when it isn't clear sometimes questions are not asked (as you wrote...WHAT is the reason?...More of that please). Instead, invented intent is applied by the reader which is not all that bad in itself but it can go horribly bad depending on what may be interpreted.

It's as though facts and/or reason are now to be viewed as an art form. Subjective. It can happen from both sides. How do we better understand each other? I for one am no writer and I can be slower to form opinions or even comprehend peoples ideas or opinions. I like to take time and think about them even if I do not agree but I admit that sometimes I come to my own conclusions and rest there.

[dawg]

8. Some of us understand process better than you think we do.

With a Republican House, I can't be overly critical of the President for not getting progressive legislation through. I know he is limited in what he can do.

But I do realize that he has 100% control over one thing - what comes out of his mouth. And I am increasingly hearing right-wing talking points from the President of the United States. It pisses me off. It isn't what I voted for.

Yes - I know *real* Republicans are much worse. And, yes, I plan on voting for President Obama again. But conservative policies are terrible for America. People are suffering. There is no middle ground to be had with these people.

Until we can successfully educate the voters about conservative policies, and how they work against everyone except the very wealthy, we will never be able to achieve the working majority we need in order to turn this country around.

And how can we educate voters about how catastrophically bad those conservative policies are, when our President is praising Reagan and giving validation to right-wing memes?

[patrice]

15. Good! So, what what kind of hypotheses do you generate for what comes out of his mouth?

Pardon me if I have a problem with people who look at a (SORRY about the analogy) a certain card played in a hand of poker and can come up with one and only one explanation for that decision, especially when, as IS the case in this instance, we don't even know the cards in the various hands BECAUSE IT'S ALL PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION impacting tax and budget processes.

[dawg]

17. It's not just one card being played.

There has been a pattern of center-right rhetoric coming from the White House. Maybe you don't see it, but I do. That's okay, we can disagree about that.

But if the messaging is so confusing as to leave us in disagreement about what the message even is, imagine how ineffectual it is to the average swing-voter. You don't drop to 39% approval for no reason, you know.

These budget cuts were not all bluffs. Some of them are happening.

Maybe Medicare and SS were bluffs, but if so, I think it was a huge political mistake to "appear" to put those items on the table.

[patrice]

20. Agreed. Not one card. I work off of patterns too & patterns are variable.

But whatever pattern I come up with, there are two things that matter more than what I think: 1. Increases in the likelihood that people will experience increased suffering & damage. 2. Labor NEEDS more time to develop itself & Republicans will oppress or co-opt those they can't oppress.

I'm just not sure what other people, those who think they disagree with me/others, value more than what they THINK.

[TheKentuckian]

23. I'd agree except anything can be taken to an extreme. There is such a thing as being demonstrably

wrong.

A lot of these policies are well tested and proven toxic, I have no interest in pretending otherwise to be inclusive. I don't feel I have any relation to the Teabaggers because I don't have any more patience for running the country into the ground.

At some point enough is enough and if that is fascist then call me Benito. Being liberal is not a masochist suicide pact.

Same goes for the neoliberals, their failed bullshit has been done and done. All they can point to is a sub 45% election and good luck riding a bubble.

At some point you have to give shit that is counter-productive a rest and now would be that time if we actually have any principles at all.

[Fearless]

9. There needs to be a uniter for us to unite.

We have a president who chastises us for standing up for our livelihood. That is not a uniter.

[chowder66]

13. Oh but there is!

It's wonderful to have someone to unite around and there are plenty of people to choose from. It can be the Black Caucus or the Progressive Caucus or Obama or the
Democratic Party and Priniples as a whole! Can't it? Personally I would like to strengthen and unite around the Democratic Party and Principles. That way whoever is going to run for office under the Democratic banner will need to meet up with what we have laid down. Unless of course the have spiraling hypno-eyes and we all fall into a trance and go the way of zombies. Arrrrgggghhhh.

[Fearless]

21. Something or someone needs to step forward soon.

[chowder66]

22. Many have but not everyone will agree. And it will keep playing out that way.

[dmallind]

11. False dichotomy - not "angry left" does not mean "Obama is great"

Obama could be - and I suggest probably is - just a mainstream moderate Democrat trying to keep his promise of working in a bipartisan manner with an un-moderate opposition party recently given much additional power by the electorate no matter how much we wish they hadn't been. He is not, and never was, a firebrand leftist, is not as skilled politically as Clinton, or as good a salesman witb the public as Reagan; but he is not a Bush clone, a "corporatist" sellout or incompetent either. He just doesn't want what the far left fringe wants, and is incapable, as anyone else would be in his position with this Congress, of getting all that even moderates want.

[chowder66]

14. Thank you for pointing that out.

I am not a writer as you may have been able to tell.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. That would have been much better without the trade mark OFA

McCarthy Brand labeling of those you find to be more liberal than Obama. They are not just the left to you, nor even the far left, they have to be the far fringe left. That string of verbiage invalidates your point of view and reduces it to characterization and name calling.

[patrice]

28. Aren't you doing exactly the same thing? I don't understand why one would think solely upon the use

of certain words that person is using OFA talking points.

Is it NOT possible for people to decide for themselves? Why is everyone else somekind of __________bot, except you and those you agree with?

Yes, there ARE various ______bots about and they CAN be recognized by their use of certain language, but to START from that assumption without recognizing any possibility of being in error and that people can authentically think and strive for truth in a manner that disagrees with you, appears to be the very thing that I THOUGHT all of us were trying to resist.

What do I not know/understand about what you just said?

[dmallind]

56. so what would YOU call a group that disapproves of Obama 45% more than liberal Democrats?

That's what DU showed itself to do this very day. How far does it have to go to be the fringe?

[TheKentuckian]

26. The man is certainly a corporatist and I said so when I was on the bandwagon.

The rest is debatable but he is a global corporatist. My shock is how deeply ideological it seems to be for him, he wouldn't have any different if he did have a magic wand.

He believes the corporations are the focal point of human advancement and best stewards of power. He has very little intent, if any, of reducing their role or making them accountable to the people. He does not strongly believe in regulation and has little interest in stemming their domination of resources, human or otherwise.

Of course you give it away when you throw in the "far left fringe" shit. Automatically, you aren't any even handed fair broker but just another ideologue pretending to be even steven umpire.

[patrice]

29. Please tell me why you aren't the same thing you characterize in your last sentence. You have no

experience of Barack Obama under any conditions other than those that all of us have. Your dependent variable, Obama, has not been tested by means of variation in the independent variable, current socio-politico-economic conditions. And yet you claim intimate knowledge of Obama's mind under ALL other conditions.

You don't appear to be acting anything like an "even handed fair broker" either.

[TheKentuckian]

61. One does not require any special knowledge to know the sky is blue.

If he would be different, he would say so and strive toward it. Certainly, he would never cede the entire debate to the opposition.

What you are in adversity is more introspective than how you would respond some utopian, ideal circumstances.

[patrice]

31. Is there no "far left fringe" out there? If it is possible that you are not one, why is not possible

for dmallind to not be an OFAbot?

I honestly want to know.

[patrice]

35. And the reciprocal: If there is no possibility that dmallind is not an OFAbot, why is it not also

true that there is no possibility that you are anything but a "far left fringe"bot?

[dmallind]

57. I refer you to DU surveys that approve of him 45% less than liberal Democrats as a whole.

How much further than that IS the fringe? When 40+% of Americans think Obama is too liberal, how much do you have to be to the left of him to be even handed in your opinion?

[chowder66]

24. Oh well. eom

[patrice]

30. Nice try, really! Thanks! nt

[chowder66]

40. Thanks.

I'm bummed that it started up again. The accusations. I really appreciate you trying to point out the finer details.




Take care.
C

[patrice]

44. Please don't give up. Maybe a different environment would respond to your skills better.

:hi:

[chowder66]

49. I'm not giving up....

Hell no. I may give up this line of "evil" attack by trying to ask people to dial it down a notch so everyone can start really hearing each other though. Never hurts to ask but it may hurt to not see any results of asking.

I noticed you were in Kansas. Yes. I took a look. I'm originally from KCMO. Wanna start a MO/KS rivalry? ;)

[patrice]

50. I'm afraid not, 'cause it's not just Kansas; it's Cupcake Land and MO has Cupcake Land beat all to

hell!

So, I'm not sure what we'd compete over. I go downtown whenever I want to do something socially interesting.

[chowder66]

53. Cupcake Land? Man I have been gone a long time.

It's amazing to see what has become of downtown. I used to live in a loft down there before they started converting everything into living space. Ahhhh memories of having 4,000 square feet for $400.00 a month!

I love the drive through Kansas on the way to Colorado. So much open land.

Thanks again for the encouraging words and participating. There will be a door prize on your way out. ;)

[patrice]

62. From Thomas Frank's (he grew up in Mission Hills, you know) book What's the Matter with Kansas? nt

[sabrina 1]

27. This is a very nice OP, chowder66.

It makes sense.

Maybe people need to start by defining what they mean by 'winning'.

[patrice]

32. "Winning" That would be a good discussion. nt

[chowder66]

43. Thanks Sabrina.

I had nothing to lose by at least trying. I have been thinking about many view points for weeks now. I can see loads of good things about different points/arguments but the one thing I can't see much good in is name calling. It isn't helping anyone.


I think an "It Gets Better" video needs to be made for those of us who would love to see the name calling stop. Titled "It Gets Better Asshole".

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[DevonRex]

34. Democrats are united. But Greens and Socialists aren't with us. Zero-sum ya know. Nt

[patrice]

36. So it is as I have been saying for months and months, this IS about base-building AT THE EXPENSE of

the people.

Or it's possible that it is about Green and Socialist base-building riding on the backs of Democratic WORK.

P.S. I'm about as Green/Liberal/Socialist as it gets in the Midwest and I AM a Democrat and all Democrats KNOW my personal colors.

[sabrina 1]

37. Neither are DLCers, Third Wayers or New Democrats.

[patrice]

38. Zero-sum is bullshit. All of the above share essentialities whether they want to admit it or not. nt

[patrice]

39. Zero-sum IS the OPPRESSOR. nt

[mmonk]

42. Unity will depend on how the least of Americans are treated by the politicians.

I unite behind what is morally right and what is truthful.

[patrice]

46. That's where I stand. There + with Labor! nt

[madfloridian]

47. Obama can stop the name-calling and bad attitude toward the left...

of our party.

He must speak out about it.

He can also stop or at least slow down the denigration of public school teachers.

There is no excuse for either.

[chowder66]

51. I think it's going to take a little effort all around.

I would like to figure out how we can get someone; a rep, the administration, who might be able to speak to these things that you are talking about. I think Obama has come out about dialing down the rhetoric (it may have been a while ago) and I think it died down for about 25 seconds then it rocketed back up. In the media, on the internet and in W.D.C. Has Obama said something lately that you are referring to?

I am behind on the education and teacher's issues to a degree. I worked hard on DADT and have been working for voter's rights. So I am not up on everything. I will take a deeper look, not that it matters to you much but you did bring it up and I admit I'm behind the curve there.

[madfloridian]

52. They have been talking about us for years that way. It will take much courage to stop it.

And it will go against the think tanks that set the party policy.

In 2003 we who supported Dean were called the "fringe left." We were called anti-war fringe...I could go on.

They have done it so long, they seem unaware.

[chowder66]

54. Well then that seems like something I should be jumping on as well

sorry to be so slow about it. There is just so much to do! I do know that a huge amount of schools were closed in KCMO a while back. I never fully looked into it. Just got some info from my family around that time. I know that I am not cool with the privatization going on and the demands they are putting on teachers but I need to review it much more than what I have. Can you refer any good sites/books/ orgs that I might want to check in on?


Thanks for stopping by.

[patrice]

59. I did all of that stuff and no one has ever called me fringe anything and even if they did, I would

would write that off as being a person of small understanding.

I am the one who defines who I am.

And one thing I am is someone who does not allow persons of small understanding to deter me from what I value most.

[madfloridian]

64. Baloney, they did it publicly. We often talked of it here.

Many examples from 2003

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

"Activists Are Out of Step" From and Reed 2003
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=8
SNIP..."These days, Democrats act as if they're so far gone they've forgotten where they're from.

Every weekend, yet another special-interest group hosts a candidate forum to pressure the presidential candidates into praising its agenda. Some of the candidates seem intent on running applause-meter campaigns, measuring success by how many times they tell the party faithful what they want to hear.

There's one big problem with this strategy: Most of those party activists the candidates are trying so hard to please are wildly out of touch not only with middle America but with the Democratic rank and file. The great myth of the campaign is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of party activists and single-issue groups represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. They don't.

The fact is, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean likes to call it, is an aberration, a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home. That wing lost the party 49 states in two elections and turned a powerful national organization into a much weaker, regional one. ....."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
They wrote we were not the heart and soul of the party...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=1

"Not only is the activist wing out of line with Democratic tradition, but it is badly out of touch with the Democratic rank-and-file. In 1996, a survey by the Washington Post compared the views of delegates to the Democratic convention to those of registered Democratic voters. The delegates perfectly mirrored the Democratic electorate in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. But they could not have been more different when it came to class and education. Democratic delegates were nearly five times more likely than Democratic rank-and-file to have incomes over $75,000, three times more likely to have a college degree, and over four times more likely to have done postgraduate work. No wonder that when the New Yorker recently asked Karl Rove to describe the Democratic base, he said, "somebody with a doctorate."

On most of the issues in the 1996 Post survey, Democratic activists and rank-and-file might as well have come from different parties. On every social and economic issue, registered Democrats' views were closer to those of all registered voters than to those of Democratic delegates. Almost two-thirds of Democratic delegates wanted to cut defense spending; most registered Democrats did not. A majority of Democratic delegates opposed a five-year time limit for welfare benefits; two-thirds of registered Democrats supported it. Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by more than a 2-1 margin. These weren't delegates to the Green Party convention; they were delegates committed to re-electing Bill Clinton, who had sided with rank-and-file Democrats on each of those issues!

Clinton understood what too many others are prone to forget: most Democrats are doers, not ideologues. They don't vote to make a statement; they vote in hopes of getting things done. They want social progress, but they're not on a social crusade. Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else; they are everyone else. They don't swoon when they hear a candidate say it's time for Democrats to dream again. What they want is the American Dream, where everybody who works hard and plays by the rules has the chance to get ahead. "

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Then there's this lovely one:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251916&kaid=127&subid=177

"Certainly, the fringes of the political spectrum are active online on heavily trafficked discussion boards such as the left-wing democraticunderground.com and the right-wing freerepublic.com. Dean's fiery message resonates in the left-wing haunts. He is the favorite son on democraticunderground.com, according to the site's proprietor, David Allen, and the people posting on that site are an animated bunch. Much of what they post -- about Bush, and about moderate Democrats -- would not be appropriate to repeat here.

But the question remains: It's easy to activate the activists, but what about everyone else?

That will be the real test. Recent political history strongly suggests a liberal protest coalition simply doesn't add up to enough votes for a Democrat to win a national election.

Perhaps the closest parallel to the Dean strategy is the dot-com companies of the late 1990s: Accumulate eyeballs now and fill in the blanks on their business plans later. If, in the end, the early hype and glory of Dean's Internet campaign goes the way of the dot-com bust, then historians may rightly conclude it was for similar reasons. "

They compare us to the dot.com bust.

Really? They even called a press conference to say Dean could not be president and it was written up in the WP. I have it saved somewhere.

Here is lots more:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2775

[Recovered Repug]

58. Nice thought.

However, "unity" seems to mean: You come around to my way of thinking.

[patrice]

60. Both/all sides think that's what it means. nt